Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear split between these two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H wins 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core 5 211E takes only 2 wins. The magnitude of those wins, however, tells a more nuanced story than the raw count suggests.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the Core Ultra 5 336H demonstrates consistent superiority across every rendering test. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 2418 against the Core 5 211E's 2055, a 15% advantage. The single-core R15 result shows 341 versus 289, a 15.2% gap. This pattern repeats in R20 and R23, with the Core Ultra 5 336H posting 10076 versus 8563 in R20 multicore (15% ahead) and 23991 versus 20389 in R23 multicore (15% ahead). Single-core results in R20 (1422 versus 1208) and R23 (3387 versus 2878) both show the same 15% margin.

The Passmark suite reveals where each processor has distinct strengths. The Core 5 211E dominates integer math with a score of 88117 versus 62070, a massive 42% lead. It also wins data compression with 346757 against 280340, a 23.7% advantage. These are substantial margins, not marginal victories.

The Core Ultra 5 336H counters with wins across most other Passmark tests. Its most dramatic victory comes in find prime numbers, where it scores 299 against just 43, an 85.6% advantage. Physics testing shows a 73.8% lead (2682 versus 702). Floating point math favors the Core Ultra 5 336H by 19.4% (82415 versus 66402). Data encryption shows a 15.7% edge (21291 versus 17938), while extended instructions come in 12% ahead (24542 versus 21592).

The multithread Passmark score favors the Core Ultra 5 336H at 28545 versus 23833, a 16.5% lead. Random string sorting shows an extremely narrow margin: 34402 versus 34308, just 0.3% apart. Single-thread performance is similarly close at 4013 versus 4006, a 0.2% difference.

Looking at the overall averages, the Core 5 211E records an average benchmark score of 37829, placing it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs. The Core Ultra 5 336H averages 34485, sitting in the 84th percentile. Despite losing most head-to-head tests, the Core 5 211E actually holds a higher average score and percentile, which reflects how differently these two chips perform across workload types.

Where Each One Wins

The workload split is stark. The Core 5 211E wins in integer-heavy operations and data compression. Its 42% lead in Passmark integer math indicates strong ALU throughput for tasks that rely on whole-number calculations. The 23.7% advantage in data compression suggests efficient memory access patterns for that specific workload, even though the Core 5 211E has lower rated memory bandwidth.

The Core Ultra 5 336H wins everywhere else. Its dominance in prime number finding (85.6% lead) points to strong branch prediction and integer division capabilities. The 73.8% lead in physics testing indicates superior floating-point scheduling for simulation-style workloads. The 19.4% floating point math win reinforces this interpretation.

For rendering workloads, the Core Ultra 5 336H holds a consistent 15% edge across all Cinebench versions, both single and multi-core. This consistency across different Cinebench iterations suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The 16.5% multithread Passmark win and 15.7% encryption advantage further establish the Core Ultra 5 336H as the more versatile processor.

The near-tie results in single-thread Passmark (0.2% apart) and random string sorting (0.3% apart) indicate that for certain lightly threaded tasks, the two processors are effectively interchangeable. The Core 5 211E's higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz versus 4.60 GHz does not translate into a single-thread Passmark win, suggesting the Core Ultra 5 336H's architectural efficiency compensates for its lower clock ceiling.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families built on different process nodes. The Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake architecture on a 10 nm process with a 257 mm² die size. It is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1700 with a 65 TDP. The Core Ultra 5 336H uses the Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm process with no die size recorded. It is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 2540 with a 25 TDP.

Core counts differ significantly. The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 5 336H achieves equal thread counts with more physical cores, indicating it uses fewer threads per core. Cache configurations also differ. The Core 5 211E has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 336H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches on the Core Ultra 5 336H likely contribute to its single-thread performance advantages.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5 with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC. The Core Ultra 5 336H's 50% higher memory bandwidth aligns with its wins in memory-sensitive tests, though the Core 5 211E still manages to win data compression.

PCIe lanes differ: the Core 5 211E provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 336H provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well, with UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 5 211E versus Intel Xe3 Graphics on the Core Ultra 5 336H. The Core Ultra 5 336H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 product line, while the Core 5 211E has no series designation recorded.

The Core 5 211E carries a launch MSRP of $221 and released on 2025-01-12. The Core Ultra 5 336H has no launch MSRP recorded and released on 2026-01-04. Both processors are active production parts with locked multipliers.

The Verdict

The data indicates the Core Ultra 5 336H is the stronger processor for most workloads. Its 15 wins across the head-to-head suite include all Cinebench tests, the multithread Passmark, physics, floating point math, encryption, extended instructions, and prime number finding. The consistent 15% Cinebench margins across every version suggest this advantage is structural, not test-specific. The 16.5% multithread Passmark win reinforces that assessment.

The Core 5 211E's two wins are not trivial. Its 42% lead in integer math and 23.7% lead in data compression represent substantial advantages in those specific domains. For workloads dominated by integer arithmetic or compression algorithms, the Core 5 211E is clearly the better choice. Its higher 86th percentile ranking and higher average benchmark score of 37829 versus 34485 also indicate that its strengths carry weight in overall performance assessments.

The near-ties in single-thread Passmark (0.2% apart) and random string sorting (0.3% apart) suggest these processors are effectively equal for certain lightly threaded tasks. The Core 5 211E's higher boost clock does not produce a single-thread Passmark win, meaning the Core Ultra 5 336H's architectural advantages offset the clock disadvantage.

The Core 5 211E suits desktop builds where its 65 TDP and Socket 1700 compatibility matter. Its ECC memory support and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes make it appropriate for systems requiring data integrity features. The Core Ultra 5 336H suits mobile platforms with its 25 TDP and BGA 2540 socket, offering higher memory bandwidth and a 3 nm process node. Its lack of ECC support and fewer PCIe lanes reflect its mobile positioning.

For users prioritizing rendering, physics simulation, encryption, or general multithreaded workloads, the Core Ultra 5 336H delivers better scores across the board. For integer-heavy computation or data compression tasks, the Core 5 211E provides decisive advantages that the Core Ultra 5 336H cannot match. The choice depends entirely on workload composition.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has an average benchmark score of 37829, placing it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H averages 34485, placing it in the 84th percentile.

Q: How large is the Core Ultra 5 336H's lead in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Core Ultra 5 336H scores 23991 in Cinebench R23 multicore, which is 15% ahead of the Core 5 211E's 20389.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark margin between these two processors?

A: The largest margin is in Passmark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 5 336H scores 299 versus the Core 5 211E's 43, an 85.6% advantage.

Q: Does the Core 5 211E win any benchmark by a large margin?

A: Yes, the Core 5 211E wins Passmark integer math with 88117 versus 62070, a 42% lead, and Passmark data compression with 346757 versus 280340, a 23.7% lead.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H does not support ECC memory.

Q: How do their memory bandwidth specifications compare?

A: The Core 5 211E has a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s with DDR4 and DDR5 support. The Core Ultra 5 336H has 115.2 GB/s with DDR5 and LPDDR5X support.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 211E | Intel Core Ultra 5 336H |

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

| Series | None recorded | Core Ultra Series 3 |

| Cores | 10 | 16 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| TDP | 65 | 25 |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Bartlett Lake | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Panther Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Die Size | 257 mm² | None recorded |

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

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 20 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 12 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | None recorded |

| Part Number | SRQERQ65F | SA4RD |