Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245K Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a strikingly one-sided comparison. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with only a single victory for the Intel Core 5 211E. The scale of the Ultra 5 245K's advantage varies dramatically by workload, from modest single-digit percentage gaps to near-total dominance in specific compute tasks.

The most extreme disparity appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test. The Core Ultra 5 245K scores 414 against the Core 5 211E's 43, a delta of 89.6% in favor of the newer chip. This suggests a fundamental difference in how the two processors handle this particular integer-heavy workload. Similarly, the PassMark physics test shows the Ultra 5 245K at 3081 versus 702 for the Core 5 211E, a 77.2% gap. These two results point to substantial architectural advantages in the Arrow Lake design that go beyond simple clock speed differences.

Multithreaded rendering benchmarks reinforce the pattern. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 5 245K scores 3850 against 2055, a 46.6% lead. The R20 multicore test shows 15368 versus 8563, a 44.3% gap. PassMark multithread delivers 43047 against 23833, a 44.6% difference. These consistent margins across different rendering engines indicate the Ultra 5 245K's additional cores and higher base clock translate directly into sustained throughput advantages.

Floating point math shows a 49.2% gap, with scores of 130678 versus 66402. Data encryption leans 46.1% toward the Ultra 5 245K at 33286 versus 17938. Extended instructions follow at 42.6%, with 37617 against 21592. Data compression shows a 24.4% gap at 458817 versus 346757. Random string sorting delivers 55098 versus 34308, a 37.7% difference.

The single-core picture is more nuanced. Cinebench R23 single-core is the lone test the Core 5 211E wins, scoring 2878 against 2132, a 35% advantage. This is an outlier worth examining. The R23 test may be sensitive to the Core 5 211E's higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz versus 5.20 GHz, or to differences in how the two architectures handle this specific workload. Yet other single-thread tests tell a different story. PassMark single-thread shows 4714 versus 4006, a 15% lead for the Ultra 5 245K. Cinebench R15 single-core gives 322 against 289, a 10.2% edge. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2169 versus 1208, a 44.3% gap. The R23 single-core result appears anomalous rather than representative.

Integer math presents the smallest overall gap at 10.6%, with 98524 versus 88117. This suggests both processors handle general integer arithmetic with similar efficiency, and the Ultra 5 245K's advantage here comes primarily from its higher clock speeds rather than architectural superiority.

The average benchmark scores place the Core Ultra 5 245K at 54053 against 37829 for the Core 5 211E. The percentile rankings show 91 for the Ultra 5 245K versus 86 for the Core 5 211E. In the nearest rivals comparison, the Core 5 211E sits within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 and 0.2% of the Intel Core i9-14901E, while the Ultra 5 245K trails the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D by 1.3% and leads the Intel Xeon 6505P by 0.7%.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear split. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K is the superior processor for nearly every measurable workload in the database. Its wins span rendering, encryption, compression, physics simulation, and general multithreaded throughput. The margins in heavily parallel tasks are substantial, often exceeding 40%. For users whose workloads involve Cinebench-style rendering, data encryption, floating point math, or physics calculations, the Ultra 5 245K is the decisive choice.

The Intel Core 5 211E holds exactly one recorded advantage: Cinebench R23 single-core performance, where it leads by 35%. This makes it interesting for workloads that specifically mirror that test's characteristics. However, the same chip loses the other three single-thread benchmarks in the database, including a 44.3% deficit in R20 single-core. The R23 result alone does not establish a pattern.

The production status of both chips is Active, and both are desktop parts. The Ultra 5 245K carries a launch MSRP of $319, while the Core 5 211E has a launch MSRP of $221. The Core 5 211E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 5 245K uses Intel Socket 1851, meaning platform choice will determine which processor is even compatible with a given motherboard.

The Ultra 5 245K delivers higher performance across nearly the entire benchmark suite, and the data supports selecting it whenever the workload is compute-intensive. The Core 5 211E suits scenarios where the specific Cinebench R23 single-core pattern dominates, or where the lower power envelope of 65 watts versus 125 watts is a constraint. The multiplier is unlocked on the Ultra 5 245K, while the Core 5 211E is locked, which adds overclocking flexibility to the former.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K wins 16 of 17 comparisons. The Intel Core 5 211E wins only the Cinebench R23 single-core test.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: The Ultra 5 245K leads by 46.6% in Cinebench R15 multicore, 44.3% in R20 multicore, and 18.7% in R23 multicore. PassMark multithread shows a 44.6% gap.

Q: Is the Core 5 211E faster in any single-threaded test?

A: Yes, in Cinebench R23 single-core the Core 5 211E scores 2878 versus 2132, a 35% advantage. In the other single-thread tests, the Ultra 5 245K leads by 10.2% in R15, 44.3% in R20, and 15% in PassMark.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores?

A: The Ultra 5 245K averages 54053, while the Core 5 211E averages 37829. The percentile ranks are 91 and 86, respectively.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both list ECC memory as supported.

Q: What are the launch MSRP values?

A: The Core 5 211E has a launch MSRP of $221. The Core Ultra 5 245K has a launch MSRP of $319.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The Core 5 211E uses 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Ultra 5 245K uses 14 cores and 14 threads. This means the Core 5 211E has hyperthreading, while the Ultra 5 245K does not, yet the latter still wins all but one benchmark.

Clock speeds diverge significantly. The Core 5 211E runs a 2.70 GHz base clock with a 4.90 GHz boost. The Ultra 5 245K runs a 4.20 GHz base clock with a 5.20 GHz boost. The power envelope also differs, with the Core 5 211E rated at 65 watts TDP and the Ultra 5 245K at 125 watts.

Socket compatibility separates the platforms entirely. The Core 5 211E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 5 245K uses Intel Socket 1851. Memory support differs as well: the Core 5 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 245K supports only DDR5. Memory bandwidth measures 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 211E and 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 5 245K.

PCIe lane counts differ, with 16 lanes for the Core 5 211E and 20 lanes for the Ultra 5 245K, both at Gen 5. The integrated graphics are different models: UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 5 211E versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU on the Ultra 5 245K. The multiplier is locked on the Core 5 211E and unlocked on the Ultra 5 245K. Release dates place the Ultra 5 245K in October 2024 and the Core 5 211E in January 2025.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is generational. The Core 5 211E belongs to the Bartlett Lake family, while the Ultra 5 245K belongs to the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename. The manufacturing process differs: the Core 5 211E uses a 10 nm node fabricated by Intel, while the Ultra 5 245K uses a 3 nm node from TSMC. The Ultra 5 245K lists 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 5 211E lists no transistor count but a 257 mm² die.

Cache hierarchies scale upward with the newer part. The Core 5 211E provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 245K provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The memory bandwidth advantage of the Ultra 5 245K at 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s aligns with its exclusive DDR5 support.

The foundry shift from Intel to TSMC for the 3 nm node is a notable difference, as is the reduced die size despite the larger core count. The Core 5 211E's 10 nm process carries a larger die at 257 mm², while the TSMC 3 nm process fits 14 cores into 243 mm². The thread count difference, where the older part has more threads than cores, suggests the Bartlett Lake design relies on simultaneous multithreading while Arrow Lake does not.

The integrated graphics also reflect an architectural generation change, with the Ultra 5 245K using the Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU compared to the older UHD Graphics 730. Both support ECC memory and dual-channel memory buses.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K dominates across the breadth of the benchmark suite. Its wins include Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests, plus PassMark data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, find prime numbers, floating point math, integer math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread tests. The margins range from 10.6% in integer math to 89.6% in find prime numbers. This processor handles rendering, cryptography, compression, physics simulation, and general productivity workloads with consistent superiority.

The Intel Core 5 211E claims exactly one benchmark victory: Cinebench R23 single-core, with a 35% margin. This result suggests the Bartlett Lake architecture, running at its 4.90 GHz boost clock, can outperform Arrow Lake in this specific single-threaded rendering workload. The finding is isolated, however, and the same processor loses the R15 and R20 single-core tests by 10.2% and 44.3% respectively.

Workload selection matters. Users running Cinebench R23-style single-threaded rendering tasks may see better results from the Core 5 211E. Users running essentially any other recorded workload, from R15 multicore to PassMark physics, will see the Ultra 5 245K pull ahead, often by wide margins. The data does not support the Core 5 211E as a general-purpose alternative to the Ultra 5 245K. Its advantage is narrow and confined to one test pattern, while its deficits elsewhere range from moderate to extreme.

The power difference is also relevant. The Core 5 211E's 65 watt TDP versus the Ultra 5 245K's 125 watts means the former may fit into thermal envelopes the latter cannot. The socket difference reinforces this platform split: Socket 1700 versus Socket 1851. The choice between these processors is effectively a choice between two different platforms, with the Ultra 5 245K offering the performance advantage and the Core 5 211E offering lower power draw and DDR4 compatibility.