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

The Verdict

The benchmark data places these two processors in entirely different performance classes. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K wins 16 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, with an average benchmark score of 83807 versus 37829 for the Intel Core 5 211E. The Core Ultra 9 285K sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 211E lands in the 86th percentile. The 285K delivers roughly 2.2 times the average score, and its nearest rivals include server-class AMD EPYC parts, indicating it competes at the top end of desktop performance. The Core 5 211E, by contrast, sits alongside AMD Ryzen AI embedded and mobile processors in its nearest rival list.

The single benchmark where the Core 5 211E wins is Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 2878 against 2377 for the 285K, a 21.1% advantage. That result suggests the 211E has a specific strength in lightly threaded workloads that rely on single-core execution. For everything else, from multi-core rendering to data compression and encryption, the Core Ultra 9 285K dominates, often by margins exceeding 60%. Users requiring maximum throughput in heavily threaded tasks should choose the 285K. Users prioritizing single-thread performance in Cinebench R23 specifically would find the 211E more suitable, though it trails in all other recorded tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel designs. The Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm process node, manufactured by Intel. The Core Ultra 9 285K uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename on a 3 nm process node, manufactured by TSMC. The 285K integrates 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the 211E lists a 257 mm² die size with no transistor count recorded.

Core counts differ substantially. The 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, indicating hyperthreading support. The 285K has 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning it does not use simultaneous multithreading. The 285K therefore relies on raw core count rather than thread doubling to achieve its performance advantage.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The 211E provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The 285K provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core caches and bigger shared L3 pool give the 285K more data residency capacity.

Memory support diverges as well. The 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The 285K supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but with a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. The 211E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the 285K uses Intel Socket 1851, meaning they are not socket compatible.

The integrated graphics differ: the 211E has UHD Graphics 730, while the 285K has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. PCIe support also differs, with the 211E offering Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes and the 285K offering Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 9 285K wins every multi-core test by large margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 285K scores 6494 against 2055 for the 211E, a 68.4% deficit for the 211E. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a similar pattern: 24003 versus 8563, a 64.3% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core narrows the relative gap slightly, with 42522 versus 20389, a 52.1% difference. These results indicate that the 285K's additional 14 cores translate directly into multi-threaded rendering performance.

Single-core results are mixed. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the 285K scores 359 versus 289, a 19.5% advantage. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the 285K scores 3388 versus 1208, a 64.3% gap. However, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the 211E wins with 2878 versus 2377, a 21.1% advantage. This is the only test where the 211E outperforms the 285K, and the result is notable because it contradicts the R15 and R20 single-core outcomes.

PassMark tests heavily favor the 285K. Data compression scores 790052 versus 346757, a 56.1% gap. Data encryption shows 57745 versus 17938, a 68.9% gap. Extended instructions score 62277 versus 21592, a 65.3% gap. Find prime numbers is the most lopsided test: 541 versus 43, a 92.1% gap, meaning the 285K is roughly 12.6 times faster in that specific workload. Floating point math shows 224324 versus 66402, a 70.4% gap. Integer math shows 172379 versus 88117, a 48.9% gap. Multithread score is 67260 versus 23833, a 64.6% gap. Physics simulation shows 3938 versus 702, an 82.2% gap. Random string sorting shows 94927 versus 34308, a 63.9% gap. Single-thread PassMark shows 5087 versus 4006, a 21.3% gap.

The largest deltas appear in prime number finding and physics, where the 285K's core advantage is most pronounced. The smallest deltas appear in PassMark single-thread and Cinebench R23 single-core, where the 211E's higher single-core score in R23 demonstrates that not all single-thread workloads favor the 285K.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show clear separation between the two processors. The 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the 285K has 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 2.70 GHz for the 211E and 3.70 GHz for the 285K. Boost clocks are 4.90 GHz for the 211E and 5.70 GHz for the 285K. The 285K runs at higher clock speeds in both states.

Thermal design power differs: the 211E has a TDP of 65 watts, while the 285K has a TDP of 125 watts. This reflects the 285K's higher core count and clock speeds. The 285K has an unlocked multiplier, while the 211E does not, meaning the 285K allows overclocking.

Process node and foundry differ: the 211E uses Intel's 10 nm process, while the 285K uses TSMC's 3 nm process. The 285K lists 17,800 million transistors, while the 211E has no transistor count recorded. Die sizes are similar: 257 mm² for the 211E and 243 mm² for the 285K.

Cache configurations differ as described above. Memory support differs in type and bandwidth: the 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5 with 76.8 GB/s, while the 285K supports only DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s. PCIe lanes differ: 16 for the 211E versus 20 for the 285K. Integrated graphics differ: UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Sockets differ: Socket 1700 versus Socket 1851. Release dates differ: the 211E released on 2025-01-12, while the 285K released on 2024-10-23. The launch MSRP for the 211E is $221, and for the 285K it is $589.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Where does the Intel Core 5 211E beat the Core Ultra 9 285K?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 211E scores 2878 versus 2377 for the 285K, a 21.1% advantage. This is the only head-to-head benchmark where the 211E wins.

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

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 285K scores 42522 versus 20389 for the 211E, a 52.1% gap. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the gap is 64.3%, with scores of 24003 and 8563 respectively.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 5 211E and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K have ECC memory support recorded in the database.

Q: What process nodes do the two processors use?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E uses a 10 nm process node from Intel. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K uses a 3 nm process node from TSMC.

Q: Are these processors socket compatible?

A: No. The Intel Core 5 211E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K uses Intel Socket 1851.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K wins in every multi-threaded and most single-threaded workloads recorded in the database. Its 24 cores and 24 threads provide substantial advantages in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, with deltas ranging from 52.1% to 68.4%. PassMark results reinforce this dominance: data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, integer math, multithread, physics, and random string sorting all favor the 285K by margins from 48.9% to 92.1%. The 285K also wins single-thread PassMark by 21.3% and Cinebench R15 and R20 single-core by 19.5% and 64.3% respectively.

The Intel Core 5 211E wins exactly one recorded benchmark: Cinebench R23 single-core, with a 21.1% advantage. This single result indicates that for workloads resembling Cinebench R23's single-threaded rendering task, the 211E may offer better performance. Its lower TDP of 65 watts versus 125 watts also suggests it operates in a different power envelope, though the database does not record actual power consumption. The 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, giving it broader memory compatibility than the 285K's DDR5-only support. The 211E's smaller core count and lower clocks make it the appropriate choice for users who need moderate multi-threaded performance with the flexibility of older memory types, while the 285K is the clear choice for maximum throughput across nearly all recorded workloads.