Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 256V Comparison

Intel Core 5 211E and Intel Core Ultra 7 256V are two very different Intel processors. The Core 5 211E is a desktop part built on the Bartlett Lake architecture, while the Core Ultra 7 256V is a mobile processor from the Lunar Lake family. The benchmark data shows a clear split between raw multi-threaded performance and specific efficiency-oriented tasks. This analysis covers their head-to-head results, architectural differences, and the use cases where each processor is the appropriate choice.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core 5 211E dominates the overall performance comparison, winning 13 of the 17 recorded benchmarks. The most significant victory comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core 5 211E scores 20389 against the Core Ultra 7 256V's 10399, a massive 96.1% advantage. This result is consistent with other multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Core 5 211E leads with 8563 points versus 6958, a 23.1% difference. The Core 5 211E also wins in PassMark integer math by 103.2%, scoring 88117 compared to 43358, and in data compression by 87.5%, with scores of 346757 and 184985 respectively.

Single-threaded performance is also largely in favor of the Core 5 211E, though the margins are smaller. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core 5 211E scores 2878 against 1877.5, a 53.3% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 23% advantage, with scores of 1208 and 982. The Core 5 211E also wins Cinebench R15 single-core by a slim 1.2% margin, scoring 289 versus 285.5. The Core Ultra 7 256V does win in PassMark single-thread, scoring 4029 against 4006, a narrow 0.6% advantage.

The Core Ultra 7 256V shows its strengths in two specific PassMark tests. It wins in physics by a large margin, scoring 1595 against the Core 5 211E's 702, a 56% difference. It also wins in find prime numbers, scoring 192 versus 43, a 77.6% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 256V. These results indicate a different processing pattern that favors the Lunar Lake architecture in specific computational tasks.

Other notable wins for the Core 5 211E include PassMark multithread with 23833 points versus 19530, a 22% lead, and PassMark extended instructions with 21592 against 15643, a 38% advantage. In floating-point math, the Core 5 211E scores 66402 compared to 58576, a 13.4% lead. The Core 5 211E also wins in data encryption by 28.1% and random string sorting by 52.6%. The overall average benchmark score reflects this dominance: the Core 5 211E averages 37829 points, while the Core Ultra 7 256V averages 21112 points. This places the Core 5 211E in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 7 256V sits in the 75th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use fundamentally different designs. The Intel Core 5 211E is built on the Bartlett Lake architecture using a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. It features 10 cores and 16 threads, which allows for substantial multi-threading capability. The Core Ultra 7 256V uses the Lunar Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node from TSMC. It has 8 cores and 8 threads, meaning it lacks Hyper-Threading support and has fewer total threads available for parallel workloads.

The cache layouts differ significantly. The Core 5 211E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, with a shared 20 MB L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 256V has a larger L1 cache at 192 KB per core and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, but a smaller 12 MB shared L3 cache. The total cache capacity favors the Core 5 211E due to its larger L3 cache.

The memory and I/O capabilities also differ. The Core 5 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory, which is important for certain professional workloads. The Core Ultra 7 256V has memory support that depends on the motherboard, with dual-channel configuration, but no listed memory bandwidth and no ECC support. In terms of PCIe connectivity, the Core 5 211E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 7 256V offers Gen 5 with only 4 lanes.

The integrated graphics present a considerable difference. The Core 5 211E uses UHD Graphics 730, a basic desktop solution. The Core Ultra 7 256V features Arc 140V graphics, which is a much more capable integrated GPU for tasks like video playback and light gaming. The processors also use different sockets: the Core 5 211E fits Intel Socket 1700 for desktop motherboards, while the Core Ultra 7 256V uses Intel BGA 2833, which is soldered to mobile platforms.

Power characteristics show a stark contrast. The Core 5 211E has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Core Ultra 7 256V has a TDP of just 17 watts. This difference of 48 watts explains the performance gap and highlights the intended use cases: the Core 5 211E can draw more power for sustained performance, while the Core Ultra 7 256V prioritizes efficiency for battery-powered laptops.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 211E is the clear winner for multi-threaded, compute-intensive workloads. Its 96.1% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 103.2% lead in integer math make it the better choice for content creation, 3D rendering, video encoding, and software compilation. The large lead in data compression at 87.5% also makes it suitable for file archiving and database work. With 16 threads and a 65-watt TDP, this processor can sustain heavy workloads for extended periods, making it appropriate for desktop workstations.

The Core 5 211E also wins in most single-threaded tests, including a 53.3% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core. This makes it faster for general desktop responsiveness, application launching, and older software that relies on fewer threads. The ECC memory support further positions it for reliability-focused applications such as file servers or entry-level workstation builds.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 256V wins in specific areas that point to different strengths. Its 56% advantage in PassMark physics and 77.6% lead in find prime numbers suggest that certain mathematical operations execute more efficiently on the Lunar Lake architecture. The 17-watt TDP makes it overwhelmingly more power-efficient. For a mobile processor, this is the decisive factor: the Core Ultra 7 256V can deliver competent performance in a thin-and-light laptop without requiring active cooling or a large battery. The Arc 140V integrated graphics also give it a significant advantage for users who rely on the iGPU, since the UHD Graphics 730 in the Core 5 211E is far less capable for graphics tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core rendering?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E is substantially faster. It scores 20389 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 10399 for the Core Ultra 7 256V, a 96.1% difference. It also leads by 23.1% in Cinebench R20 multi-core.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 7 256V win any benchmarks?

A: Yes. It wins 4 of the 17 head-to-head tests. It beats the Core 5 211E in PassMark physics (1595 vs 702), PassMark find prime numbers (192 vs 43), and PassMark single-thread (4029 vs 4006).

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 7 256V has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Core 5 211E has 6 more threads available for parallel workloads.

Q: Do these processors use the same socket?

A: No. The Core 5 211E uses Intel Socket 1700, which is a desktop socket. The Core Ultra 7 256V uses Intel BGA 2833, which is a mobile socket that is soldered to the motherboard.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Core 5 211E supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 7 256V does not list ECC as a supported feature.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Core 5 211E has a TDP of 65 watts. The Core Ultra 7 256V has a TDP of 17 watts. The Ultra 7 256V uses 48 fewer watts, which is critical for mobile battery life.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

| Specification | Intel Core 5 211E | Intel Core Ultra 7 256V |

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

| Cores | 10 | 8 |

| Threads | 16 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 17 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2833 |

| Architecture | Bartlett Lake | Lunar Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 257 mm² | Not listed |

| 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) | 12 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | Depends on motherboard |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | Not listed |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc 140V |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2024-09-23 |

| Part Number | SRQERQ65F | SRPMPSRPMZ |

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows that these processors serve entirely different markets. The Intel Core 5 211E is the higher-performing part in nearly every compute benchmark. Its 96.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 103.2% lead in integer math make it the recommended choice for users who need maximum CPU throughput in a desktop system. The 65-watt TDP, ECC memory support, and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes align it with workstation and productivity builds where sustained performance is the priority.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 256V is the appropriate choice for mobile users who prioritize power efficiency. Its 17-watt TDP enables thin-and-light laptop designs. While it loses most benchmarks to the Core 5 211E, its wins in PassMark physics and prime number tests show that the Lunar Lake architecture handles specific workloads efficiently. The Arc 140V integrated graphics also provide far better iGPU performance than the UHD Graphics 730. Users who need a capable processor for a laptop with long battery life and light to moderate workloads should select the Core Ultra 7 256V. Users who require maximum multi-threaded performance in a desktop should choose the Core 5 211E.