Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison
Intel Core 5 211E
Core Ultra 5 338H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The recorded data shows a clear split between these two processors, with the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H taking 12 of 17 benchmark wins while the Intel Core 5 211E secures 5. The most striking divergence appears in Cinebench R23, where the Core 5 211E leads by substantial margins. Its multicore score of 20389 beats the Ultra 5 338H's 16331, a 24.8% advantage, while the single-core result of 2878 versus 2044 represents a 40.8% gap. This suggests the desktop chip's higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz versus 4.70 GHz contributes meaningfully in this workload.
However, the older Cinebench versions tell a different story. In R15 multicore, the Ultra 5 338H scores 2504 against 2055 for the Core 5 211E, a 17.9% difference. The R20 multicore result shows 10213 versus 8563, a 16.2% gap. Single-core results in R15 and R20 also favor the Ultra 5 338H, with 305 versus 289 (5.2%) and 1441 versus 1208 (16.2%) respectively. This inversion between benchmark versions indicates workload-dependent behavior, where the Ultra 5 338H's architecture handles certain rendering tasks more efficiently despite lower clock speeds.
PassMark results further illuminate the performance profile. The Core 5 211E dominates integer math with 88117 versus 64934, a 35.7% lead, and data compression with 346757 versus 276539, a 25.4% margin. Random string sorting goes to the Core 5 211E narrowly at 34308 versus 34082, just 0.7% apart. Conversely, the Ultra 5 338H excels in floating-point math with 84067 versus 66402 (21% ahead), prime number finding with 304 versus 43 (an 85.9% gap), and physics calculations with 2697 versus 702 (74% ahead). Data encryption also favors the Ultra 5 338H at 21367 versus 17938, a 16% difference, while extended instructions show a 9.7% advantage at 23906 versus 21592.
Multithreaded PassMark performance goes to the Ultra 5 338H with 28717 versus 23833, a 17% lead, despite the Core 5 211E having more threads (16 versus 12). Single-thread PassMark also favors the Ultra 5 338H at 4180 versus 4006, a 4.2% margin. The overall average benchmark scores place the Core 5 211E at 37829 with an 86th percentile ranking, while the Ultra 5 338H sits at 33989 with an 84th percentile. The Core 5 211E's nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370, scores 37904 (0.2% higher), while the Ultra 5 338H's closest competitor, the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H, scores 34083 (0.3% higher).
FAQ
Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks overall?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins 12 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core 5 211E wins 5.
Q: Where does the Intel Core 5 211E show its largest advantage?
A: The biggest win comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 2878 against 2044, a 40.8% difference. It also leads by 35.7% in PassMark integer math.
Q: What is the most dramatic win for the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H?
A: PassMark find prime numbers shows the largest gap, with the Ultra 5 338H scoring 304 versus 43, representing an 85.9% advantage. PassMark physics also shows a 74% lead at 2697 versus 702.
Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the two?
A: The Core 5 211E has an average benchmark score of 37829, while the Ultra 5 338H averages 33989. The Core 5 211E also ranks higher in percentile, at 86 versus 84.
Q: Do the benchmark results consistently favor one processor across all tests?
A: No, the results are mixed. The Ultra 5 338H wins most tests, but the Core 5 211E wins Cinebench R23 both multicore and single-core, plus PassMark data compression, integer math, and random string sorting.
Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?
A: The Core 5 211E sits within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 (37804), AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 (37762), and AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 (37904). The Ultra 5 338H is within 0.7% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H (34083), Intel Core i7-12800HX (33875), Intel Xeon 6353P (33844), and AMD EPYC 4244P (34220).
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different Intel design lineages. The Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm process node, while the Core Ultra 5 338H adopts the Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm node. Both are fabricated by Intel, but the process difference suggests the Ultra 5 338H benefits from a more advanced manufacturing technology.
Core configurations differ notably. The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, indicating 6 performance cores with hyperthreading plus 4 efficiency cores without it. The Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads, suggesting a hybrid arrangement where all cores operate without simultaneous multithreading. This explains why the Core 5 211E can have more threads despite fewer cores.
Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 5 211E provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, with 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 5 338H offers 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 18 MB of shared L3. The die size for the Core 5 211E measures 257 mm², while the Ultra 5 338H's die size is not recorded.
Memory and I/O capabilities separate them further. The Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth and includes ECC support. The Ultra 5 338H uses LPDDR5X with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth and lacks ECC. PCIe lanes also differ, with the Core 5 211E providing 16 Gen 5 lanes while the Ultra 5 338H offers only 4 Gen 5 lanes. Integrated graphics use different solutions: UHD Graphics 730 for the Core 5 211E versus Arc B370 for the Ultra 5 338H.
Socket and market positioning reflect their intended use cases. The Core 5 211E fits Intel Socket 1700 and targets the desktop segment, while the Ultra 5 338H uses Intel BGA 2540 for mobile platforms. Release dates place the Core 5 211E in January 2025 and the Ultra 5 338H in January 2026.
Specification Differences
The Core 5 211E and Ultra 5 338H differ across several recorded specifications. Core count goes to the Ultra 5 338H at 12 versus 10, but thread count favors the Core 5 211E at 16 versus 12. Base clocks show 2.70 GHz for the Core 5 211E against 1.90 GHz for the Ultra 5 338H, while boost clocks reach 4.90 GHz and 4.70 GHz respectively.
Thermal design power differs significantly, with the Core 5 211E rated at 65 W and the Ultra 5 338H at 25 W. This reflects their desktop versus mobile positioning. Process nodes also differ: 10 nm for the Core 5 211E and 3 nm for the Ultra 5 338H.
Cache specifications vary across all levels. The Core 5 211E uses 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. The Ultra 5 338H uses 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. Memory support shows DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 5 211E against LPDDR5X for the Ultra 5 338H, with bandwidth at 76.8 GB/s versus 136.5 GB/s.
ECC memory support is present on the Core 5 211E but absent on the Ultra 5 338H. PCIe lane counts differ at 16 versus 4, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics use UHD Graphics 730 for the Core 5 211E and Arc B370 for the Ultra 5 338H. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 211E is $221, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Ultra 5 338H. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.
The Verdict
The data indicates two processors optimized for different priorities. The Core 5 211E delivers higher average benchmark scores at 37829, ranks in the 86th percentile, and offers more threads, higher clock speeds, larger L3 cache, ECC support, and broader memory compatibility with DDR4 and DDR5. Its wins in Cinebench R23 and PassMark integer-heavy workloads suggest strength in sustained compute tasks and data processing.
The Ultra 5 338H, despite a lower average score of 33989 and 84th percentile ranking, wins more individual benchmarks. Its advantages in floating-point math, prime number finding, physics, encryption, and multithreaded PassMark indicate efficiency in parallel floating-point workloads. The 3 nm process node and higher memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s likely contribute to these results, along with the larger L1 and L2 caches per core.
The socket and market segment differences are decisive for system integration. The Core 5 211E targets desktop systems with Socket 1700, while the Ultra 5 338H targets mobile platforms with BGA 2540. The Core 5 211E's 65 W TDP suits desktop cooling, whereas the Ultra 5 338H's 25 W TDP aligns with mobile power constraints. The Core 5 211E also provides 16 PCIe lanes versus 4, making it more suitable for expansion-heavy desktop builds.
Where Each One Wins
The Core 5 211E wins in scenarios requiring high single-thread performance, as shown by its 40.8% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core. Its 35.7% advantage in PassMark integer math indicates strength in general computation and logic-heavy tasks. Data compression shows a 25.4% lead, making it suitable for file archiving and storage workloads. The 24.8% multicore lead in Cinebench R23 suggests it handles heavily threaded rendering tasks well, despite the Ultra 5 338H winning older Cinebench versions. Random string sorting goes to the Core 5 211E by a narrow 0.7% margin.
The Ultra 5 338H dominates in floating-point operations, with an 85.9% lead in prime number finding and a 74% lead in physics calculations. These results point toward scientific computing and simulation workloads. Floating-point math shows a 21% advantage, while data encryption leads by 16%. Extended instructions provide a 9.7% edge, and multithreaded PassMark performance is 17% higher. Single-thread PassMark gives the Ultra 5 338H a 4.2% lead, and it also wins Cinebench R15 and R20 across both single and multicore tests.
The pattern suggests the Ultra 5 338H excels in diverse floating-point and encryption-heavy applications, while the Core 5 211E concentrates its advantages in integer math, compression, and the most recent Cinebench R23 version. Users requiring ECC support, more PCIe lanes, or desktop form factor compatibility would select the Core 5 211E, while those prioritizing mobile integration and floating-point throughput would favor the Ultra 5 338H.