Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 258V Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between these two Intel parts is decisively lopsided. The Intel Core 5 211E takes 13 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 258V wins only 4. The Core 5 211E dominates threaded workloads and most memory-intensive operations, while the Core Ultra 7 258V shows its strengths in specific single-thread tasks and physics simulation.

Looking at the use-case split, the Core 5 211E is clearly the compute-heavy desktop part. It wins all three Cinebench multi-core tests by substantial margins, from 28.7% in R15 to a massive 97.9% in R23. It also dominates integer math by 105.5%, data compression by 96.3%, and random string sorting by 59%. These are workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth, and the Core 5 211E has both in greater abundance.

The Core Ultra 7 258V, by contrast, wins in areas that favor its architecture rather than raw core count. It takes the PassMark physics test by 55.1%, which reflects the efficiency of its Lunar Lake core design under physics simulation loads. It also wins the find prime numbers test by 76.8%, a workload that rewards high per-core efficiency and low latency. Its single-thread PassMark score of 4018 edges out the Core 5 211E's 4006 by a slim 0.3% margin, indicating near parity in basic single-thread performance despite the desktop chip's higher boost clock.

For practical purposes, the Core 5 211E is the choice for rendering, compilation, encryption, and any parallel task that can use its 10 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 7 258V is better suited for lightweight mobile workloads where physics calculations or prime number generation matter, and where the 17W TDP is a critical constraint compared to the Core 5 211E's 65W TDP.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Core 5 211E uses Bartlett Lake architecture on Intel's 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 7 258V uses Lunar Lake architecture on TSMC's 3 nm process. The process node difference is significant: the Core Ultra 7 258V's 3 nm node allows for much higher transistor density and lower power consumption per operation, which explains its 17W TDP versus the Core 5 211E's 65W TDP.

Core counts differ notably. The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 258V has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Core 5 211E's hyperthreading capability doubles its thread count, while the Core Ultra 7 258V runs one thread per core. This architecture choice directly explains the multi-core benchmark gaps.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 5 211E uses 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 258V uses 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The Lunar Lake part has larger per-core caches, which helps its single-thread efficiency, but the Bartlett Lake part has nearly double the shared L3 capacity.

Memory support differs completely. The Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 258V supports only LPDDR5X with dual-channel memory but achieves 136.5 GB/s bandwidth, nearly 78% more. The Core 5 211E supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 7 258V does not. PCIe lanes also differ: the Core 5 211E has Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Core Ultra 7 258V has Gen 5 with only 4 lanes.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 211E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 7 258V uses Arc 140V. The Core Ultra 7 258V's laptop-oriented design includes a more capable GPU, which is reflected in its mobile market segment. The Core 5 211E is a desktop part on Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 7 258V is a mobile part on BGA 2833.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core 5 211E scores 20389 against the Core Ultra 7 258V's 10301, a 97.9% advantage. This nearly doubles the Lunar Lake part's output and reflects the combined effects of more cores, more threads, and higher boost clocks. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the margin is 27.1% (8563 vs 6739), and in R15 multi-core it is 28.7% (2055 vs 1596.5).

Single-core Cinebench results show a narrower but still significant gap. The Core 5 211E wins R23 single-core by 53.7% (2878 vs 1872) and R20 single-core by 27% (1208 vs 951). The R15 single-core margin is just 1.4% (289 vs 285), indicating that the older benchmark does not differentiate the two as strongly.

PassMark integer math is the largest single win for the Core 5 211E at 105.5% (88117 vs 42889). Data compression follows at 96.3% (346757 vs 176686). Random string sorting shows a 59% advantage (34308 vs 21580), and extended instructions show 46.7% (21592 vs 14717). Data encryption is 32.5% better (17938 vs 13534), and multithread is 26.2% better (23833 vs 18887). Floating point math shows a modest 15.7% lead (66402 vs 57372).

The Core Ultra 7 258V's wins are concentrated in three tests. PassMark physics shows a 55.1% advantage (1565 vs 702), find prime numbers shows 76.8% (185 vs 43), and single-thread PassMark shows a tiny 0.3% edge (4018 vs 4006). These results indicate the Lunar Lake architecture handles certain mathematical operations far more efficiently despite the lower core count.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core 5 211E is decisively faster. It leads by 28.7% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 27.1% in R20, and 97.9% in R23 multi-core.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 7 258V win any benchmark by a large margin?

A: Yes, it wins PassMark find prime numbers by 76.8% (185 vs 43) and PassMark physics by 55.1% (1565 vs 702). It also edges out the Core 5 211E in PassMark single-thread by 0.3%.

Q: What is the core and thread difference?

A: The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 258V has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Core 5 211E supports hyperthreading; the Core Ultra 7 258V does not.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Core Ultra 7 258V has 136.5 GB/s bandwidth with LPDDR5X, while the Core 5 211E has 76.8 GB/s with DDR4 or DDR5. The Core 5 211E supports ECC memory; the Core Ultra 7 258V does not.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core 5 211E has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, while the Core Ultra 7 258V has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The base clocks are 2.70 GHz and 2.20 GHz respectively.

Q: What are the TDP differences?

A: The Core 5 211E has a 65W TDP and is a desktop part on Socket 1700. The Core Ultra 7 258V has a 17W TDP and is a mobile part on BGA 2833.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split by workload and platform. The Intel Core 5 211E is the stronger processor for multi-threaded desktop tasks. Its 97.9% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 105.5% lead in PassMark integer math show that any heavily parallel workload will complete substantially faster on this chip. Its 10 cores, 16 threads, and 65W TDP make it a proper desktop workhorse, and its 86th percentile ranking versus all CPUs places it well above the Core Ultra 7 258V's 74th percentile.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V is the better choice for mobile platforms where power efficiency matters more than raw throughput. Its 17W TDP is a fraction of the Core 5 211E's 65W, and its 3 nm process node from TSMC delivers that efficiency. The 136.5 GB/s memory bandwidth is a real advantage for integrated graphics workloads, and the Arc 140V GPU is more capable than the UHD Graphics 730. Its wins in physics and prime number tests show that certain single-thread or math-heavy workloads run efficiently on Lunar Lake.

The average benchmark scores confirm the gulf: the Core 5 211E averages 37829, while the Core Ultra 7 258V averages 20454. The Core 5 211E's nearest rivals are all in the 37762 to 37911 range, including the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 and Intel Core i9-14901E. The Core Ultra 7 258V's nearest rivals are around 20363 to 20468, including the AMD Ryzen 5 5600 and AMD Ryzen 5 8500G. These groupings show the Core 5 211E competes at a much higher performance tier.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 211E | Intel Core Ultra 7 258V |

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

| Cores | 10 | 8 |

| Threads | 16 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 65W | 17W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2833 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Lunar Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm (Intel) | 3 nm (TSMC) |

| 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 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 136.5 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 4 Lanes |

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

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | Not available |