Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285T Comparison
Intel Core 5 211E
Core Ultra 9 285T
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285T
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The benchmark data is unequivocal: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core 5 211E. There are no reversals, no narrow escapes, and no workload where the Core 5 211E posts a higher score. The most lopsided result appears in PassMark physics, where the Core Ultra 9 285T scores 2842 against 702, a 75.3% advantage. That workload rewards the Core Ultra 9 285T's higher thread count and larger core configuration, and the delta is the largest in the entire dataset.
The Cinebench suite shows a remarkably consistent gap. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core Ultra 9 285T scores 33573 versus 20389, a 39.3% lead. The single-core R23 result is also 39.3% ahead (4739 versus 2878). The same 39.3% delta appears across Cinebench R15 and R20, both single and multicore. This uniformity indicates that the Core Ultra 9 285T's advantage scales evenly across render workloads, not just in heavily threaded scenarios.
The PassMark integer math test shows a 33.5% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285T (132433 versus 88117). Floating point math is even more decisive: 137923 versus 66402, a 51.9% gap. Data encryption shows a 44.1% advantage (32061 versus 17938), while data compression is closer at 9.7% (384140 versus 346757). The smallest delta in the dataset is single-thread PassMark, where the Core Ultra 9 285T leads by 12.5% (4576 versus 4006). That is still a clear win, but it shows the Core Ultra 9 285T's advantage narrows when the workload is purely single-threaded.
The find prime numbers test is extreme: the Core Ultra 9 285T scores 345 against 43, an 87.5% deficit for the Core 5 211E. This test is highly sensitive to core count and architecture, and the result aligns with the 24-core versus 10-core configuration. Random string sorting shows a 28.1% lead (47695 versus 34308), and extended instructions show a 21.4% lead (27477 versus 21592). The multithread PassMark score is 39931 versus 23833, a 40.3% advantage.
The Core Ultra 9 285T's average benchmark score is 51310, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 211E has an average score of 37829, which is the 86th percentile. The 51310 average places the Core Ultra 9 285T alongside rivals like the Intel Core i9-14900T (51015, delta 0.6%) and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT (50718, delta 1.2%). The Core 5 211E's 37829 average is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 (37804, delta 0.1%) and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 (37762, delta 0.2%). The Core Ultra 9 285T outperforms its nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-14900T, by 0.6%, while the Core 5 211E is statistically tied with its closest competitors.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different Intel designs, and the architecture gap explains the benchmark results. The Core Ultra 9 285T uses the Arrow Lake architecture, codenamed Arrow Lake-S, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. The Core 5 211E uses Bartlett Lake, built on a 10 nm process by Intel. The process node difference is substantial: 3 nm versus 10 nm, which affects transistor density and power efficiency.
The Core Ultra 9 285T has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 9 285T's core count is more than double, and its thread count is 8 higher. The Core Ultra 9 285T also carries a transistor count of 17,800 million, while the Core 5 211E has no recorded transistor figure. The die size is slightly smaller on the Core Ultra 9 285T (243 mm² versus 257 mm²), despite having more cores, which reflects the denser 3 nm process.
Cache configurations differ markedly. The Core Ultra 9 285T has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Core 5 211E has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 285T's L3 is 80% larger in total, and its per-core L1 and L2 are both larger. The Core Ultra 9 285T also has a higher boost clock at 5.40 GHz versus 4.90 GHz, and a lower base clock at 1.40 GHz versus 2.70 GHz.
The integrated graphics differ: the Core Ultra 9 285T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, while the Core 5 211E uses UHD Graphics 730. The Core Ultra 9 285T supports only DDR5 memory, while the Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth is higher on the Core Ultra 9 285T at 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s. PCIe lanes also differ: the Core Ultra 9 285T provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes, the Core 5 211E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes. Both support ECC memory. The sockets are different as well: Socket 1851 for the Core Ultra 9 285T, Socket 1700 for the Core 5 211E.
Where Each One Wins
The Core Ultra 9 285T wins every recorded benchmark category. That includes all Cinebench versions, all PassMark workloads, and the single-thread and multithread tests. No workload in the dataset favors the Core 5 211E. The closest contest is PassMark data compression, where the Core Ultra 9 285T leads by only 9.7%. That workload involves memory access and cache behavior, and the Core 5 211E's smaller L3 (20 MB versus 36 MB) still allows it to stay within striking distance.
The Core Ultra 9 285T shows its largest advantages in workloads that scale with core count and parallel execution. The find prime numbers test (87.5% lead), physics (75.3% lead), and floating point math (51.9% lead) all reward the 24-core configuration. The Core 5 211E cannot match the Core Ultra 9 285T in heavily threaded scenarios, as shown by the 40.3% multithread PassMark deficit.
The Core 5 211E's best showing relative to the Core Ultra 9 285T is in single-thread performance. The PassMark single-thread score is 4006 versus 4576, a 12.5% gap. That gap is still a win for the Core Ultra 9 285T, but it is the smallest margin in the dataset. The Core 5 211E's higher base clock of 2.70 GHz versus 1.40 GHz may help in short-duration single-thread tasks, but the Core Ultra 9 285T's higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz ultimately wins out.
For workloads where the Core 5 211E's 65 W TDP and Socket 1700 compatibility are relevant, the data shows it can still handle single-thread and light multithread tasks adequately. But the recorded benchmarks indicate that the Core Ultra 9 285T is the stronger processor across every measured dimension.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in several key specifications. The Core Ultra 9 285T has 24 cores and 24 threads; the Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 9 285T has a base clock of 1.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The Core 5 211E has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz.
The TDP differs: the Core Ultra 9 285T is rated at 35 W, the Core 5 211E at 65 W. The sockets are different (1851 versus 1700). The process node is 3 nm for the Core Ultra 9 285T and 10 nm for the Core 5 211E. The foundry is TSMC for the Core Ultra 9 285T and Intel for the Core 5 211E.
Cache sizes differ: the Core Ultra 9 285T 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. Memory support is DDR5 only for the Core Ultra 9 285T, while the Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s. PCIe is Gen 5 with 20 lanes versus Gen 5 with 16 lanes.
The integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU for the Core Ultra 9 285T and UHD Graphics 730 for the Core 5 211E. The transistor count is 17,800 million for the Core Ultra 9 285T; none is recorded for the Core 5 211E. The die size is 243 mm² for the Core Ultra 9 285T and 257 mm² for the Core 5 211E. The release dates are close: 2025-01-06 for the Core Ultra 9 285T and 2025-01-12 for the Core 5 211E. The launch MSRP is $549 for the Core Ultra 9 285T and $221 for the Core 5 211E. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T has an average benchmark score of 51310, while the Intel Core 5 211E has an average of 37829.
Q: What is the largest single benchmark gap between the two?
A: The PassMark find prime numbers test shows the largest gap, with the Core Ultra 9 285T scoring 345 against 43 for the Core 5 211E, an 87.5% deficit.
Q: How do the core counts compare?
A: The Core Ultra 9 285T has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads.
Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?
A: The Core Ultra 9 285T has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The Core 5 211E has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz.
Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?
A: Yes, both the Core Ultra 9 285T and the Core 5 211E support ECC memory.
Q: What is the TDP difference?
A: The Core Ultra 9 285T has a TDP of 35 W. The Core 5 211E has a TDP of 65 W.
The Verdict
The data shows a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T is the superior processor in every recorded benchmark. Its 24-core configuration, larger cache, and higher boost clock deliver consistent wins across Cinebench and PassMark workloads. The smallest margin is 9.7% in data compression, and the largest is 87.5% in find prime numbers. The average benchmark score of 51310 places it in the 91st percentile, while the Core 5 211E sits at 37829 and the 86th percentile.
The Core 5 211E is the weaker performer across all 17 head-to-head comparisons. Its only relative strength is in single-thread PassMark, where it trails by 12.5% rather than the 30-50% gaps seen elsewhere. It does offer a higher base clock (2.70 GHz versus 1.40 GHz) and a lower launch MSRP ($221 versus $549), but the benchmark results do not show any workload where that translates into a win.
For users choosing between these two, the Core Ultra 9 285T is the choice for any workload that benefits from more cores, more cache, or higher boost clocks. That includes render workloads, physics simulations, and parallel math tasks. The Core 5 211E is appropriate for systems constrained by the 65 W TDP or Socket 1700 platform, but the recorded data indicates it will lose to the Core Ultra 9 285T in every measured application. The Core Ultra 9 285T also has the higher percentile rank (91 versus 86) and sits closer to its nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-14900T, with a delta of 0.6%. The Core 5 211E is essentially tied with its nearest rivals, with deltas of 0.1% and 0.2%.