Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results paint a clear picture of two very different processors. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins 13 of the 17 recorded comparisons, while the Intel Core 5 211E takes 4. The margin of victory varies dramatically by workload type.

The most decisive win for the Ultra X7 358H comes in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where it scores 337 against the Core 5 211E's 43, a 87.2% advantage. This is a massive gap that highlights a fundamental difference in how the two chips handle integer-heavy, iterative workloads. The physics test shows a similar story: 3021 versus 702, a 76.8% lead for the Ultra X7 358H.

Floating point math also favors the Ultra X7 358H significantly. Its score of 103842 beats the Core 5 211E's 66402 by 36.1%. Data encryption follows with a 31.1% advantage (26046 versus 17938), and the multithread PassMark score shows a 29.5% lead (33802 versus 23833). Cinebench R20 multicore and R15 multicore results reinforce this pattern, with the Ultra X7 358H ahead by 28.7% and 32.1% respectively.

The Core 5 211E does have its own victories, and they are notable. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, it delivers 2878 points against 2080, a 38.4% edge. This is the second-largest percentage swing in either direction. The R23 multicore test also goes to the Core 5 211E at 20389 versus 18747, an 8.8% win. PassMark integer math shows a 6% advantage (88117 versus 83147), and data compression goes to the Core 5 211E by 4.3% (346757 versus 332508).

The single-thread PassMark results are close, with the Ultra X7 358H leading 4124 to 4006, a 2.9% margin. The Cinebench R15 singlecore test is similarly tight at 301.5 versus 289, a 4.1% gap. Extended instructions favor the Ultra X7 358H by 20.8% (27274 versus 21592), and random string sorting goes to the Ultra X7 358H by 15% (40357 versus 34308).

The average benchmark score tells the overall story: the Ultra X7 358H sits at 40967, while the Core 5 211E averages 37829. The percentile rankings reflect this, with the Ultra X7 358H at the 87th percentile and the Core 5 211E at the 86th. These are close overall positions, but the workload distribution is highly uneven.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is the stronger processor for most multi-threaded and math-heavy tasks. Its wins in Cinebench R15 and R20 multicore, plus the PassMark multithread and physics tests, suggest it handles parallel workloads with considerably more efficiency. The 87.2% lead in prime number finding and the 76.8% lead in physics are not incremental differences; they represent a different class of computational throughput.

The Intel Core 5 211E, however, holds a decisive edge in single-core performance as measured by Cinebench R23, where its 38.4% lead is the largest win for either side. This suggests that for workloads that rely heavily on a single thread and are sensitive to raw clock speed, the Core 5 211E may be the better choice. Its wins in integer math and data compression also point to strengths in specific integer-heavy operations.

The overall average score favors the Ultra X7 358H by roughly 8%, and it sits one percentile higher in the global ranking. For users whose applications scale across cores, the Ultra X7 358H is the clear pick based on the recorded data. For those with single-threaded or specific integer workloads, the Core 5 211E has measurable advantages that should not be ignored.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families with distinct design philosophies. The Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node, while the Ultra X7 358H uses the Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the process difference is substantial and likely contributes to the performance profile differences.

The Core 5 211E features 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Notably, the Ultra X7 358H has more cores but the same thread count, indicating its cores do not support additional threads per core in the same way. The cache hierarchy differs as well: the Core 5 211E has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Ultra X7 358H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3.

Memory support is a major architectural split. The Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra X7 358H supports only LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, exactly double. The Ultra X7 358H does not support ECC memory, while the Core 5 211E does.

The integrated graphics differ: the Core 5 211E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra X7 358H uses Arc B390. The Ultra X7 358H also has fewer PCIe lanes available to the CPU, with Gen 5 providing 4 lanes versus the Core 5 211E's Gen 5 with 16 lanes. The die size for the Ultra X7 358H is not recorded, while the Core 5 211E measures 257 mm².

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge across nearly every specification field. The Core 5 211E has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Ultra X7 358H runs at 1.90 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. The thermal design power differs significantly: 65 watts for the Core 5 211E versus 25 watts for the Ultra X7 358H.

The socket types are entirely different. The Core 5 211E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra X7 358H uses Intel BGA 2540. The Core 5 211E targets the desktop market segment, while the Ultra X7 358H is designed for mobile. The release dates are also distinct: the Core 5 211E launched on January 12, 2025, and the Ultra X7 358H on January 4, 2026.

The Core 5 211E has a launch MSRP of $221, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Ultra X7 358H. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers differ: SRQERQ65F for the Core 5 211E and SA4RAQ9ET for the Ultra X7 358H. Both are listed as Active in production status.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E leads with a score of 2878, which is 38.4% higher than the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H's 2080.

Q: Does the Ultra X7 358H support ECC memory?

A: No, the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H does not support ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 211E does support ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 153.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, exactly double the 76.8 GB/s of the Intel Core 5 211E.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores, while the Intel Core 5 211E has 10 cores. Both have 16 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has an average benchmark score of 40967, which is higher than the Intel Core 5 211E's 37829.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E uses a 10 nm process node, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H uses a 3 nm process node.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins in the majority of measured categories. It dominates in multi-core Cinebench tests, taking R15 multicore (3027 versus 2055) and R20 multicore (12011 versus 8563) by margins around 29-32%. The PassMark multithread test shows a 29.5% advantage, and the physics test shows a 76.8% lead. For math-intensive workloads, the Ultra X7 358H wins floating point math by 36.1% and prime number finding by 87.2%. Data encryption, extended instructions, and random string sorting all go to the Ultra X7 358H as well. It also edges out the Core 5 211E in single-thread PassMark results and Cinebench R15 singlecore, though by smaller margins of 2.9% and 4.1% respectively.

The Intel Core 5 211E wins in four specific areas. Cinebench R23 singlecore shows its strongest advantage at 38.4%, suggesting it is the better choice for legacy single-threaded applications that rely on that benchmark's workload. Cinebench R23 multicore also goes to the Core 5 211E with an 8.8% lead, which is notable given the Ultra X7 358H's wins in the older R15 and R20 multicore tests. PassMark integer math favors the Core 5 211E by 6%, and data compression goes to it by 4.3%.

The use-case split is clear from the data. The Ultra X7 358H suits parallel, math-heavy, and encryption-heavy workloads, while the Core 5 211E serves single-threaded tasks and specific integer operations better. The Core 5 211E's higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz versus 4.80 GHz may explain its single-core advantage, while the Ultra X7 358H's higher core count and doubled memory bandwidth likely drive its multi-core wins.