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

Intel Core Ultra 5 245T and Intel Core 5 211E are both 65W desktop parts aimed at similar buyers, but the benchmark record separates them clearly. The Ultra 5 245T wins 16 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the Core 5 211E takes only one. That single victory, however, is a large one in a workload that matters for specific users. The data shows two different design philosophies: one built around modern efficiency and high single-thread speed, the other around a mature platform with unusual strengths in compression work. Neither part is a dud, but the choice between them comes down to what you are actually running.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245T dominates the Cinebench suite. In R15, R20, and R23, it beats the Core 5 211E by 28.5% in every multi-core test, scoring 2641 vs 2055, 11007 vs 8563, and 26208 vs 20389 respectively. Single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern: the Ultra 5 245T leads by 28.7% in R15 (372 vs 289), 28.6% in R20 (1553 vs 1208), and 28.5% in R23 (3699 vs 2878). If your work is rendering, video encoding, or any heavily threaded creative task, the Ultra 5 245T is the clear pick.

The Ultra 5 245T also wins the broader Passmark suite. It is 31.9% ahead in data encryption (23656 vs 17938), 63.4% ahead in floating point math (108499 vs 66402), and an enormous 224.5% ahead in physics (2278 vs 702). Prime number finding shows the biggest gap: 653.5% (324 vs 43). Even the closer tests go its way: 9% in single-thread (4367 vs 4006), 2.2% in extended instructions (22071 vs 21592), 1.8% in random string sorting (34931 vs 34308), and 0.6% in integer math (88676 vs 88117). The multithread Passmark score is 29.4% higher (30833 vs 23833).

The Core 5 211E wins exactly one test: Passmark data compression. Its score of 346757 beats the Ultra 5 245T's 283812 by 18.2%. If you archive files, compress logs, or work with compressed data streams, the 211E has a measurable edge. That is a narrow niche, but for someone doing that job all day, it flips the recommendation.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from different manufacturing generations and different sockets. The Ultra 5 245T uses Arrow Lake-S, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. It fits Intel Socket 1851. The Core 5 211E uses Bartlett Lake, built on a 10 nm process at Intel, with a 257 mm² die and no transistor count recorded. It fits Intel Socket 1700. Those are not interchangeable platforms: the socket difference alone determines the motherboard choice.

Core and thread counts differ. The Ultra 5 245T has 14 cores and 14 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, so six of its cores are hyperthreaded. Despite fewer physical cores, the 211E offers more threads, yet the Ultra 5 245T still wins most multi-threaded benchmarks. That tells you the Arrow Lake cores are far more efficient per thread.

Cache layouts also diverge. The Ultra 5 245T has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Core 5 211E has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 245T's larger caches likely contribute to its single-thread and floating-point advantages.

Memory support is another split. The Ultra 5 245T supports DDR5 only, with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 5 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, but its bandwidth tops out at 76.8 GB/s. If you have spare DDR4 lying around, the 211E can use it, but the Ultra 5 245T's faster memory interface is a clear technical win.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Ultra 5 245T carries Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Core 5 211E carries the older UHD Graphics 730. Intel's Arc iGPU is in a different performance class, so for a system without a discrete GPU, the Ultra 5 245T is the stronger option.

Both CPUs support ECC memory, both use dual-channel memory, and both are locked (multiplier unlocked: false). The Ultra 5 245T has 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU; the Core 5 211E has 16. That extra lane budget matters if you plan to run multiple Gen 5 NVMe drives or a high-end GPU with headroom.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster for rendering workloads?

A: The Ultra 5 245T wins every Cinebench multi-core test by 28.5%, so it is the better choice for rendering. In Cinebench R23, it scores 26208 vs the 211E's 20389.

Q: Does the Core 5 211E have any advantage at all?

A: Yes, in Passmark data compression it scores 346757 vs 283812, an 18.2% lead. For file archiving and compression-heavy tasks, the 211E is faster.

Q: Can I use DDR4 memory with either CPU?

A: Only the Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5. The Ultra 5 245T supports DDR5 exclusively.

Q: Are these CPUs unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. Both have multiplier unlocked set to false, meaning they are locked parts.

Q: Which CPU has better integrated graphics?

A: The Ultra 5 245T has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU, while the Core 5 211E has UHD Graphics 730. The database does not provide iGPU benchmark scores, but the architectural difference is substantial.

Q: What sockets do these use?

A: The Ultra 5 245T uses Intel Socket 1851, and the Core 5 211E uses Intel Socket 1700. They require different motherboards.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two CPUs differ directly.

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 245T | Intel Core 5 211E |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Cores | 14 | 10 |

| Threads | 14 | 16 |

| Base clock | 2.20 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.10 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Bartlett Lake |

| Process node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | Not recorded |

| Die size | 243 mm² | 257 mm² |

| L1 cache | 192 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 3 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 24 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |

| PCIe lanes | Gen 5, 20 lanes | Gen 5, 16 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Release date | 2025-01-06 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | $270 | $221 |

| Part number | SRVFF | SRQERQ65F |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are consistent and decisive. Across R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core, the Ultra 5 245T leads by 28.5% to 28.7%. The largest single-core gap is in R15, where 372 beats 289. The largest multi-core gap is also in R15, where 2641 beats 2055. These are not marginal differences; they represent a full generation of IPC improvement plus a higher boost clock (5.10 GHz vs 4.90 GHz).

Passmark splits into two groups. The first group is heavily in favor of the Ultra 5 245T: data encryption by 31.9%, floating point math by 63.4%, physics by 224.5%, prime numbers by 653.5%, and multithread by 29.4%. The second group is close, with the Ultra 5 245T winning by single digits: extended instructions by 2.2%, random string sorting by 1.8%, integer math by 0.6%, and single-thread by 9%.

The one reversal is data compression. The Core 5 211E posts 346757 vs 283812, an 18.2% margin. No other test comes close to that kind of 211E advantage. This suggests the 211E's specific core arrangement or cache hierarchy is unusually well suited to compression algorithms, even though it loses nearly everywhere else.

The Verdict

Pick the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T if you want the faster all-round processor. It wins 16 of 17 head-to-head tests, including every Cinebench benchmark and the majority of Passmark workloads. It has a more modern 3 nm process, larger caches, higher memory bandwidth, and a better integrated GPU. It also supports only DDR5, so you will need new memory, but the performance delta justifies that. The 28.5% multi-core lead in Cinebench R23 translates directly to faster renders and encodes.

Pick the Intel Core 5 211E only if your primary workload is data compression. Its 18.2% win in Passmark data compression is real and repeatable. It also supports DDR4, which can lower platform cost if you already own that memory. The 211E has a lower launch MSRP of $221 vs $270, but the database does not track street pricing. For any other task, the 211E falls behind, often by large margins. Its physics score is 224.5% lower, and its prime number finding is 653.5% lower. The 211E is a niche tool; the Ultra 5 245T is a general-purpose workhorse.

For most builders, the Ultra 5 245T is the obvious choice. The data does not support buying the 211E unless you have a very specific compression-heavy job and a DDR4 platform you want to reuse.