Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive picture with the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 winning all 17 recorded comparisons. The most striking margins appear in the Passmark prime number test, where the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 459 versus 43 for the Core 5 211E, a delta of -90.6% from the perspective of the smaller chip. This suggests a massive advantage in workloads that depend on raw integer iteration and branch prediction.

The Cinebench suite shows consistent deltas around -58% across both single-core and multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 posts 48945 while the Core 5 211E manages 20389, a -58.3% delta. Single-core R23 shows 6909 versus 2878, also -58.3%. The consistency of these deltas across all three Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23) indicates the performance gap scales uniformly rather than appearing only in specific thread counts.

Passmark floating point math shows the Core Ultra 9 285 at 194988 versus 66402, a -65.9% delta. This is one of the larger gaps outside of prime numbers. The physics test shows an even wider split at -80.5%, with scores of 3598 and 702 respectively. Data encryption shows -61.8%, with 46949 versus 17938.

The narrowest gap appears in Passmark single-thread performance, where the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4881 versus 4006, a -17.9% delta. Even in this more favorable comparison for the Core 5 211E, the Ultra 9 leads by a meaningful margin. Data compression shows -42.4%, integer math -46.6%, extended instructions -52.4%, random string sorting -53.4%, and multithread -57.9%. No benchmark category favors the Core 5 211E in any measurable way.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families entirely. The Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arrow Lake-S on a 3 nm process node from TSMC. The process node difference alone explains much of the efficiency and frequency headroom observed in the benchmarks.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement with some efficiency cores. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, suggesting no hyperthreading on any of its cores, which is a notable design choice. Despite having fewer threads per core, the Ultra 9 still delivers far higher multi-threaded scores due to the sheer core count advantage.

Cache hierarchies scale with the core counts. The Core 5 211E has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches on the Ultra 9 contribute to its single-thread advantage, while the extra shared L3 helps with multi-threaded data sharing.

Memory support differs. The Core 5 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel bus and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285 supports only DDR5 with dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 33% bandwidth advantage for the Ultra 9 aligns with its stronger performance in memory-sensitive workloads like data compression.

PCIe lane allocation also differs: the Core 5 211E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Core Ultra 9 285 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The integrated graphics differ as well, with the Core 5 211E using UHD Graphics 730 and the Core Ultra 9 285 using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Both support ECC memory. The Core 5 211E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851, meaning no cross-compatibility between platforms.

The die size is similar at 257 mm² for the Core 5 211E and 243 mm² for the Core Ultra 9 285, but the transistor count for the Ultra 9 is listed at 17,800 million. The Core 5 211E has no transistor count listed. The production status for both is Active, with the Core 5 211E released on 2025-01-12 and the Core Ultra 9 285 on 2024-12-31.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows no benchmark category where the Core 5 211E wins. Every single test in the head-to-head comparison favors the Core Ultra 9 285. The closest contest is single-thread performance, where the Ultra 9 leads by only 17.9%. This indicates that for lightly threaded applications, such as older games or single-threaded productivity tools, the gap narrows considerably, though the Ultra 9 still holds the advantage.

For multi-threaded workloads, the Ultra 9 dominates. The Cinebench multi-core tests show consistent 58.3% leads, and Passmark multithread shows 57.9%. This translates to strong advantages in rendering, video encoding, and other parallel tasks. The physics test shows the widest multi-threaded gap at 80.5%, suggesting the Ultra 9 handles simulation workloads far better.

The prime number test shows the most extreme difference at 90.6%. This type of workload is highly sensitive to both core count and per-core integer throughput, and the combination of 24 cores with larger caches gives the Ultra 9 a decisive edge. Data encryption also favors the Ultra 9 heavily at 61.8%, which matters for security applications and compressed storage.

The Core 5 211E remains a functional desktop processor. Its 10 cores and 16 threads are sufficient for general productivity, and its 65 W TDP matches the Ultra 9's 65 W TDP, indicating similar power envelopes. The Core 5 211E supports DDR4 memory, which can be an advantage in systems where DDR4 is already installed. Its Gen 5 PCIe with 16 lanes is adequate for most GPUs and NVMe drives.

The Ultra 9's advantages in floating point math (65.9%), extended instructions (52.4%), and random string sorting (53.4%) make it better suited for scientific computing, cryptography, and database operations. The data compression lead of 42.4% helps with file archiving and backup workloads.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the superior processor in every measured benchmark category. Its average benchmark score of 75488 places it at the 95th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 5 211E sits at 37829 and the 86th percentile. The Ultra 9's nearest rivals include AMD EPYC 8224P at 75582 (-0.1% delta), AMD EPYC 4545P at 75373 (0.2%), AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D at 75716 (-0.3%), and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 at 75738 (-0.3%). The Core 5 211E's nearest rivals are all within 0.2% of its average score, showing it performs in a completely different tier.

Users who require maximum multi-threaded throughput, particularly for rendering, simulation, or heavy data processing, should select the Core Ultra 9 285. The 24-core design with 36 MB L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth provides the headroom these workloads demand. The launch MSRP of $579 reflects its positioning at the top of Intel's desktop lineup.

Users who need a functional desktop processor with modest performance requirements can consider the Core 5 211E. Its 10 cores and 16 threads handle everyday tasks, and DDR4 support allows reuse of existing memory modules. The launch MSRP of $221 positions it as a mid-range option, though the benchmark data shows it cannot compete with the Ultra 9 in any measured category.

The 65 W TDP for both processors is notable. The Core Ultra 9 285 delivers roughly two to five times the performance in most tests while consuming the same rated power. This efficiency comes from the 3 nm TSMC process and the absence of hyperthreading, which reduces power overhead per core. The Core 5 211E's 10 nm Intel process is less efficient, and the data confirms this.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4881 in Passmark single-thread versus 4006 for the Core 5 211E, a 17.9% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 9 scores 6909 versus 2878, a 58.3% advantage.

Q: How do the multi-core scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 leads by 58.3% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (48945 versus 20389), 57.9% in Passmark multithread (56602 versus 23833), and 65.9% in floating point math (194988 versus 66402).

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 5 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 285 supports only DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses, with bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 211E and 102.4 GB/s for the Core Ultra 9 285.

Q: Are the processors compatible with the same motherboard socket?

A: No. The Core 5 211E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851. They require different motherboards and are not interchangeable.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration for each?

A: The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, indicating hyperthreading on some cores. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, with no hyperthreading on any core.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The Core 5 211E has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 211E | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 |

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

| Cores | 10 | 24 |

| Threads | 16 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| 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) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

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

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

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

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | $579 |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2024-12-31 |

| Part Number | SRQERQ65F | SRQD4 |