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

Intel Core 5 211E and Intel Core Ultra 7 265T are two desktop processors from the same manufacturer that serve different performance tiers. The recorded data shows a complete victory for the Core Ultra 7 265T across every benchmark in the database, with 17 wins out of 17 head-to-head comparisons. The Core Ultra 7 265T also holds a higher percentile ranking at 90 versus 86 for the Core 5 211E, and its average benchmark score of 47697 substantially exceeds the 37829 average of the Core 5 211E.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 7 265T dominates in every measured workload, with the largest gaps appearing in computationally intensive tests. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core Ultra 7 265T scores 31558 against 20389 for the Core 5 211E, a delta of -35.4 percent from the perspective of the Core 5 211E. The single-core Cinebench R23 results show a similar pattern: 4455 for the Core Ultra 7 265T versus 2878 for the Core 5 211E, also a -35.4 percent delta. This consistency across both single-threaded and multi-threaded Cinebench tests indicates the Core Ultra 7 265T has a fundamental architectural advantage rather than merely more cores.

The PassMark physics test reveals the most extreme disparity. The Core Ultra 7 265T scores 2391, while the Core 5 211E manages only 702, a -70.6 percent delta. This nearly three-fold difference suggests the physics workload benefits enormously from the Core Ultra 7 265T architecture. Similarly, the PassMark floating point math test shows the Core Ultra 7 265T at 129817 versus 66402 for the Core 5 211E, a -48.8 percent delta. The find prime numbers test is another outlier: 322 for the Core Ultra 7 265T versus just 43 for the Core 5 211E, a -86.6 percent delta that represents the largest relative gap in the entire comparison.

Data encryption also favors the Core Ultra 7 265T heavily, with a score of 29687 against 17938, a -39.6 percent delta. Integer math shows a smaller but still decisive margin: 104943 versus 88117, a -16 percent delta. The closest contest is in PassMark single-thread performance, where the Core Ultra 7 265T scores 4338 and the Core 5 211E scores 4006, a -7.7 percent delta. Data compression is similarly close at -6.3 percent, with scores of 370158 and 346757 respectively. Extended instructions show a -24.5 percent delta, random string sorting a -22.7 percent delta, and multithread a -35.7 percent delta. No benchmark in the database records a win for the Core 5 211E.

Architecture Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in their underlying design. The Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel, with a die size of 257 mm². The Core Ultra 7 265T uses the Arrow Lake-S codename on a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC, with a die size of 243 mm². The transistor count for the Core Ultra 7 265T is listed as 17,800 million, while no transistor count is recorded for the Core 5 211E.

Core configuration differs substantially. The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 265T has 20 cores and 20 threads. This indicates the Core Ultra 7 265T does not use hyper-threading in the same manner, as its thread count equals its core count. The cache hierarchy also differs: 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 Core Ultra 7 265T has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache.

Clock speeds show a trade-off between efficiency and peak performance. The Core 5 211E has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 265T has a lower base clock of 1.50 GHz but a higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The power envelope also differs significantly, with the Core 5 211E rated at 65 watts TDP and the Core Ultra 7 265T at just 35 watts TDP. This combination of lower TDP and higher boost clock for the Core Ultra 7 265T points to the efficiency gains from the 3 nm process node.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 5 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the Core Ultra 7 265T supports only DDR5 but achieves a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses. ECC memory support is present on the Core 5 211E but absent on the Core Ultra 7 265T. PCIe lanes also differ: the Core 5 211E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Core Ultra 7 265T provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 211E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 7 265T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Sockets are not interchangeable: the Core 5 211E uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Core Ultra 7 265T uses Intel Socket 1851. Release dates are close, with the Core 5 211E released on 2025-01-12 and the Core Ultra 7 265T on 2025-01-06. Both have locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded benchmark data, the Core Ultra 7 265T wins in every category measured. The database contains no workload where the Core 5 211E outperforms it. The closest margins for the Core 5 211E are in single-threaded tasks and data compression, where the deltas are only -7.7 percent and -6.3 percent respectively. These are the areas where the Core 5 211E is least disadvantaged, though it still trails.

The Core Ultra 7 265T shows its largest advantages in physics simulation, prime number finding, and floating point math. These workloads benefit from the combination of more cores, larger caches, and the higher boost clock. The physics score of 2391 against 702 represents the kind of margin that changes application performance qualitatively, not just incrementally. Similarly, the floating point math score of 129817 versus 66402 indicates roughly double the throughput in numerically intensive tasks.

For users running Cinebench-style rendering workloads, the Core Ultra 7 265T delivers consistently better results across all three Cinebench versions recorded. The multicore scores of 3180, 13254, and 31558 in R15, R20, and R23 respectively all exceed the Core 5 211E scores of 2055, 8563, and 20389 by the same -35.4 percent margin. The single-core Cinebench results mirror this pattern with -35.4 to -35.6 percent deltas.

The Core 5 211E does offer features that the Core Ultra 7 265T lacks, namely ECC memory support and compatibility with both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. These are not benchmark performance factors but may influence platform choices. The Core 5 211E also has a higher base clock of 2.70 GHz versus 1.50 GHz, which could translate to better sustained performance in lightly threaded workloads under certain conditions, though the benchmark data does not confirm this advantage.

The Verdict

The benchmark data supports selecting the Core Ultra 7 265T for any performance-oriented application. Its average benchmark score of 47697 places it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 211E sits at the 86th percentile with an average score of 37829. The Core Ultra 7 265T also compares favorably to its nearest rivals in the database, including the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D with a delta of -0.4 percent and the AMD Ryzen 9 3900 with a delta of -0.5 percent. The Core 5 211E sits within 0.2 percent of its nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 and the Intel Core i9-14901E.

The Core Ultra 7 265T offers more cores, more threads, larger caches, a higher boost clock, and lower TDP. These specifications align with its superior benchmark results. The Core 5 211E cannot be recommended on performance grounds from the recorded data, since it loses every single benchmark comparison. Its advantages are limited to ECC memory support and DDR4 compatibility, which matter only for specific platform requirements.

For users who need maximum performance in rendering, physics simulation, encryption, or floating point workloads, the Core Ultra 7 265T is the clear choice. For users who require ECC memory or prefer DDR4 memory support, the Core 5 211E is the only option among these two, but they must accept a substantial performance penalty. The 35 percent delta in Cinebench multicore scores represents a meaningful difference in real-world rendering times.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T has 20 cores, while the Intel Core 5 211E has 10 cores.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: In PassMark single-thread testing, the Core Ultra 7 265T scores 4338 versus 4006 for the Core 5 211E, a delta of -7.7 percent from the Core 5 211E perspective.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

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

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265T has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, compared to 4.90 GHz for the Core 5 211E.

Q: How do the processors compare in multi-threaded performance?

A: In PassMark multithread testing, the Core Ultra 7 265T scores 37084 versus 23833 for the Core 5 211E, a -35.7 percent delta. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 31558 versus 20389, a -35.4 percent delta.

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

A: The PassMark find prime numbers test shows the largest gap, with the Core Ultra 7 265T scoring 322 and the Core 5 211E scoring 43, a -86.6 percent delta.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Core 5 211E | Core Ultra 7 265T |

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

| Cores | 10 | 20 |

| Threads | 16 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 35 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 257 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 20 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2025-01-06 |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | $384 |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |