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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Core 5 211E and the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX shows a decisive advantage for the Ultra 7 in nearly every measured test. Of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks recorded, the Ultra 7 wins 16, while the Core 5 takes only one. The average benchmark score for the Core 5 is 37,829, placing it at the 86th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Ultra 7 averages 62,738, which puts it at the 93rd percentile. That is a substantial gap in overall performance standing.

The largest margin comes in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 7 scores 400 against the Core 5's 43, a difference of 89.2 percent. This test heavily favors the Ultra 7's throughput capabilities. PassMark physics shows a similar story, with the Ultra 7 scoring 2,926 versus 702, a 76 percent deficit for the Core 5. Floating point math also leans strongly toward the Ultra 7: 160,624 versus 66,402, a 58.7 percent gap. These are not marginal differences; they indicate a fundamentally higher compute ceiling for the Ultra 7.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 7 scores 4,916 while the Core 5 scores 2,055, a 58.2 percent difference. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 17,187 for the Ultra 7 against 8,563 for the Core 5, a 50.2 percent gap. Cinebench R23 multicore narrows the relative margin somewhat but still favors the Ultra 7 heavily: 32,612 versus 20,389, a 37.5 percent difference. These multicore results track closely with the core and thread counts, as the Ultra 7 has 20 cores and 20 threads compared to the Core 5's 10 cores and 16 threads.

Single-core results are closer. Cinebench R15 single-core gives the Ultra 7 a 327 score against 289, an 11.6 percent lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2,426 versus 1,208, a 50.2 percent advantage for the Ultra 7, which is an outlier compared to other single-thread tests. PassMark single-thread scores are 4,562 for the Ultra 7 and 4,006 for the Core 5, a 12.2 percent difference. However, Cinebench R23 single-core is the one test the Core 5 wins: 2,878 versus 2,163, a 33.1 percent advantage for the Core 5. This single result stands apart from the rest of the data and suggests that in this specific workload, the Core 5's architecture delivers higher single-thread efficiency.

Data compression in PassMark shows the Ultra 7 at 515,143 against 346,757, a 32.7 percent lead. Data encryption also favors the Ultra 7: 39,499 versus 17,938, a 54.6 percent gap. Extended instructions score 41,247 for the Ultra 7 and 21,592 for the Core 5, a 47.7 percent difference. Integer math is a closer contest: 127,126 versus 88,117, a 30.7 percent gap. Random string sorting shows 62,591 for the Ultra 7 and 34,308 for the Core 5, a 45.2 percent difference. Multithread performance in PassMark gives the Ultra 7 a 48,234 score against 23,833, a 50.6 percent lead.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX has an average benchmark score of 62,738, while the Intel Core 5 211E averages 37,829.

Q: In which benchmark does the Intel Core 5 211E outperform the Ultra 7?

A: The Core 5 wins Cinebench R23 single-core, scoring 2,878 versus 2,163 for the Ultra 7, a 33.1 percent advantage.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 7 scores 400 and the Core 5 scores 43, a difference of 89.2 percent.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Ultra 7 scores 32,612, while the Core 5 scores 20,389, giving the Ultra 7 a 37.5 percent lead.

Q: What percentile ranking does each processor hold in the database?

A: The Core 5 sits at the 86th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 7 sits at the 93rd percentile.

Q: Are the single-thread scores similar between the two?

A: They are relatively close in most tests. PassMark single-thread shows 4,562 for the Ultra 7 and 4,006 for the Core 5, a 12.2 percent gap. Cinebench R15 single-core is 327 versus 289, an 11.6 percent gap. Cinebench R20 single-core is 2,426 versus 1,208, a 50.2 percent gap. Cinebench R23 single-core is the exception, favoring the Core 5.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different segments and use distinct designs. The Intel Core 5 211E is a desktop part built on the Bartlett Lake codename, using a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. Its die size is 257 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, codenamed Arrow Lake-HX, and uses a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. Its die size is 243 mm², and it packs 17,800 million transistors. The Core 5 has no listed transistor count in the database.

Core organization differs significantly. The Core 5 has 10 cores and 16 threads, indicating that some cores support hyper-threading. The Ultra 7 has 20 cores and 20 threads, meaning it uses a 1:1 core-to-thread ratio, consistent with a hybrid or efficiency-focused design. Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 5 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 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core caches on the Ultra 7 likely contribute to its higher throughput in cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 5 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 7 supports only DDR5. Both use a dual-channel memory bus, but the memory bandwidth figures are not equal: the Core 5 lists 76.8 GB/s, while the Ultra 7 lists 102.4 GB/s. The Ultra 7 also has more PCIe lanes available from the CPU, with 20 Gen 5 lanes compared to 16 Gen 5 lanes on the Core 5.

Integrated graphics are different. The Core 5 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 7 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Ultra 7 has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Core 5 does not. The Ultra 7 also uses a BGA 2114 socket, indicating a soldered mobile package, while the Core 5 uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop LGA socket. ECC memory support is present on the Core 5 but absent on the Ultra 7.

The market segments confirm the intended use cases: the Core 5 is a desktop processor, while the Ultra 7 is a mobile processor. Both were released on the same date and are marked as Active in production status. The Core 5 has a launch MSRP of $221, while the Ultra 7 has no listed launch MSRP.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several specification fields. Core count: 10 for the Core 5, 20 for the Ultra 7. Thread count: 16 for the Core 5, 20 for the Ultra 7. Base clock: 2.70 GHz for the Core 5, 2.40 GHz for the Ultra 7. Boost clock: 4.90 GHz for the Core 5, 5.20 GHz for the Ultra 7. TDP: 65 watts for the Core 5, 55 watts for the Ultra 7. Socket: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 5, Intel BGA 2114 for the Ultra 7. Process node: 10 nm for the Core 5, 3 nm for the Ultra 7. Foundry: Intel for the Core 5, TSMC for the Ultra 7. Die size: 257 mm² for the Core 5, 243 mm² for the Ultra 7. L1 cache per core: 80 KB versus 192 KB. L2 cache per core: 2 MB versus 3 MB. L3 cache shared: 20 MB versus 30 MB. Memory support: DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 5, DDR5 only for the Ultra 7. Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. ECC support: present on the Core 5, absent on the Ultra 7. PCIe lanes: 16 Gen 5 lanes versus 20 Gen 5 lanes. Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Multiplier unlocked: false for the Core 5, true for the Ultra 7. Market segment: Desktop for the Core 5, Mobile for the Ultra 7.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX dominates the benchmark suite, winning 16 of 17 tests. Its average benchmark score is roughly 66 percent higher than the Core 5's average. The percentile rankings reflect this: 93rd versus 86th. For workloads that rely on multicore throughput, such as rendering, encryption, compression, and physics simulations, the Ultra 7 is the stronger part. Its 20 cores, larger caches, and higher memory bandwidth give it a structural advantage that shows up consistently across Cinebench and PassMark tests.

The Core 5 211E is not without merit. It wins Cinebench R23 single-core, and its Cinebench R15 single-core score is within 11.6 percent of the Ultra 7. It also has a higher base clock, ECC memory support, and a desktop socket that allows for replaceable installation. But in raw performance terms, the Core 5 trails by large margins in most categories, often by 30 to 90 percent. For applications that are single-thread bound and specifically optimized for the Cinebench R23 single-core workload, the Core 5 holds an edge. For everything else, the Ultra 7 is the stronger choice.

The Ultra 7 also carries a lower TDP of 55 watts compared to 65 watts, which is notable given its higher performance. The 3 nm process node and TSMC fabrication likely contribute to this efficiency. The Core 5 uses a 10 nm Intel process and a larger die, which may explain its higher power draw despite lower performance.

There is no scenario in the recorded data where the Core 5 is the faster processor overall. Its single win in Cinebench R23 single-core is genuine, but it is isolated. The Ultra 7's wins are broad and often decisive. For any user prioritizing compute performance across a range of tasks, the Ultra 7 is the clear choice based on the benchmark evidence.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX wins in all multicore-heavy scenarios. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests all favor it, with margins ranging from 37.5 percent to 58.2 percent. PassMark multithread, physics, floating point math, integer math, data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, random string sorting, and find prime numbers all show the Ultra 7 ahead. The largest advantages appear in prime number finding, physics, and floating point math, where the Ultra 7 leads by 76 percent or more. For rendering, scientific computation, data processing, encryption workloads, and any parallel task, the Ultra 7 is the stronger processor.

The Intel Core 5 211E wins only in Cinebench R23 single-core. That test measures a specific rendering workload in a single thread, and the Core 5's 33.1 percent lead is substantial. Additionally, the Core 5 shows competitive single-thread performance in Cinebench R15 single-core, trailing by only 11.6 percent, and in PassMark single-thread, trailing by 12.2 percent. The Core 5 also offers features the Ultra 7 lacks: ECC memory support, DDR4 compatibility, and a desktop socket. These are not benchmark scores, but they matter for certain system designs. For users who require ECC memory or prefer a desktop platform with replaceable CPUs, the Core 5 is the only option of the two. For users who value maximum compute performance, the Ultra 7 wins overwhelmingly.

In summary, the Ultra 7 is the performance leader across nearly the entire test suite, with particularly strong showings in multicore and math-intensive workloads. The Core 5 is a capable desktop processor that holds a single benchmark win and offers platform-level features that the mobile Ultra 7 cannot match. The benchmark data does not indicate any other areas where the Core 5 takes a lead.