Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core 5 211E, which wins 12 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons. The most dramatic margin comes in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the Core 5 211E scores 20,389 against 10,178 for the Core Ultra 9 288V, a 100.3% advantage. The Core 5 211E also doubles the Ultra 9 288V in PassMark integer math, scoring 88,117 versus 44,019, a 100.2% difference.

The Core 5 211E continues its dominance across several other workloads. In PassMark data compression, it records 346,757 against 186,521, a 85.9% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 47.6% advantage for the Core 5 211E (2,878 vs. 1,950). PassMark random string sorting delivers a 51.7% edge (34,308 vs. 22,622), and PassMark extended instructions puts the Core 5 211E ahead by 38.3% (21,592 vs. 15,613).

Cinebench R15 multicore favors the Core 5 211E by 29.8% (2,055 vs. 1,583). Cinebench R20 multicore shows a 21.1% gap (8,563 vs. 7,069), while Cinebench R20 single-core gives the Core 5 211E a 21.2% advantage (1,208 vs. 997). PassMark data encryption is 26.9% higher on the Core 5 211E (17,938 vs. 14,141). PassMark multithread shows a 20.3% lead (23,833 vs. 19,810), and floating-point math closes the list of Core 5 211E wins with an 11.5% margin (66,402 vs. 59,536).

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V wins five comparisons, and these are concentrated in specific areas. PassMark find prime numbers shows a 77.9% advantage for the Ultra 9 288V (195 vs. 43). PassMark physics delivers a 57.1% lead (1,637 vs. 702). PassMark single-thread shows a 6.3% edge (4,274 vs. 4,006), and Cinebench R15 single-core gives the Ultra 9 288V a 4.1% margin (301.5 vs. 289).

The average benchmark score reinforces the gap: the Core 5 211E averages 37,829, placing it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 9 288V averages 23,219, in the 76th percentile. The Core 5 211E's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 at 37,904 (-0.2%) and the Intel Core i9-14901E at 37,911 (-0.2%). The Ultra 9 288V sits near the Intel Core i9-11900F at 23,254 (-0.2%) and the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H at 23,277 (-0.2%).

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 211E wins across the broad spectrum of multi-threaded and throughput-oriented tasks. Its Cinebench R23 multicore result of 20,389 nearly doubles the Ultra 9 288V's 10,178, which indicates a strong advantage for heavily parallel rendering workloads. The integer math score of 88,117 versus 44,019 shows a similar doubling in arithmetic-heavy computation. Data compression at 346,757 versus 186,521 points to advantages in file archiving and database operations. Random string sorting at 34,308 versus 22,626 favors the Core 5 211E for sorting workloads. Extended instruction throughput at 21,592 versus 15,613 favors the Core 5 211E for vectorized code.

The Core 5 211E also holds the lead in encryption tasks, scoring 17,938 versus 14,141, a 26.9% margin. Its Cinebench R20 single-core result of 1,208 exceeds the Ultra 9 288V's 997 by 21.2%, and the R15 single-core result of 2,878 versus 1,950 shows a 47.6% advantage. These results indicate that even in lightly threaded scenarios, the Core 5 211E frequently maintains a performance lead.

The Ultra 9 288V wins where the workload favors its architecture characteristics. PassMark physics at 1,637 versus 702 represents a 57.1% advantage, indicating stronger performance in physics simulation tasks. PassMark find prime numbers at 195 versus 43 shows a 77.9% edge in prime-number searches. PassMark single-thread at 4,274 versus 4,006 gives the Ultra 9 288V a 6.3% margin, and Cinebench R15 single-core at 301.5 versus 289 shows a 4.1% lead. These wins cluster in specific single-thread and specialized math tasks rather than broad throughput workloads.

The data shows that the Core 5 211E is the stronger choice for rendering, compilation, data processing, and general multithreaded productivity. The Ultra 9 288V offers targeted advantages in physics simulation and prime-number workloads, plus a modest single-thread edge in two of the three Cinebench single-core tests and the PassMark single-thread test.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design lineages. The Intel Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation. It is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V uses the Lunar Lake architecture, belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation, and is manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC.

Core and thread counts differ substantially. The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads, meaning it has no hyperthreading. The Core 5 211E therefore presents 16 logical processors compared to 8 for the Ultra 9 288V.

Cache geometry also differs. The Core 5 211E provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 288V provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The total L3 capacity favors the Core 5 211E at 20 MB versus 12 MB.

Memory support diverges completely. The Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Ultra 9 288V supports only LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with a memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. The Ultra 9 288V therefore has 59.7 GB/s more memory bandwidth available to it. ECC memory is supported on the Core 5 211E but not on the Ultra 9 288V.

PCIe connectivity differs significantly. The Core 5 211E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Ultra 9 288V provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes from the CPU. The integrated graphics also differ: the Core 5 211E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 9 288V uses the Arc 140V.

The Core 5 211E is a desktop part with a 65 W TDP, a base clock of 2.70 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, using Intel Socket 1700. The Ultra 9 288V is a mobile part with a 30 W TDP, a base clock of 3.30 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, using Intel BGA 2833. The Ultra 9 288V has the higher base clock by 0.60 GHz and the higher boost clock by 0.20 GHz. The Core 5 211E has a die size of 257 mm², while no die size is recorded for the Ultra 9 288V. The Core 5 211E launched on 2025-01-12, while the Ultra 9 288V launched on 2024-09-23.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E averages 37,829 across its benchmark suite, compared to 23,219 for the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V.

Q: How large is the Cinebench R23 multicore gap?

A: The Core 5 211E scores 20,389 versus 10,178 for the Ultra 9 288V, a 100.3% advantage for the Core 5 211E.

Q: In which tests does the Ultra 9 288V win?

A: The Ultra 9 288V wins PassMark find prime numbers (195 vs. 43), PassMark physics (1,637 vs. 702), PassMark single-thread (4,274 vs. 4,006), and Cinebench R15 single-core (301.5 vs. 289).

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The Core 5 211E has 16 threads from 10 cores. The Ultra 9 288V has 8 threads from 8 cores.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Ultra 9 288V supports LPDDR5X with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5 with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the process nodes for each processor?

A: The Core 5 211E uses a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. The Ultra 9 288V uses a 3 nm process at TSMC.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 211E | Intel Core Ultra 9 288V |

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

| Cores | 10 | 8 |

| Threads | 16 | 8 |

| Base clock | 2.70 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.90 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 30 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2833 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Lunar Lake |

| Generation | Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) | Ultra 9 (Lunar Lake) |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die size | 257 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 cache | 80 KB per core | 192 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 2 MB per core | 2.5 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 20 MB shared | 12 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 136.5 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 lanes (CPU) | Gen 5, 4 lanes (CPU) |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc 140V |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release date | 2025-01-12 | 2024-09-23 |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | Not recorded |

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the Intel Core 5 211E holds a substantial performance lead over the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V in the majority of tested workloads. The Core 5 211E wins 12 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, including all Cinebench multicore tests, all Cinebench single-core tests except R15, and the majority of PassMark tests. Its average benchmark score of 37,829 sits in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 9 288V's 23,219 sits in the 76th percentile.

Users running multithreaded workloads should favor the Core 5 211E. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20,389 versus 10,178 represents a doubling of rendering throughput. The integer math advantage of 100.2% and the data compression advantage of 85.9% indicate strong performance for compute-heavy and data-intensive tasks. The 20 MB of shared L3 cache, 16 threads, and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes make it suitable for desktop configurations that need broad connectivity and sustained throughput.

The Ultra 9 288V offers targeted advantages in physics simulation and prime-number workloads, with margins of 57.1% and 77.9% respectively. Its higher memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s, along with a 3 nm process node, supports its mobile design with a 30 W TDP. The 8 threads and 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes indicate a more constrained platform for expansion. The Ultra 9 288V also records a higher base clock of 3.30 GHz versus 2.70 GHz and a higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz versus 4.90 GHz.

The recorded data does not support a single universal recommendation. For desktop workloads that stress multithreading, data processing, and rendering, the Core 5 211E is the stronger performer. For mobile systems prioritizing physics simulation, prime-number computation, and lower power draw, the Ultra 9 288V provides specific advantages. The Core 5 211E's launch MSRP is $221, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Ultra 9 288V. The choice between them depends on whether the workload aligns with the Core 5 211E's 12 benchmark wins or the Ultra 9 288V's 5 benchmark wins.