Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX Comparison

Intel Core 5 211E and Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX represent two distinct design philosophies from Intel, aimed at different market segments. The Core 5 211E is a desktop processor built on the Bartlett Lake architecture, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX is a mobile flagship from the Arrow Lake-HX family. The benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy, with the Core Ultra 9 275HX dominating multi-threaded and most single-threaded workloads, but the Core 5 211E securing a notable victory in one specific test.

Where Each One Wins

The performance split between these two processors is stark, with the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX winning 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. Its victories span every major category: multi-core rendering, data compression, encryption, extended instruction sets, prime number calculation, floating-point and integer math, multithreaded workloads, physics simulation, random string sorting, and single-thread performance as measured by PassMark.

The Intel Core 5 211E wins exactly one benchmark: Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 2878 against the Core Ultra 9 275HX's 2204. This is a significant margin of 30.6% in favor of the desktop chip. This single win highlights a specific advantage in lightly-threaded, cache-sensitive workloads that favor its architecture. In every other test, the Core Ultra 9 275HX delivers higher scores, often by substantial margins. The data indicates the Core Ultra 9 275HX is the clear choice for any workload that can utilize more than one or two cores, while the Core 5 211E holds a specific edge in a narrow single-thread scenario.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between the two chips is fundamental. The Intel Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake architecture, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process node with a die size of 257 mm². It features 10 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, providing 76.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The processor also offers ECC memory support and uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform.

In contrast, the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is built on the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-HX, fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm process node. This is a more advanced process, reflected in its transistor count of 17,800 million and a smaller die size of 243 mm². It packs 24 cores and 24 threads, indicating a different core configuration without hyper-threading. Its base clock is the same at 2.70 GHz, but the boost clock is higher at 5.40 GHz. The cache hierarchy is more generous: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. It exclusively supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, achieving a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported. This chip uses the Intel BGA 2114 socket, indicating a mobile form factor, and has an unlocked multiplier.

The integrated graphics also differ: the Core 5 211E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX features a more capable Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The Core Ultra 9 275HX also provides more PCIe lanes (20 Gen 5 lanes) compared to the Core 5 211E's 16 Gen 5 lanes. These differences in process node, core count, cache size, and memory bandwidth explain the performance disparity seen in the benchmarks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results show a consistent pattern of dominance by the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX, with the magnitude of the victory varying by workload. In multi-core Cinebench tests, the lead is substantial. For instance, in Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core Ultra 9 275HX scores 5619.5 against the Core 5 211E's 2055, a delta of -63.4% (where the negative value indicates the Core 5 211E's deficit). This pattern continues in Cinebench R20 multicore, with scores of 19899 versus 8563, a 57% difference. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core Ultra 9 275HX scores 35589 compared to 20389, a 42.7% lead.

Single-core results are more varied. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 275HX wins with 334 versus 289, a 13.5% margin. In Cinebench R20 single-core, its lead expands to 57%, with scores of 2809 versus 1208. However, the situation reverses in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core 5 211E scores 2878, beating the Core Ultra 9 275HX's 2204 by 30.6%. This is the only benchmark where the desktop chip comes out ahead.

PassMark tests further illustrate the Core Ultra 9 275HX's strength. In data compression, it scores 608381 versus 346757, a 43% lead. Data encryption shows a 61.9% advantage (47112 versus 17938). Extended instructions tests result in a 54.1% lead (47016 versus 21592). The most dramatic difference is in find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 9 275HX scores 448 against a mere 43, a 90.4% lead. Floating-point math shows a 65.3% lead (191186 versus 66402), and integer math a 43.2% lead (155218 versus 88117). The multithread test shows a 57.3% advantage (55759 versus 23833), and physics simulation shows a 79% lead (3338 versus 702). Random string sorting is 53.8% faster on the Core Ultra 9 275HX (74320 versus 34308). In PassMark single-thread tests, the Core Ultra 9 275HX wins with 4713 versus 4006, a 15% margin.

The Verdict

The data clearly designates the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX as the superior processor for the vast majority of workloads. Its 24 cores, higher boost clock, larger cache, and faster memory bandwidth translate into massive multi-threaded performance gains, ranging from roughly 43% to over 90% in specific tests like prime number calculation. It also wins most single-threaded benchmarks, except for the one notable case in Cinebench R23.

The Intel Core 5 211E is a capable desktop processor with a single, specific strength: Cinebench R23 single-core performance, where it is 30.6% faster than the Core Ultra 9 275HX. This suggests that for certain legacy or specialized applications that rely heavily on a single core's efficiency in this specific rendering engine, the Core 5 211E could offer a benefit. Its lower core count (10 versus 24) and use of an older 10 nm process, however, place it at a severe disadvantage in any multi-threaded scenario. The Core Ultra 9 275HX, with its 94th percentile ranking versus all CPUs compared to the Core 5 211E's 86th percentile, is the higher-performing part overall. The choice depends entirely on whether the workload is single-thread-bound in the specific manner tested by Cinebench R23, or if it benefits from the Core Ultra 9 275HX's overwhelming multi-core advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is significantly faster in all multi-core tests. For example, it leads by 57.3% in the PassMark multithread test and by 42.7% in Cinebench R23 multicore.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Intel Core 5 211E wins?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 5 211E wins in Cinebench R23 single-core, scoring 2878 compared to the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX's 2204, a 30.6% advantage.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX has 24 cores and 24 threads.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX has a higher bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX does not.

Q: What is the difference in their process nodes?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E is built on a 10 nm process, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is built on a more advanced 3 nm process by TSMC.