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

Intel Core 5 211E and Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF are both active desktop processors from Intel, but they represent distinctly different approaches to desktop computing. The data shows a clear hierarchy in performance, with the Core Ultra 5 245KF dominating every recorded benchmark. However, the Core 5 211E offers a different set of platform characteristics. This analysis walks through the benchmark results, architectural choices, and specification differences to clarify what the recorded data indicates about each processor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, leaving the Core 5 211E with zero wins. The margins vary significantly by workload type, revealing where the architectural gap is largest.

In Cinebench tests, the Core Ultra 5 245KF is consistently about 44.4% ahead. The R23 multicore score shows 36647 for the Core Ultra 5 245KF versus 20389 for the Core 5 211E. The R23 singlecore score is 5173 versus 2878, a similar 44.4% advantage. The pattern holds across R15 and R20, with the same 44.4% delta for both multicore and singlecore variants. This uniformity suggests the performance difference in rendering workloads stems from a fundamental per-core capability gap rather than scaling efficiency.

PassMark tests show a wider range of deltas. The largest gap appears in passmark_find_prime_numbers, where the Core Ultra 5 245KF scores 416 versus 43 for the Core 5 211E, a staggering 89.7% difference. This test is particularly sensitive to the architectural improvements in the newer processor. Passmark physics shows a 76.6% delta (2998 versus 702), and floating point math shows a 49.5% delta (131546 versus 66402). These results indicate the Core Ultra 5 245KF is not just faster by clock speed; it appears to process certain instruction types far more efficiently.

The smallest margin is in passmark_integer_math, where the Core Ultra 5 245KF scores 98854 versus 88117, a 10.9% delta. This is notable because integer math is a common workload, and the smaller gap suggests the Core 5 211E still holds up reasonably well in general-purpose arithmetic. Passmark single_thread shows a 15% delta (4715 versus 4006), indicating the single-thread advantage is real but less dramatic than the specialized tests.

Data compression shows a 24.6% delta (460123 versus 346757), while random string sorting shows a 37.9% delta (55206 versus 34308). Data encryption shows a 46.3% delta (33381 versus 17938), and extended instructions show a 43% delta (37912 versus 21592). Multithread performance shows a 44.7% delta (43110 versus 23833). The overall picture is that the Core Ultra 5 245KF leads by roughly 10% to 90% depending on the workload, with the largest advantages in specialized processing and physics.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design generations. The Core 5 211E is based on the Bartlett Lake codename, built on a 10 nm process node at Intel's own fabs. The Core Ultra 5 245KF uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically codename Arrow Lake-S, built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. This node difference, from 10 nm to 3 nm, explains much of the performance gap. The die size is similar, with the Core 5 211E at 257 mm² and the Core Ultra 5 245KF at 243 mm², but the Core Ultra 5 245KF packs 17,800 million transistors while the Core 5 211E has no transistor count listed in the data.

Core configuration differs significantly. The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, indicating hyperthreading support. The Core Ultra 5 245KF has 14 cores and 14 threads, meaning no hyperthreading; each core is a single thread. Despite having fewer threads, the Core Ultra 5 245KF still wins multicore tests by a wide margin, which suggests its individual cores are far stronger. The cache hierarchy is also different. The Core 5 211E has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 245KF has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. The larger per-core caches in the Core Ultra 5 245KF likely contribute to its efficiency in specialized workloads.

The Core 5 211E has integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 730), while the Core Ultra 5 245KF has no integrated graphics, indicated as N/A. This is a key platform distinction. The Core 5 211E also supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 5 245KF does not. Memory support differs as well: the Core 5 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 245KF supports only DDR5. The memory bandwidth is higher on the Core Ultra 5 245KF at 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s.

Where Each One Wins

Given that the Core Ultra 5 245KF wins every recorded benchmark, the use-case split is straightforward for performance: the Core Ultra 5 245KF is the choice for any workload where speed matters. The data shows it excels in rendering (Cinebench), physics simulation (PassMark physics), floating point math, data encryption, and extended instruction sets. Its 89.7% lead in prime number finding indicates strong integer and algorithmic processing capability.

The Core 5 211E does not win any performance test, but it has platform advantages that matter for specific deployments. It supports ECC memory, which is critical for error-sensitive computing environments. It has integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is not mandatory for basic display output. It supports DDR4 memory, which can be relevant for systems with existing DDR4 modules. The Core 5 211E also has a lower TDP of 65 watts versus 125 watts for the Core Ultra 5 245KF, suggesting lower power draw in operation. The Core 5 211E uses Intel Socket 1700, which is a different platform than the Socket 1851 required by the Core Ultra 5 245KF.

The Core Ultra 5 245KF is unlocked (multiplier unlocked is true), meaning users can adjust clock multipliers for overclocking. The Core 5 211E is locked. This adds flexibility for enthusiasts on the Core Ultra 5 245KF. The Core Ultra 5 245KF also provides 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus 16 lanes on the Core 5 211E, offering more bandwidth for expansion cards.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows several clear divergences. The manufacturer is the same, Intel, but the process node differs: 10 nm for the Core 5 211E versus 3 nm for the Core Ultra 5 245KF. The foundry is Intel for the Core 5 211E and TSMC for the Core Ultra 5 245KF. Core counts are 10 versus 14, and threads are 16 versus 14. Base clock is 2.70 GHz versus 4.20 GHz, and boost clock is 4.90 GHz versus 5.20 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 245KF has both higher base and boost clocks, which directly supports its single-thread performance lead.

TDP is 65 watts versus 125 watts. The socket is Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel Socket 1851. The codename is Bartlett Lake versus Arrow Lake-S. The generation label is "Core 5 (Bartlett Lake)" versus "Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake)". Die size is 257 mm² versus 243 mm². Cache differs at all levels as detailed earlier. Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR5 only. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory support is true versus false. PCIe lanes are 16 versus 20, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 versus N/A. Multiplier unlocked is false versus true. Release dates differ, with the Core Ultra 5 245KF released on 2024-10-23 and the Core 5 211E on 2025-01-12. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 211E is $221, and for the Core Ultra 5 245KF it is $294.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multicore performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 36647 versus 20389 for the Core 5 211E, a 44.4% advantage. The PassMark multithread test shows 43110 versus 23833, a 44.7% delta.

Q: Does the Core 5 211E support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Core 5 211E has ECC memory support set to true. The Core Ultra 5 245KF does not support ECC memory, as the data shows false for this field.

Q: What is the difference in integrated graphics?

A: The Core 5 211E includes UHD Graphics 730. The Core Ultra 5 245KF has no integrated graphics, indicated as N/A. This means the Core Ultra 5 245KF requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245KF has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Core 5 211E has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 245KF is higher in both metrics.

Q: Which processor is unlocked for overclocking?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245KF has multiplier unlocked set to true. The Core 5 211E has multiplier unlocked set to false, meaning it is locked.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245KF supports 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Core 5 211E supports 76.8 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the Core Ultra 5 245KF supports only DDR5, while the Core 5 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

The Verdict

The recorded data is decisive. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF outperforms the Intel Core 5 211E in every single benchmark test, with deltas ranging from 10.9% in integer math to 89.7% in prime number finding. Its higher core count, larger caches, newer 3 nm process node, and higher clock speeds all contribute to this result. For any user whose priority is compute performance, the Core Ultra 5 245KF is the clear pick based on the benchmarks.

The Core 5 211E remains relevant only for specific platform requirements. It supports ECC memory, which the Core Ultra 5 245KF does not. It has integrated graphics, enabling systems without a discrete GPU. It supports DDR4 memory, which can lower system cost when reusing existing modules. Its 65 watt TDP suggests lower power consumption than the 125 watt Core Ultra 5 245KF. The Core 5 211E also uses Socket 1700, which may be compatible with existing motherboards, whereas the Core Ultra 5 245KF requires Socket 1851. The average benchmark scores reflect the overall gap: the Core 5 211E has an average score of 37829, while the Core Ultra 5 245KF has 55093. The Core Ultra 5 245KF sits in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 211E sits in the 86th percentile. The choice comes down to whether ECC support, integrated graphics, and lower power draw matter more than the substantial performance lead of the Core Ultra 5 245KF.