Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clear split between the Intel Core 5 211E and the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, with the Ultra 7 taking 13 of 17 recorded benchmarks. The most dramatic single win for the Ultra 7 comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 327 against 43 for the Core 5, a 86.9% advantage. PassMark physics follows a similar pattern, with the Ultra 7 at 2895 versus 702, a 75.8% lead. These two results point to a substantial difference in raw computational throughput per cycle or per core.

The Cinebench R20 multicore test also heavily favors the Ultra 7: 12153 versus 8563, a 29.5% margin. Cinebench R15 multicore shows a comparable gap, with 3055 against 2055, a 32.7% difference. PassMark multithread confirms the trend, as the Ultra 7 posts 33978 versus 23833, a 29.9% lead. The Ultra 7 also wins PassMark floating point math with 103128 against 66402, a 35.6% advantage, and PassMark data encryption at 26345 versus 17938, a 31.9% gap.

The Core 5 211E, however, claims the most important single-core benchmark. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2878 against 2040 for the Ultra 7, a 41.1% margin. That is a decisive result and suggests the Core 5 has a significant clock-for-clock or frequency advantage in lightly threaded workloads. The Core 5 also wins Cinebench R23 multicore with 20389 versus 18395, a 10.8% edge, despite losing the older R15 and R20 multicore tests. PassMark integer math goes to the Core 5 as well, 88117 versus 83111, a 6% lead, and PassMark data compression follows with 346757 versus 336177, a 3.1% margin.

The remaining single-thread tests are close. PassMark single thread shows 4072 for the Ultra 7 versus 4006 for the Core 5, a 1.6% difference that narrowly favors the Ultra 7. Cinebench R15 single-core also goes to the Ultra 7, 303 versus 289, a 4.6% edge. But Cinebench R20 single-core is a larger win for the Ultra 7, 1715 versus 1208, a 29.6% gap, which is harder to reconcile with the R23 single-core result unless workload scaling differs across Cinebench versions.

PassMark extended instructions goes to the Ultra 7, 27898 versus 21592, a 22.6% lead, and PassMark random string sorting also favors the Ultra 7, 40990 versus 34308, a 16.3% margin. The overall average benchmark score reflects the Ultra 7's broader dominance: 41215 against 37829, an 8.9% difference. The Core 5 sits at the 86th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 7 sits at the 87th percentile, so both are high performers in the database, but the Ultra 7's wins are more numerous and often larger.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H dominates in multi-threaded and compute-heavy workloads. Its wins in Cinebench R15 and R20 multicore, PassMark multithread, floating point math, data encryption, extended instructions, find prime numbers, physics, and random string sorting all point toward sustained throughput under parallel load. The 16-core, 16-thread configuration appears to deliver strong scaling in tasks that use many threads, and the 3 nm process node likely contributes to efficiency that allows such output within a 25 W TDP.

The Intel Core 5 211E wins in a narrower set of scenarios, but they are meaningful. Cinebench R23 single-core is its standout result, with a 41.1% lead over the Ultra 7. That suggests the Core 5 is the better choice for lightly threaded applications where a single core does most of the work, such as older games or certain legacy software. The R23 multicore win, 10.8% ahead, is notable because it contradicts the R15 and R20 multicore results. This could indicate that the Core 5's higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz versus 4.70 GHz helps in longer or more sustained all-core loads, or that the workload composition in R23 favors its cache layout. The Core 5 also wins PassMark integer math and data compression, which are integer-heavy and memory-latency-sensitive tasks. The 20 MB shared L3 cache versus 18 MB, along with a 2 MB per-core L2 versus 2.5 MB per-core, may play a role here.

For general desktop use, the Core 5 fits a system where single-thread responsiveness and a 65 W TDP are acceptable. For mobile or embedded use, the Ultra 7's 25 W TDP and 16 cores make it more suited to battery-aware environments or compact chassis. The data also shows the Ultra 7 wins PassMark single thread by a small 1.6% margin, so for pure single-thread PassMark workloads, the two are nearly tied, but Cinebench R23 tells a different story.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel lineups and process nodes. The Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on a 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 7 356H uses the Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm process. The die size for the Core 5 is recorded as 257 mm², while the Ultra 7 has no listed die size. The core counts differ substantially: 10 cores and 16 threads for the Core 5, versus 16 cores and 16 threads for the Ultra 7. Notably, the Ultra 7 does not have hyper-threading in the recorded data, since its thread count equals its core count, while the Core 5 has 16 threads from 10 cores.

Cache organization also differs. The Core 5 lists 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 lists 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 on the Ultra 7 may explain some of its floating point and encryption wins, while the Core 5's larger shared L3 could benefit integer and compression tasks. The process node difference, 10 nm versus 3 nm, is a major architectural gap, but the fact that the Core 5 still wins several benchmarks suggests frequency and cache configuration can offset some of the node advantage.

The integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 5 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 7 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The Ultra 7 also supports LPDDR5X memory in addition to DDR5, while the Core 5 supports DDR4 and DDR5. The memory bandwidth figures differ, with the Ultra 7 at 115.2 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5, which likely contributes to the Ultra 7's wins in memory-intensive tests like find prime numbers and random string sorting.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show clear divergences. The Core 5 has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, while the Ultra 7 has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The TDP differs significantly: 65 W for the Core 5 versus 25 W for the Ultra 7. The socket types are different, with the Core 5 using Intel Socket 1700 and the Ultra 7 using Intel BGA 2540, meaning the Core 5 is a desktop socketed part while the Ultra 7 is a mobile soldered part. The market segments confirm this: Desktop for the Core 5, Mobile for the Ultra 7.

Memory support differs, as the Core 5 supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the bandwidth numbers differ as noted. ECC memory support is present on the Core 5 but absent on the Ultra 7. PCIe lanes differ: the Core 5 has Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Ultra 7 has Gen 5 with 12 lanes. The Core 5 has a launch MSRP of $221, while the Ultra 7 has no recorded launch MSRP. Both are listed as Active production and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The release dates differ, with the Core 5 released in January 2025 and the Ultra 7 in January 2026.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E scores 20389 versus 18395 for the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, a 10.8% lead for the Core 5.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Core 5 scores 2878 against 2040 for the Ultra 7, a 41.1% advantage for the Core 5 in that specific test.

Q: Does the Ultra 7 win any single-thread benchmarks?

A: Yes. The Ultra 7 wins PassMark single thread with 4072 versus 4006, a 1.6% edge, and Cinebench R15 single-core with 303 versus 289, a 4.6% lead.

Q: Why does the Ultra 7 win most multicore tests but lose Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The data shows the Ultra 7 wins Cinebench R15 and R20 multicore by 32.7% and 29.5% respectively, but the Core 5 wins R23 multicore by 10.8%. This inconsistency may stem from different workload scaling or thermal behavior, but the recorded results show both patterns clearly.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 5 supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel buses, but the Ultra 7 has a higher recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The Core 5 has a TDP of 65 W, while the Ultra 7 has a TDP of 25 W. The Ultra 7 is designed for mobile use, while the Core 5 is a desktop part.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H is the stronger overall performer, winning 13 of 17 head-to-head tests and posting a higher average benchmark score of 41215 versus 37829. Its dominance in multithreaded, floating point, encryption, and physics workloads makes it the clear choice for parallel compute tasks. The 16 cores and 3 nm process node appear to deliver substantial throughput, and the 25 W TDP makes it suitable for mobile systems where power efficiency matters. The 87th percentile ranking versus 86th for the Core 5 reinforces its slight overall edge.

However, the Intel Core 5 211E is not without a case. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2878 is 41.1% ahead of the Ultra 7, which is a massive gap for lightly threaded applications. The R23 multicore win of 10.8% also shows that in at least one sustained all-core workload, the Core 5 can take the lead despite having fewer cores. The 65 W TDP and desktop socket make it easier to cool and upgrade, and the 16 PCIe lanes provide more expansion bandwidth than the Ultra 7's 12 lanes. For users who prioritize single-thread performance or need a socketed desktop processor, the Core 5 is the logical pick.

The data does not support a universal recommendation. For mobile or power-constrained environments, the Ultra 7's wins across most benchmarks and its lower TDP make it the obvious choice. For desktop builds where single-core speed in Cinebench R23 matters most, or where ECC memory support is required, the Core 5 fits better. The 4.90 GHz boost clock on the Core 5 versus 4.70 GHz on the Ultra 7 likely explains some of the single-core advantage, but the Ultra 7 compensates with more cores and a more advanced process node. Each processor wins where its design strengths apply, and the recorded data provides clear evidence for both paths.