Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data for these two Intel processors presents a sharply bifurcated picture. The Intel Core 5 211E dominates the Cinebench rendering suite, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H claims victory in most Passmark workloads. The head-to-head comparison records 8 wins for the Core 5 211E and 9 wins for the Core Ultra 7 255H, but the margins of victory tell the more interesting story.

In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core 5 211E scores 20389 against 9240 for the Core Ultra 7 255H, a massive 120.7% advantage. This is the single largest delta in the entire comparison. The pattern holds across every Cinebench iteration. In R15 multicore, the Core 5 211E wins 2055 to 1515, a 35.6% lead. In R20 multicore, the margin is 8563 to 6381, or 34.2%. The single-core Cinebench results also favor the Core 5 211E, with a 15.1% lead in R15 (289 vs 251), a 34.2% lead in R20 (1208 vs 900), and a 56.2% lead in R23 (2878 vs 1843).

The Core Ultra 7 255H counters in the Passmark suite. The largest reversal comes in Passmark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 7 255H scores 303 against just 43 for the Core 5 211E, an 85.8% swing. Passmark physics shows a 68.9% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 255H (2254 vs 702). Floating point math also goes strongly to the Core Ultra 7 255H, 98796 to 66402, a 32.8% lead. Data encryption favors the Core Ultra 7 255H by 23.3% (23395 vs 17938), and extended instructions by 9.1% (23755 vs 21592). The multithread Passmark score goes to the Core Ultra 7 255H at 30703 versus 23833, a 22.4% lead. Even single-thread Passmark, which might be expected to align with the Cinebench single-core results, favors the Core Ultra 7 255H at 4317 versus 4006, a 7.2% margin.

The Core 5 211E does claim some Passmark wins: data compression by 16% (346757 vs 298850), integer math by 13% (88117 vs 77975), and random string sorting by 4.9% (34308 vs 36058, where the negative delta indicates the Core 5 211E wins despite the lower score, as this test is scored inversely). The overall average benchmark score confirms the split: the Core 5 211E averages 37829, placing it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 7 255H averages 33537, in the 83rd percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The workload split maps cleanly onto the architectural priorities of each processor. The Core 5 211E is built for sustained multi-threaded rendering. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20389 is not merely higher, it is more than double the Core Ultra 7 255H score of 9240. This suggests that applications which scale across many cores and rely on heavy compute, such as 3D rendering, video encoding, or scientific simulation, will see substantially better throughput on the Core 5 211E.

The Core Ultra 7 255H, conversely, demonstrates strength in integer-heavy, physics, and cryptographic workloads. The physics score of 2254 versus 702 indicates a strong advantage in simulation and game physics calculations. The prime number finding result, 303 versus 43, is particularly striking and points to a very different execution pipeline. Data encryption at 23395 versus 17938 suggests the Core Ultra 7 255H has hardware acceleration or more efficient execution for cryptographic operations.

The single-thread Passmark result adds nuance. Despite losing every Cinebench single-core test, the Core Ultra 7 255H wins Passmark single-thread at 4317 versus 4006. This divergence between benchmark suites indicates that the two processors excel under different instruction patterns even within single-threaded execution. The Core Ultra 7 255H also wins Passmark multithread overall, 30703 versus 23833, which contradicts the Cinebench multicore results. The data suggests the Core Ultra 7 255H handles the Passmark thread scheduling more efficiently, while the Core 5 211E is better optimized for the longer, more demanding Cinebench render workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different Intel design lineages. The Core 5 211E is a Bartlett Lake desktop part on the Intel Socket 1700, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It uses a 257 mm² die. The Core Ultra 7 255H is an Arrow Lake-H mobile part on Intel BGA 2049, fabricated on a 3 nm process by TSMC. This process advantage gives the Core Ultra 7 255H a much smaller manufacturing footprint, though the die size is not recorded in the database.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 7 255H thus packs 60% more cores but maintains the same thread count, indicating it uses a different core topology, likely without hyper-threading on its efficiency cores. The cache hierarchy reflects this: the Core 5 211E has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 255H has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. The larger per-core caches on the Core Ultra 7 255H likely contribute to its Passmark single-thread and physics advantages.

Clock speeds tell a mixed story. The Core 5 211E has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and boosts to 4.90 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 255H has a lower base of 2.00 GHz but boosts higher to 5.10 GHz. The higher boost on the Core Ultra 7 255H explains its Passmark single-thread win, while the higher base clock on the Core 5 211E, combined with its higher 65 W TDP versus 28 W, explains its sustained multicore dominance. The Core 5 211E consumes more power and is designed for desktop cooling, while the Core Ultra 7 255H is built for mobile thermal envelopes.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel configuration with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 255H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, a 33% improvement. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity favors the Core Ultra 7 255H, with Gen 5 and 20 lanes versus Gen 5 with 16 lanes on the Core 5 211E. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 5 211E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 7 255H uses the more capable Arc Graphics 140T.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E scores 20389 versus 9240 for the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H, a 120.7% advantage. This is the largest performance gap in the entire comparison.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 7 255H win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes. It wins 9 of the 17 head-to-head tests, including Passmark physics (2254 vs 702), floating point math (98796 vs 66402), data encryption (23395 vs 17938), and single-thread (4317 vs 4006).

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores versus 10 cores on the Core 5 211E. Both processors have 16 threads, meaning the Core 5 211E uses hyper-threading on more of its cores while the Core Ultra 7 255H does not.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The Core 5 211E is built on Intel's 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 7 255H uses TSMC's 3 nm process. The Core Ultra 7 255H also uses a different foundry entirely.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra 7 255H supports 102.4 GB/s dual-channel bandwidth with DDR5 and LPDDR5X, compared to 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 211E. The Core 5 211E additionally supports DDR4.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core 5 211E has an average benchmark score of 37829, placing it in the 86th percentile. The Core Ultra 7 255H averages 33537, in the 83rd percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 211E | Intel Core Ultra 7 255H |

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

| Cores | 10 | 16 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Base clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.90 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 28 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2049 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-H |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die size | 257 mm² | Not recorded |

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

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

| L3 cache | 20 MB shared | 24 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

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

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

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc Graphics 140T |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | Not recorded |

The Verdict

The data presents two processors optimized for entirely different environments. The Intel Core 5 211E is a desktop part with a 65 W TDP and a 2.70 GHz base clock, designed to sustain heavy multicore workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20389, more than double the Core Ultra 7 255H's 9240, makes it the clear choice for rendering, content creation, and any application that runs long, compute-intensive threads. The 86th percentile ranking against all CPUs reinforces this position.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H, with its 28 W TDP, 3 nm TSMC process, and 16 cores, is built for mobile efficiency without sacrificing single-thread responsiveness. Its 5.10 GHz boost clock and larger per-core caches deliver wins in Passmark physics, floating point, encryption, and single-thread workloads. The 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth and 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes make it a stronger platform for mobile workstations needing fast I/O and graphics. The 83rd percentile ranking places it slightly below the Core 5 211E in aggregate, but the workload-specific wins are substantial.

Users selecting between these processors should base the decision on the primary application. The Core 5 211E delivers unmatched multicore rendering performance in a desktop socket, while the Core Ultra 7 255H provides a balanced mobile package with superior efficiency and specific strengths in physics, encryption, and single-thread Passmark tasks. The benchmark data does not support a universal winner; it supports two distinct winners for two distinct use cases.