Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F across every benchmark in the comparison. The Intel Core 5 211E does not win a single test, with the Ultra 7 265F taking all 17 head-to-head matchups. The margins are substantial in nearly every category, ranging from a modest 15.7% advantage in single-threaded workloads to a dominant 89.7% lead in prime number calculation.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the Ultra 7 265F posts 4231 points in Cinebench R15 multicore against 2055 for the Core 5 211E, a 51.4% gap. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 597 versus 289, also a 51.6% delta. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore score lands at 17631 for the Ultra 7 265F versus 8563 for the Core 5 211E, again 51.4% apart. The R20 single-core test shows 2488 against 1208, a 51.4% difference. In Cinebench R23, the multicore result for the Ultra 7 265F is 41980, while the Core 5 211E manages 20389, a 51.4% gap. The R23 single-core test closes at 5926 versus 2878, another 51.4% margin.

The Passmark suite reinforces this pattern. Data compression favors the Ultra 7 265F at 507018 versus 346757, a 31.6% lead. Data encryption shows a larger gap: 39468 versus 17938, or 54.6%. Extended instructions deliver 39235 against 21592, a 45% difference. The most extreme result appears in the find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 7 265F scores 416 against just 43 for the Core 5 211E, an 89.7% deficit for the smaller chip.

Floating point math heavily favors the Ultra 7 265F at 173855 versus 66402, a 61.8% margin. Integer math shows 138078 against 88117, a 36.2% gap. The multithread test delivers 49410 versus 23833, a 51.8% difference. Physics simulation produces 3172 against 702, a 77.9% gap. Random string sorting closes at 62439 versus 34308, a 45.1% lead. The single-thread test is the closest comparison at 4750 versus 4006, a 15.7% advantage for the Ultra 7 265F.

The average benchmark score confirms the overall positioning. The Ultra 7 265F holds an average of 64438 and sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 211E averages 37829 and ranks in the 86th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 5 211E are clustered tightly around its score: the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 trails by 0.1%, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 trails by 0.2%, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 leads by 0.2%, and the Intel Core i9-14901E leads by 0.2%. For the Ultra 7 265F, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 leads by 0.3%, the AMD EPYC 7343 trails by 0.4%, the AMD EPYC 4464P leads by 0.6%, and the Intel Core i9-13900KS trails by 0.6%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F boosts to 5.30 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 211E reaches 4.90 GHz.

Q: How much faster is the Ultra 7 265F in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Ultra 7 265F scores 41980 versus 20389 for the Core 5 211E, a 51.4% advantage.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core 5 211E supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F does not.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 5 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 265F supports DDR5 only.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E includes UHD Graphics 730. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics (listed as N/A).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Ultra 7 265F provides 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the Core 5 211E delivers 76.8 GB/s.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins every measured benchmark category, so the use-case split is defined by the magnitude of its advantages rather than by any reversal. In single-threaded performance, the 15.7% lead in the Passmark single-thread test and 51.6% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core make the Ultra 7 265F the clear choice for lightly threaded applications. The higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz against 4.90 GHz supports this advantage.

For heavily threaded workloads, the Ultra 7 265F extends its lead further. The Cinebench R23 multicore gap of 51.4% and the Passmark multithread gap of 51.8% point to a processor that scales better across its 20 cores and 20 threads. The Core 5 211E offers 10 cores and 16 threads, which explains part of the deficit. The physics simulation result is especially lopsided: 3172 versus 702, a 77.9% gap. Workloads that stress floating point operations, such as scientific computing or rendering, will see the biggest relative benefit, as the 61.8% floating point math margin demonstrates.

The Core 5 211E retains some niche relevance. Its ECC memory support makes it suitable for systems where data integrity is a requirement. It also supports DDR4 memory, which can be relevant for platforms with existing DDR4 infrastructure. Its socket is Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 7 265F uses Intel Socket 1851, so the two processors target different platform generations. The Core 5 211E also includes UHD Graphics 730, enabling a display output without a discrete GPU, whereas the Ultra 7 265F requires a separate graphics card.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads. The base clock of the Core 5 211E is 2.70 GHz versus 2.40 GHz for the Ultra 7 265F, but the boost clock reverses the order: 4.90 GHz for the Core 5 211E and 5.30 GHz for the Ultra 7 265F. Both processors share a 65 W TDP.

The sockets differ entirely. The Core 5 211E uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Ultra 7 265F uses Intel Socket 1851. The process node also differs: the Core 5 211E is built on a 10 nm process by Intel, while the Ultra 7 265F uses a 3 nm process from TSMC. The die size is similar but not identical: 257 mm² for the Core 5 211E and 243 mm² for the Ultra 7 265F. The Ultra 7 265F lists 17,800 million transistors; the Core 5 211E does not report a transistor count.

Cache configurations diverge significantly. The Core 5 211E has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 265F has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 265F supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 211E and 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 7 265F. ECC memory is supported on the Core 5 211E but not on the Ultra 7 265F.

PCIe lanes also differ: the Core 5 211E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 7 265F provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics situation is a clear split: UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 5 211E, nothing on the Ultra 7 265F. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 211E is $221, and the launch MSRP for the Ultra 7 265F is $379. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Both are active production parts for the desktop segment. Release dates are close: January 12, 2025 for the Core 5 211E and January 6, 2025 for the Ultra 7 265F.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is substantial. The Core 5 211E belongs to the Bartlett Lake family, while the Ultra 7 265F is built on Arrow Lake architecture with the codename Arrow Lake-S. The Core 5 211E is manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel, whereas the Ultra 7 265F uses a 3 nm process at TSMC. This foundry and node difference explains much of the performance gap: the smaller process allows the Ultra 7 265F to pack 20 cores into a 243 mm² die, nearly identical in size to the 257 mm² die of the 10-core Core 5 211E.

The core and thread counts reflect different design philosophies. The Core 5 211E offers 10 cores with 16 threads, indicating simultaneous multithreading. The Ultra 7 265F provides 20 cores and 20 threads, which implies no multithreading per core but double the physical core count. For workloads that scale with physical cores, the Ultra 7 265F has a clear structural advantage.

Cache hierarchies also reflect the generational leap. The Ultra 7 265F nearly doubles the L1 cache per core to 192 KB and increases L2 per core to 3 MB, against 80 KB and 2 MB for the Core 5 211E. Shared L3 grows from 20 MB to 30 MB. These larger caches support the higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, up from 76.8 GB/s.

The Arrow Lake architecture on the Ultra 7 265F also brings a higher boost ceiling at 5.30 GHz, despite a lower base clock of 2.40 GHz. The process node advantage from TSMC enables this combination of higher core count and higher peak frequency. The Core 5 211E compensates with a higher base clock of 2.70 GHz but cannot match the peak performance.

Feature support differs in practical ways. The Core 5 211E includes ECC memory and integrated UHD Graphics 730, making it a fit for compact systems or those requiring error-correcting memory. The Ultra 7 265F drops both, and adds 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes instead of 16. The Ultra 7 265F also uses DDR5 exclusively, while the Core 5 211E retains DDR4 compatibility. These choices indicate that the Ultra 7 265F is designed for maximum compute throughput on a modern platform, while the Core 5 211E offers broader memory and display flexibility. The benchmark data consistently favors the Ultra 7 265F, with the widest margins appearing in physics, floating point math, and prime number calculation, all of which benefit from the larger core count, newer process node, and expanded cache.