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

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster overall in the database's average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H has a higher average benchmark score of 38312, while the Intel Core 5 211E averages 37829. The Ultra 9 285H sits at the 86th percentile versus all CPUs; the Core 5 211E also sits at the 86th percentile.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap between the two?

A: The Ultra 9 285H wins single-core tests in Cinebench R15 (313 vs 289, 8.3% ahead), Cinebench R20 (1722 vs 1208, 42.5% ahead), and PassMark single-thread (4415 vs 4006, 10.2% ahead). However, the Core 5 211E wins Cinebench R23 single-core (2878 vs 2129.5, 26% ahead).

Q: Does the Core 5 211E win any multi-core benchmarks?

A: No. The Core 5 211E loses every multi-core test: Cinebench R15 (2055 vs 3177.5, 54.6% behind), R20 (8563 vs 12201, 42.5% behind), R23 (20389 vs 20781.5, 1.9% behind), and PassMark multithread (23833 vs 34171, 43.4% behind).

Q: What is the largest performance gap recorded between these two chips?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 9 285H scores 330 versus the Core 5 211E's 43, a 667.4% difference in favor of the Ultra 9.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both list ECC memory support as true. The Ultra 9 285H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Ultra 9 285H boosts to 5.40 GHz, while the Core 5 211E boosts to 4.90 GHz. The Ultra 9 also has a higher base clock at 2.90 GHz versus 2.70 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H and Intel Core 5 211E represent fundamentally different design approaches despite sharing the Intel brand. The Ultra 9 285H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 family, built on Arrow Lake-H architecture with a 3 nm process node manufactured by TSMC. The Core 5 211E uses Bartlett Lake architecture on a 10 nm Intel process node, with a die size of 257 mm².

Core configuration differs substantially. The Ultra 9 285H packs 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Core 5 211E has 10 cores but also 16 threads, indicating the Core 5 uses hyperthreading to reach its thread count while the Ultra 9 does not. The Ultra 9 has a larger L1 cache at 192 KB per core versus 80 KB per core, a larger L2 at 3 MB per core versus 2 MB per core, and more shared L3 at 24 MB versus 20 MB.

Memory support also diverges. The Ultra 9 285H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, but with a lower bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs: the Ultra 9 285H provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes, while the Core 5 211E provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are different as well, with the Ultra 9 featuring Arc Graphics 140T and the Core 5 featuring UHD Graphics 730.

Market positioning is another key differentiator. The Ultra 9 285H is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 2049 socket with a 45 W TDP. The Core 5 211E is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1700 with a 65 W TDP. Both launched on the same date per the database, and both carry active production status. The Ultra 9 has a launch MSRP of $651; the Core 5 has a launch MSRP of $221.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H, which wins 14 of 17 head-to-head comparisons. The Core 5 211E claims only 3 wins. The biggest margins belong to the Ultra 9 in compute-heavy workloads.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 9 scores 3177.5 against 2055, a 54.6% advantage. The R20 multi-core test shows 12201 versus 8563, a 42.5% lead. The R23 multi-core result is much closer at 20781.5 versus 20389, only a 1.9% gap. PassMark multithread shows 34171 versus 23833, a 43.4% lead for the Ultra 9.

Single-core results are more mixed. The Ultra 9 wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 8.3% (313 vs 289) and Cinebench R20 single-core by 42.5% (1722 vs 1208). PassMark single-thread also favors the Ultra 9 at 4415 versus 4006, a 10.2% margin. However, Cinebench R23 single-core goes to the Core 5 211E with 2878 versus 2129.5, a 26% swing in its favor.

Specialized PassMark tests show extreme variance. The Ultra 9 dominates find prime numbers with 330 versus 43, a 667.4% advantage. Physics testing favors the Ultra 9 heavily: 2513 versus 702, a 258% lead. Floating point math also goes to the Ultra 9 at 109190 versus 66402, a 64.4% margin. Data encryption shows 26140 versus 17938, a 45.7% lead. Extended instructions favor the Ultra 9 at 26794 versus 21592, a 24.1% margin. Random string sorting goes to the Ultra 9 at 40931 versus 34308, a 19.3% lead.

The Core 5 211E's wins are narrower. Data compression goes to the Core 5 at 346757 versus 335859, a 3.1% margin. Integer math favors the Core 5 at 88117 versus 85922, a 2.5% lead. Combined with the Cinebench R23 single-core win, these three victories show the Core 5 has some strengths in specific integer and compression workloads.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H is the stronger processor for most workloads. It wins 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, including every multi-core benchmark and most single-core tests. Its average benchmark score of 38312 exceeds the Core 5 211E's 37829 by roughly 1.3%.

For users prioritizing multi-threaded performance, the Ultra 9 285H is the clear choice. The 54.6% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core and 43.4% lead in PassMark multithread demonstrate substantial advantages in rendering and parallel workloads. The 667.4% advantage in find prime numbers and 258% lead in physics further reinforce its compute dominance.

The Core 5 211E is not without merit. Its 26% win in Cinebench R23 single-core is notable, as are its wins in data compression and integer math. These results suggest the Core 5 handles certain integer-heavy and compression tasks efficiently. However, these wins are narrow (2.5% to 3.1%) except for the R23 single-core result.

The Ultra 9 285H is the better overall choice for anyone needing maximum performance across diverse workloads. The Core 5 211E could be considered for specific use cases where its winning benchmarks matter most, but the breadth of the Ultra 9's victories makes it the safer pick.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Cores | 16 | 10 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.40 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2049 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Bartlett Lake |

| Codename | Arrow Lake-H | Bartlett Lake |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | N/A | 257 mm² |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

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

| PCIe | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Graphics 140T | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Launch MSRP | $651 | $221 |

| Part Number | SRQAL | SRQERQ65F |

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core Ultra 9 285H wins in: multi-core rendering (Cinebench R15, R20, R23 all favor it), multithreaded workloads (PassMark multithread by 43.4%), data encryption by 45.7%, extended instruction handling by 24.1%, prime number computation by 667.4%, floating point math by 64.4%, physics processing by 258%, random string sorting by 19.3%, and single-thread performance in Cinebench R15, R20, and PassMark. It also offers higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s, a smaller process node at 3 nm versus 10 nm, and a higher boost clock at 5.40 GHz.

Intel Core 5 211E wins in: Cinebench R23 single-core by 26%, data compression by 3.1%, and integer math by 2.5%. It also provides more PCIe lanes (16 vs 8) and supports DDR4 memory in addition to DDR5. Its desktop socket and higher TDP of 65 W may suit stationary systems better. The Core 5's narrower wins suggest it handles certain integer and compression algorithms efficiently, though the margins are modest compared to the Ultra 9's dominant leads.