Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core 5 211E and Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL present a stark contrast in available data. The Core 5 211E has a complete benchmark profile recorded in the database, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL has no benchmark scores listed. This absence of recorded performance data for the Ultra 7 makes a direct numerical comparison impossible. The database contains no head-to-head benchmark results between these two processors, and the Ultra 7 shows zero wins across any test categories.

For the Core 5 211E, the recorded data paints a clear picture of its performance capabilities. In Cinebench R23 multicore testing, it scores 20,389 points, while its single-core result is 2,878. The Cinebench R20 run shows 8,563 points multicore and 1,208 single-core. Older Cinebench R15 results indicate 2,055 multicore and 289 single-core. These scores place the Core 5 211E at the 86th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 37,829.

PassMark results for the Core 5 211E show a multithread score of 23,833 and a single-thread score of 4,006. The processor handles data compression workloads at 346,757, encryption at 17,938, and extended instructions at 21,592. Integer math performance reaches 88,117, floating-point math hits 66,402, and prime number finding scores 43. Random string sorting completes at 34,308, and physics processing scores 702.

The nearest rivals for the Core 5 211E provide context for its positioning. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 scores 37,804, a 0.1% difference from the Core 5 211E's 37,829 average. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 scores 37,762, placing it 0.2% behind. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 scores 37,904, which is 0.2% ahead of the Core 5 211E. The Intel Core i9-14901E scores 37,911, also 0.2% ahead. These four rivals cluster within a narrow band around the Core 5 211E's average score, indicating that the Core 5 211E sits in a competitive segment where small margins separate adjacent models.

The Core Ultra 7 155HL has no benchmark entries, no rival comparisons, and no percentile ranking beyond its 50th percentile placement. Its average benchmark score is recorded as zero. This absence of data means the Ultra 7 cannot be positioned against the Core 5 211E using measured results. The database shows zero wins for the Ultra 7 across all benchmark categories, but this reflects missing data rather than poor performance.

The Verdict

The data supports only one clear choice: the Intel Core 5 211E is the processor with verified, recorded performance, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL has no measurable benchmark presence in the database. Any selection between these two processors must rely on the Core 5 211E's confirmed results, since the Ultra 7 offers no recorded scores to analyze.

The Core 5 211E achieves an 86th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 37,829. Its nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 at 37,904 and the Intel Core i9-14901E at 37,911, all sit within 0.2% of its average score. This indicates the Core 5 211E performs at a level comparable to those established processors, with differences that are practically negligible in the database's measurements.

For users requiring a desktop processor with proven multi-threaded and single-threaded capabilities, the Core 5 211E delivers measurable results across Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and PassMark suites. The processor's Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20,389 and single-core score of 2,878 provide concrete reference points. PassMark multithread performance at 23,833 and single-thread at 4,006 further substantiate its capability profile.

The Core Ultra 7 155HL, by contrast, offers no benchmark data whatsoever. Its 50th percentile ranking carries no supporting measurements, and its average score of zero confirms the absence of recorded tests. The database cannot confirm any performance advantage for the Ultra 7, regardless of its architectural specifications.

From the recorded data, the Core 5 211E is the only processor with verifiable performance. Users should consider the Ultra 7 155HL only if they prioritize the architectural features detailed in its specification sheet, but they will have no benchmark evidence to validate its performance claims.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has an average benchmark score of 37,829. The Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL has an average benchmark score of 0, as no benchmark results are recorded for it.

Q: How does the Core 5 211E compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core 5 211E scores 37,829 on average. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 scores 37,804 (0.1% behind), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 scores 37,762 (0.2% behind), the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 scores 37,904 (0.2% ahead), and the Intel Core i9-14901E scores 37,911 (0.2% ahead).

Q: What are the Cinebench R23 scores for the Core 5 211E?

A: The Core 5 211E scores 20,389 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 2,878 in Cinebench R23 single-core.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 7 155HL have any recorded benchmark wins?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the Core Ultra 7 155HL across all benchmark categories, and no head-to-head benchmark results exist between it and the Core 5 211E.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each processor?

A: The Core 5 211E ranks in the 86th percentile among all CPUs. The Core Ultra 7 155HL ranks in the 50th percentile.

Q: Which processor has a higher PassMark multithread score?

A: The Core 5 211E has a PassMark multithread score of 23,833. The Core Ultra 7 155HL has no recorded PassMark multithread score.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field recorded in the database. The Core 5 211E uses 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL uses 16 cores and 22 threads. Base clock speeds differ substantially: the Core 5 211E runs at 2.70 GHz, the Ultra 7 at 1.40 GHz. Boost clocks are closer, with the Core 5 211E reaching 4.90 GHz and the Ultra 7 reaching 4.80 GHz.

Thermal design power differs, with the Core 5 211E rated at 65 W and the Ultra 7 at 45 W. The socket types are incompatible: the Core 5 211E uses Intel Socket 1700, the Ultra 7 uses Intel Socket 1851. The Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 7 supports DDR5 with motherboard dependency. Memory bandwidth also differs, with the Core 5 211E at 76.8 GB/s and the Ultra 7 at 89.6 GB/s. ECC memory support is present on the Core 5 211E but absent on the Ultra 7.

PCIe configurations differ as well. The Core 5 211E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 7 provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ: the Core 5 211E uses UHD Graphics 730, the Ultra 7 uses Arc Xe-LPG 128EU. The release dates are distinct, with the Core 5 211E released on 2025-01-12 and the Ultra 7 on 2024-04-07. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 211E is $221, and for the Ultra 7 it is $438. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural profiles of these two processors diverge at the fundamental level. The Core 5 211E belongs to the Bartlett Lake codename family, built on a 10 nm process node from Intel. The Core Ultra 7 155HL belongs to the Meteor Lake and Meteor Lake-PS architecture, built on a 7 nm process node from Intel. The Core 5 211E has a die size of 257 mm², while the Ultra 7 has no recorded die size.

Cache layouts differ between the two. The Core 5 211E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 7 has 112 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. Neither processor has a 3D V-Cache option recorded.

The Core 5 211E carries the part number SRQERQ65F, and the Ultra 7 carries SRN2Z. The Core 5 211E is designated as Core 5 (Bartlett Lake), while the Ultra 7 is designated as Ultra 7 (Meteor Lake-PS). Both processors have active production status and target the desktop market segment. The Ultra 7 is part of the Core Ultra Series 1, while the Core 5 211E has no series designation recorded.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on recorded data, the Core 5 211E wins every measurable category. Its benchmark suite includes 17 recorded scores across Cinebench and PassMark tests, all with concrete values. The Core 5 211E demonstrates strong multicore performance with Cinebench R23 multicore at 20,389 and PassMark multithread at 23,833. Single-core performance is also established, with Cinebench R23 single-core at 2,878 and PassMark single-thread at 4,006.

Workload-specific results for the Core 5 211E show its capabilities in varied tasks. Data compression scores 346,757, indicating strong throughput for archive and compression workloads. Encryption processing scores 17,938, while extended instructions reach 21,592. Integer math at 88,117 and floating-point math at 66,402 cover computational workloads. Random string sorting at 34,308 and physics processing at 702 round out the profile.

The Core Ultra 7 155HL has zero recorded benchmark scores, zero wins across any test category, and no head-to-head results. Its architectural specifications suggest potential advantages in core count (16 versus 10) and thread count (22 versus 16), plus a larger L3 cache (24 MB versus 20 MB). The Ultra 7 also supports higher memory bandwidth at 89.6 GB/s, compared to 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 211E. However, no benchmark data exists to confirm whether these specifications translate into measured performance advantages.

The database records the Ultra 7 at the 50th percentile among all CPUs, but with an average benchmark score of zero, this percentile carries no evidentiary weight. The Core 5 211E, at the 86th percentile with an average score of 37,829, has verified performance across the board.

For users relying on benchmark data, the Core 5 211E is the only processor with demonstrated results. The Ultra 7 155HL remains a specification sheet without empirical validation. Any decision between the two must favor the Core 5 211E for measured performance, while the Ultra 7's appeal rests solely on its architectural features, which the database cannot confirm through testing.