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

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF has an average benchmark score of 71910, while the Intel Core 5 211E scores 37829. The Ultra 7 sits at the 94th percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Core 5 places at the 86th percentile.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads. Despite having fewer threads than cores on the Ultra 7, the core count advantage is substantial.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265KF has a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The Core 5 211E has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Ultra 7 leads by 1.20 GHz at base and 0.60 GHz at boost.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

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

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

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

Q: How large is the L3 cache on each processor?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF has 30 MB of shared L3 cache.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark data shows a sweep: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF wins all 17 recorded comparisons. The Core 5 211E does not win a single test in the database. That said, the margin of victory varies considerably by workload type, and the Core 5 211E is not uniformly distant from the Ultra 7.

The closest contest is in single-threaded PassMark performance. The Core 5 211E scores 4006 in PassMark single-thread, while the Ultra 7 scores 4928, a delta of 18.7%. That is the smallest gap in the entire dataset. The Core 5 211E's single-core Cinebench scores show a similar pattern, with a 59% deficit in R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests, but those Cinebench deltas are much larger than the PassMark single-thread delta.

The largest gaps appear in integer-heavy and prime-number workloads. PassMark find prime numbers shows the Core 5 211E at 43 versus the Ultra 7 at 486, a 91.2% difference. PassMark physics also shows a massive divide: 702 versus 3633, a delta of 80.7%. These are workloads where the Ultra 7's core count and architecture advantages compound.

For memory bandwidth sensitive tasks, the Ultra 7 leads with 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s. The Ultra 7 also supports only DDR5, while the Core 5 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The PCIe lane count favors the Ultra 7 as well: 20 Gen 5 lanes compared to 16 Gen 5 lanes on the Core 5 211E.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different manufacturing nodes and foundries. The Intel Core 5 211E is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry and uses the Bartlett Lake codename. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF uses a 3 nm process fabricated by TSMC, with the Arrow Lake-S codename and Arrow Lake architecture.

Transistor counts are not listed for the Core 5 211E, but the Ultra 7 265KF contains 17,800 million transistors. The die sizes are close: 257 mm² for the Core 5 211E and 243 mm² for the Ultra 7 265KF. The smaller die with far more transistors on the Ultra 7 reflects the denser 3 nm process.

Cache hierarchy differs significantly. The Core 5 211E 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 265KF has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. Every level of cache favors the Ultra 7.

The Core 5 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 7 265KF supports DDR5 only. The memory bus is dual-channel on both, but the bandwidth differs: 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 and 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 7.

The Core 5 211E includes integrated UHD Graphics 730. The Ultra 7 265KF has no integrated graphics at all. The "KF" designation in the Ultra 7 name indicates the absence of graphics, which the data confirms.

The Core 5 211E supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Ultra 7 265KF. The Core 5 211E also uses the older Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 7 265KF uses Intel Socket 1851.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ markedly: 10 cores and 16 threads for the Core 5 211E versus 20 cores and 20 threads for the Ultra 7 265KF. The Ultra 7 has no hyperthreading, so thread count equals core count. The Core 5 has 6 extra threads beyond its core count.

Clock speeds favor the Ultra 7. The base clock is 3.90 GHz versus 2.70 GHz, and the boost clock is 5.50 GHz versus 4.90 GHz. The TDP also differs substantially: 125 W for the Ultra 7 versus 65 W for the Core 5 211E.

The Ultra 7 265KF is multiplier unlocked, while the Core 5 211E is not. This gives the Ultra 7 overclocking headroom that the Core 5 lacks.

Release dates differ by roughly three months. The Ultra 7 265KF was released on 2024-10-23, and the Core 5 211E followed on 2025-01-12. Both are listed as Active in production status.

Memory support differs: the Core 5 supports DDR4 and DDR5, the Ultra 7 supports DDR5 only. Memory bandwidth favors the Ultra 7 at 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s. ECC support exists only on the Core 5.

PCIe configuration differs: the Core 5 211E has 16 Gen 5 lanes, the Ultra 7 265KF has 20 Gen 5 lanes. The process node differs: 10 nm Intel for the Core 5, 3 nm TSMC for the Ultra 7.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results show a consistent 59% deficit for the Core 5 211E in both single-core and multi-core tests across all three Cinebench versions. In R15 multi-core, the Core 5 scores 2055 versus 5013 for the Ultra 7. In R15 single-core, the scores are 289 and 707. The R20 multi-core test shows 8563 versus 20889, and R20 single-core shows 1208 versus 2948. R23 multi-core shows 20389 versus 49736, and R23 single-core shows 2878 versus 7021. Every Cinebench delta is exactly 59% or 59.1%, which indicates the relative performance gap is stable across these rendering workloads.

The PassMark suite reveals a wider spread of deltas. The smallest gap is in single-thread performance: 4006 versus 4928, a delta of 18.7%. This suggests the Core 5 211E's single-core performance is closer to the Ultra 7 than the Cinebench single-core numbers might suggest. The Core 5's boost clock of 4.90 GHz is reasonably high, and the architecture difference matters less in lightly threaded work.

Integer math shows a 38.5% delta: 88117 for the Core 5 versus 143351 for the Ultra 7. Data compression shows a 48% delta: 346757 versus 666589. Random string sorting shows a 57% delta: 34308 versus 79735. These are moderate gaps compared to other PassMark tests.

The largest deltas appear in specialized workloads. Find prime numbers shows a 91.2% delta (43 versus 486). Physics shows an 80.7% delta (702 versus 3633). Floating point math shows a 64.9% delta (66402 versus 189431). Data encryption shows a 62.8% delta (17938 versus 48198). Extended instructions show a 60.4% delta (21592 versus 54513). Multithread performance shows a 59.3% delta (23833 versus 58518).

The Ultra 7 265KF also has Geekbench scores recorded in its individual benchmark list: 22913 multi-core and 2759 single-core. The Core 5 211E does not have Geekbench scores in the database, so no direct comparison is possible for that suite.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF outperforms the Intel Core 5 211E in every benchmark recorded in the database. The average benchmark score of 71910 for the Ultra 7 is roughly 90% higher than the Core 5's 37829. The percentile ranking confirms this: 94th versus 86th.

The nearest rivals for each processor provide context. The Core 5 211E sits within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 and the Intel Core i9-14901E, and within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132. This places the Core 5 in a competitive mid-range bracket. The Ultra 7 265KF sits within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX and within 0.8% of the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270, which places it in a higher performance tier.

Users who need ECC memory support, integrated graphics, or DDR4 compatibility should consider the Core 5 211E. It also draws less power at 65 W TDP versus 125 W, which may matter for constrained thermal environments. The Core 5's single-thread PassMark score of 4006 is within 18.7% of the Ultra 7, making it a reasonable choice for lightly threaded workloads where the price difference matters.

Users who need maximum multi-core throughput, higher memory bandwidth, more PCIe lanes, or overclocking capability should select the Ultra 7 265KF. The 20-core configuration, 30 MB of L3 cache, and 3 nm process deliver decisive wins in every multi-threaded and math-intensive benchmark. The 5.50 GHz boost clock and unlocked multiplier add further headroom. The Ultra 7 also releases earlier, appearing in the database with an October 2024 launch date compared to January 2025 for the Core 5.

The data does not support any scenario where the Core 5 211E wins a performance comparison. The choice comes down to feature requirements: ECC, integrated graphics, and DDR4 support versus raw performance, cache, bandwidth, and overclocking.