Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H decisively outperforms the Intel Core 5 211E in the recorded benchmark data, winning 15 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons. The Core 5 211E manages only two wins, both in PassMark workloads, but the Core Ultra 7 366H dominates across Cinebench and most other tests, often by substantial margins. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 7 366H is 41263, compared to 37829 for the Core 5 211E, placing the former in the 87th percentile of all CPUs and the latter in the 86th.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking advantage for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H appears in the Cinebench suite, where it wins every single test with a consistent delta of 28.4%. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core Ultra 7 366H scores 28477 against the Core 5 211E's 20389. The single-core gap is similarly large: 4020 versus 2878 in Cinebench R23 singlecore, a 28.4% difference. This pattern repeats across Cinebench R15 and R20, with the Core Ultra 7 366H scoring 2870 versus 2055 in R15 multicore, and 11960 versus 8563 in R20 multicore. The consistency of the 28.4% delta across all six Cinebench tests indicates a fundamental performance advantage rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

PassMark results show a more nuanced picture. The Core Ultra 7 366H wins the majority of these tests, but the margins vary widely. The largest overall delta in the entire comparison is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 7 366H scores 326 versus just 43 for the Core 5 211E, a massive 86.8% advantage. PassMark physics also shows a huge gap, with the Core Ultra 7 366H scoring 2880 against 702, a 75.6% difference. Floating point math favors the Core Ultra 7 366H by 35.9%, with scores of 103615 and 66402 respectively. Data encryption shows a 30.6% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 366H (25845 versus 17938), and extended instructions are 19.7% higher (26901 versus 21592). Multithread performance is 28.7% better (33429 versus 23833), and random string sorting is 13.8% faster (39814 versus 34308). Even in the closest test, PassMark single thread, the Core Ultra 7 366H edges ahead with a score of 4043 versus 4006, a 0.9% margin.

The Intel Core 5 211E secures its two wins in PassMark data compression and PassMark integer math. In data compression, the Core 5 211E scores 346757 against 327455, a 5.9% advantage. In integer math, it scores 88117 versus 83695, a 5.3% margin. These wins indicate that the Core 5 211E retains some advantages in specific integer-heavy and compression workloads, but they are narrow victories compared to the scale of the Core Ultra 7 366H's wins elsewhere.

The Verdict

The data clearly directs different users toward different processors. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is the superior choice for any workload that relies on single-threaded speed, floating point math, or broad multithreaded performance. Its Cinebench results, which are consistently 28.4% higher across all versions and both single and multicore tests, confirm a decisive generational advantage. The PassMark physics score, which is 75.6% higher, and the find prime numbers score, which is 86.8% higher, further suggest that the Core Ultra 7 366H is better suited to simulation, scientific computing, and any task that stresses arithmetic intensity.

The Intel Core 5 211E, despite its two benchmark wins, is not the faster processor in the majority of scenarios. Its wins in data compression and integer math are real but narrow, at 5.9% and 5.3% respectively. These specific strengths could matter for users running file compression utilities or integer-heavy database operations, but they do not offset the Core Ultra 7 366H's advantages in nearly every other measured category. The Core 5 211E also holds a higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz compared to 4.80 GHz, but this does not translate into a win in any single-threaded benchmark, where the Core Ultra 7 366H leads by 28.4% in Cinebench and 0.9% in PassMark.

For users prioritizing raw computational throughput, the Core Ultra 7 366H is the clear pick. The data shows that its 16 cores and higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s deliver measurable gains over the Core 5 211E's 10 cores and 76.8 GB/s. The Core 5 211E remains relevant only for the specific workloads where its two wins apply, and even then, the margins are modest.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families with distinct design philosophies. The Intel Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation, built on a 10 nm process node. It is a desktop part with an Intel Socket 1700, a 65 TDP, and a die size of 257 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake codename, belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, and is built on a 3 nm process node. It is a mobile part with an Intel BGA 2540 socket and a significantly lower 25 TDP.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. This means the Core Ultra 7 366H has more physical cores but the same thread count, suggesting a different core topology where each of its 16 cores handles one thread, whereas the Core 5 211E relies on hyperthreading for some of its 16 threads. Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 5 211E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 366H has more L1 and L2 per core, but less total L3.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 5 211E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. Both support dual-channel memory, but the Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5, whereas the Core Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. ECC memory is supported by the Core 5 211E but not by the Core Ultra 7 366H. PCIe lanes also differ: the Core 5 211E has Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Core Ultra 7 366H has Gen 5 with 12 lanes.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows clear divergences across every major category. The Core 5 211E has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz; the Core Ultra 7 366H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core 5 211E draws 65 TDP, the Core Ultra 7 366H draws 25 TDP. The Core 5 211E uses Intel Socket 1700, the Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel BGA 2540. Process nodes are 10 nm for the Core 5 211E and 3 nm for the Core Ultra 7 366H. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 211E and 115.2 GB/s for the Core Ultra 7 366H. The Core 5 211E supports ECC memory, the Core Ultra 7 366H does not. The Core 5 211E has a launch MSRP of $221; the Core Ultra 7 366H has no recorded launch MSRP. Release dates differ, with the Core 5 211E released on 2025-01-12 and the Core Ultra 7 366H on 2026-01-04.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has a higher boost clock at 4.90 GHz, compared to 4.80 GHz for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the Intel Core 5 211E has 76.8 GB/s.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H does not.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads.

Q: In which two benchmarks does the Intel Core 5 211E win?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E wins in PassMark data compression with a score of 346757 and in PassMark integer math with a score of 88117.

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

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H scores 326 versus 43 for the Intel Core 5 211E, an 86.8% difference.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins in 15 of 17 benchmarks, making it the dominant processor for general-purpose computing. Its Cinebench performance, consistently 28.4% higher than the Core 5 211E in both single and multicore tests, covers rendering and CPU-intensive productivity workloads. PassMark physics, floating point math, and extended instructions all show large advantages, pointing to strength in simulation, scientific calculations, and multimedia encoding. The data encryption and multithread tests also favor the Core Ultra 7 366H, indicating solid performance in security-related tasks and parallel workloads.

The Intel Core 5 211E wins in exactly two areas. PassMark data compression shows a 5.9% advantage, which suggests an edge in file archiving and compression utilities. PassMark integer math shows a 5.3% advantage, which could matter for integer-heavy database or financial workloads. Additionally, the Core 5 211E supports ECC memory, which the Core Ultra 7 366H does not, making it the only option of the two for systems requiring error-correcting memory. Its higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz does not produce a single benchmark win, but its 65 TDP and desktop socket indicate a different deployment class. The data shows that the Core Ultra 7 366H is the faster chip in nearly every measured scenario, while the Core 5 211E retains narrow, specialized strengths in compression and integer math alongside its ECC support.