Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison
Intel Core 5 211E
Core Ultra 9 386H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H
The Verdict
The benchmark data splits this comparison into two very different use cases. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is the clear overall winner, taking 15 of 17 head-to-head tests and posting a significantly higher average benchmark score of 43210 versus 37829 for the Intel Core 5 211E. The Ultra 9 386H also sits in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 211E sits in the 86th percentile.
The Core 5 211E claims two specific victories: Cinebench R23 single-core and PassMark integer math. Its R23 single-core score of 2878 beats the Ultra 9 386H's 2071.5 by 38.9%, a substantial margin. The integer math win is narrow, 88117 versus 87284, a 1% edge. Anyone whose primary workload is single-threaded Cinebench rendering should favor the Core 5 211E.
The Ultra 9 386H dominates everything else, often by huge margins. It leads by 76.8% in PassMark physics, 87.4% in prime number finding, 38.8% in floating-point math, and 33.9% in data encryption. Its multi-threaded Cinebench results are consistently far ahead, except for R23 where the gap is only 0.8%. The Ultra 9 386H is the pick for multi-threaded rendering, scientific computation, encryption, and general productivity.
The Core 5 211E is a desktop chip on Socket 1700 with a 65 TDP. The Ultra 9 386H is a mobile chip on BGA 2540 with a 25 TDP. That the mobile part wins this decisively while drawing less power is the central finding. The Core 5 211E's only real advantage beyond the two benchmark wins is ECC memory support, which the Ultra 9 386H lacks.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different Intel manufacturing nodes and designs. The Core 5 211E uses Bartlett Lake, built on a 10 nm process, and is a desktop part. The Ultra 9 386H uses Panther Lake, built on a 3 nm process, and is a mobile part. Both are manufactured by Intel.
Core counts differ. The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Despite having more cores, the Ultra 9 386H has the same thread count, indicating a different core topology. The Core 5 211E's cache structure uses 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. The Ultra 9 386H has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. The Core 5 211E has more total L3, 20 MB versus 18 MB, but the Ultra 9 386H has larger L1 and L2 allocations per core.
The integrated graphics differ significantly. The Core 5 211E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 9 386H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The Xe3 architecture represents a newer generation of Intel graphics, though the benchmark data does not include graphics tests.
Memory support also separates them. The Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5, with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with higher bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s. The Ultra 9 386H also supports LPDDR5X, which is typical for mobile platforms. ECC memory is supported by the Core 5 211E but not by the Ultra 9 386H.
PCIe lane counts differ. The Core 5 211E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Ultra 9 386H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes. Both are CPU-only lane counts. The socket types are entirely different: Socket 1700 for the desktop part, BGA 2540 for the mobile part.
Where Each One Wins
The Core 5 211E wins in two specific areas. Cinebench R23 single-core performance is its strongest result, scoring 2878 versus 2071.5, a 38.9% lead. This indicates that the desktop chip's single-threaded boost clock, listed at 4.90 GHz, is effectively utilized in this workload. Its PassMark integer math score of 88117 edges out the Ultra 9 386H's 87284 by 1%. These two wins suggest the Core 5 211E is better suited for lightly threaded integer workloads and single-core rendering tasks.
The Ultra 9 386H wins everywhere else. Its multi-threaded Cinebench scores are dominant: R15 at 3223 versus 2055 (36.2% lead), R20 at 12820 versus 8563 (33.2% lead), and R23 at 20547 versus 20389 (0.8% lead). The R23 multi-threaded result is nearly a tie, which is notable given how far ahead the Ultra 9 386H is in the older Cinebench versions.
PassMark results show the Ultra 9 386H's breadth. Data compression is close at 352365 versus 346757 (1.6% lead). Data encryption is a 33.9% lead, 27150 versus 17938. Extended instructions show a 25.9% lead, 29138 versus 21592. Prime number finding is a 87.4% blowout, 341 versus 43. Floating-point math is 38.8% ahead, 108527 versus 66402. Multithread score is 32.7% ahead, 35399 versus 23833. Physics is 76.8% ahead, 3028 versus 702. Random string sorting is 18.6% ahead, 42135 versus 34308. Single-thread PassMark is 5% ahead, 4218 versus 4006.
The overall average benchmark score confirms the pattern: 43210 for the Ultra 9 386H versus 37829 for the Core 5 211E. The Ultra 9 386H's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 at 43326 (0.3% higher) and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 at 43431 (0.5% higher). The Core 5 211E's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 at 37804 (0.1% lower) and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 at 37904 (0.2% higher). The Ultra 9 386H competes at a higher performance tier.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has better multi-threaded performance?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins all three multi-threaded Cinebench tests. It leads by 36.2% in R15, 33.2% in R20, and 0.8% in R23. Its PassMark multithread score is 35399 versus 23833, a 32.7% lead.
Q: Which processor is better for single-threaded workloads?
A: It depends on the benchmark. The Core 5 211E wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 38.9% (2878 versus 2071.5). The Ultra 9 386H wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 4.8% (303.5 versus 289), Cinebench R20 single-core by 33.2% (1809 versus 1208), and PassMark single-thread by 5% (4218 versus 4006).
Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?
A: No. The Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5. The Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Ultra 9 386H also has higher memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 211E.
Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?
A: Only the Core 5 211E supports ECC memory. The Ultra 9 386H does not list ECC support.
Q: How do the two processors compare in PassMark physics performance?
A: The Ultra 9 386H is far ahead, scoring 3028 versus 702, a 76.8% lead. This is one of the largest gaps in the entire benchmark set.
Q: What is the performance gap in the average benchmark score?
A: The Ultra 9 386H has an average benchmark score of 43210, which is 14.2% higher than the Core 5 211E's 37829. The Ultra 9 386H also ranks in the 88th percentile versus the 86th percentile for the Core 5 211E.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The largest win for the Ultra 9 386H is PassMark prime number finding, where it scores 341 versus 43, a 87.4% lead. This indicates a massive advantage in integer-heavy, multi-threaded algorithms. PassMark physics is nearly as lopsided at 3028 versus 702, a 76.8% lead. Floating-point math shows a 38.8% advantage, 108527 versus 66402. Data encryption is 33.9% ahead, 27150 versus 17938. PassMark multithread is 32.7% ahead, 35399 versus 23833.
Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 36.2% lead for the Ultra 9 386H, 3223 versus 2055. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 33.2% lead, 12820 versus 8563. Cinebench R20 single-core also shows a 33.2% lead, 1809 versus 1208. Extended instructions show a 25.9% lead, 29138 versus 21592. Random string sorting is 18.6% ahead, 42135 versus 34308.
The smaller wins for the Ultra 9 386H include PassMark single-thread at 5% (4218 versus 4006), Cinebench R15 single-core at 4.8% (303.5 versus 289), and data compression at 1.6% (352365 versus 346757). The Cinebench R23 multi-core result is nearly identical, with the Ultra 9 386H ahead by only 0.8% (20547 versus 20389).
The Core 5 211E's two wins are notable. Cinebench R23 single-core is its best result, 2878 versus 2071.5, a 38.9% lead. This is the single largest percentage win for either processor in any test. PassMark integer math is a narrow 1% win, 88117 versus 87284.
The Ultra 9 386H's win count of 15 out of 17 tests, combined with its higher average score and percentile rank, establishes it as the stronger processor overall. The Core 5 211E's R23 single-core dominance is an outlier that does not translate to other single-threaded tests, where the Ultra 9 386H leads.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ across nearly every specification category. The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ: 2.70 GHz for the Core 5 211E versus 2.10 GHz for the Ultra 9 386H. Boost clocks are identical at 4.90 GHz.
TDP is a major differentiator. The Core 5 211E has a 65 TDP, while the Ultra 9 386H has a 25 TDP. This means the mobile chip delivers higher performance while drawing less power. The socket types reflect their market segments: Socket 1700 for desktop, BGA 2540 for mobile.
Process node and codename differ. The Core 5 211E is Bartlett Lake on 10 nm. The Ultra 9 386H is Panther Lake on 3 nm. The architecture generation is listed as Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) for one and Ultra 9 (Panther Lake-H) for the other.
Cache configurations differ. The Core 5 211E has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. The Ultra 9 386H has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. The die size is listed at 257 mm² for the Core 5 211E, with no die size recorded for the Ultra 9 386H.
Memory support differs. The Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5 with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. ECC is supported only on the Core 5 211E. PCIe lanes differ: 16 Gen 5 lanes for the Core 5 211E, 12 Gen 5 lanes for the Ultra 9 386H.
Integrated graphics differ: UHD Graphics 730 for the Core 5 211E, Intel Xe3 Graphics for the Ultra 9 386H. Release dates differ: 2025-01-12 for the Core 5 211E, 2026-01-04 for the Ultra 9 386H. The Core 5 211E has a launch MSRP of $221, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Ultra 9 386H. Both processors have locked multipliers.