Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between the Intel Core 5 211E and the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is lopsided in favor of the mobile chip, but the desktop processor holds specific niches. The Core Ultra X7 368H wins 13 of the 17 recorded comparisons, while the Core 5 211E takes 4. The data shows a clear division: the Ultra X7 dominates compute-heavy, multi-threaded, and floating-point workloads, while the Core 5 wins narrowly in integer math, single-thread PassMark runs, and data compression.

The Core 5 211E's wins are concentrated in three areas. Its PassMark data compression score of 346757 beats the Ultra X7's 312927 by 10.8%. It also edges out the Ultra X7 in PassMark integer math, 88117 versus 88083, a virtual tie with a delta of 0%. The single-thread PassMark results are similarly close: 4006 versus 4005, also a 0% delta. These are cases where the Core 5's higher base clock of 2.70 GHz and its desktop-class power envelope of 65 W appear to counterbalance the Ultra X7's architectural advantages.

The Core Ultra X7 368H takes everything else. Its wins span every Cinebench generation recorded, all multi-core and single-core variants. The margin is consistent, around 27.8% across Cinebench R20 and R23 tests. Beyond Cinebench, the Ultra X7 leads by 28.9% in data encryption, 15.9% in extended instructions, and a massive 86.6% in prime number finding. The floating-point math gap is 37.2%, and the physics test shows a 75.4% difference. The multithread PassMark result favors the Ultra X7 by 27.7%, and random string sorting goes to it by 9.9%.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. For workloads that stress integer arithmetic, compression, or those that rely on the raw clock speed of a single thread in the PassMark suite, the Core 5 211E holds its ground. For everything involving floating-point math, encryption, physics simulation, extended instruction sets, and sustained multi-core rendering, the Ultra X7 368H is the clear choice based on recorded scores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher Cinebench R23 multi-core score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H scores 28221 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, compared to 20389 for the Intel Core 5 211E. This represents a 27.8% advantage for the Ultra X7.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Core 5 211E beats the Ultra X7 by a significant margin?

A: The largest win for the Core 5 211E is in PassMark data compression, where it scores 346757 versus 312927 for the Ultra X7, a 10.8% difference. Its other wins are marginal, with integer math and single-thread PassMark results showing a 0% delta.

Q: What is the difference in core counts between the two processors?

A: The Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads. Both processors support 16 threads, but the Ultra X7 has 6 additional physical cores.

Q: How do the integrated graphics compare?

A: The Core 5 211E uses Intel UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra X7 368H integrates the Arc B390. The database does not include graphics benchmarks for either processor.

Q: Which processor uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The Core Ultra X7 368H is built on a 3 nm process node, while the Core 5 211E uses a 10 nm node. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Core Ultra X7 368H supports only LPDDR5X, also dual-channel. The Ultra X7 has double the memory bandwidth at 153.6 GB/s compared to 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive results come from the Cinebench series. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra X7 scores 2844 against 2055 for the Core 5, a 27.7% gap. The single-core R15 test shows 401 versus 289, a 27.9% difference. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core result is 11852 versus 8563, a 27.8% lead, and the single-core result is 1673 versus 1208, also 27.8%. Cinebench R23 repeats the pattern exactly: multi-core 28221 versus 20389, single-core 3984 versus 2878, both at 27.8%. These consistent margins across three Cinebench generations indicate a stable performance ratio rather than a test-specific anomaly.

The PassMark suite shows a wider spread of outcomes. The largest single delta in either direction is in the prime number finding test, where the Ultra X7 scores 321 against 43 for the Core 5, an 86.6% difference. This test rewards the Ultra X7's architecture heavily. Physics simulation follows with 2857 versus 702, a 75.4% gap. Floating-point math shows 105681 versus 66402, a 37.2% difference. Data encryption favors the Ultra X7 by 28.9%, with scores of 25228 and 17938. Extended instructions go to the Ultra X7 by 15.9%, 25669 versus 21592. Random string sorting is closer at 9.9%, with 38093 versus 34308.

The Core 5's wins are narrower. Data compression is its best result, 346757 versus 312927, a 10.8% margin. Integer math is effectively tied at 88117 versus 88083, with a delta of 0%. The single-thread PassMark test is also tied at 4006 versus 4005, again a 0% delta. The multithread PassMark test goes to the Ultra X7 by 27.7%, 32956 versus 23833.

Overall, the average benchmark score in the database is 40518 for the Ultra X7 and 37829 for the Core 5. The Ultra X7 sits at the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 sits at the 86th. In the nearest rival comparisons, the Core 5 is within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 and Intel Core i9-14901E, while the Ultra X7 is within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H and Intel Xeon 6507P.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every physical and electrical specification. The Core 5 211E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra X7 368H uses Intel BGA 2540. The Core 5 is a desktop part with a 65 W TDP; the Ultra X7 is a mobile part rated at 25 W. Base clocks differ, with the Core 5 at 2.70 GHz and the Ultra X7 at 2.00 GHz. Boost clocks are closer, 4.90 GHz for the Core 5 and 5.00 GHz for the Ultra X7.

The Core 5 has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Ultra X7 has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra X7 has a smaller process node at 3 nm versus 10 nm for the Core 5. The Core 5 has a die size of 257 mm², while no die size is recorded for the Ultra X7. Cache structures differ as well: the Core 5 has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. The Ultra X7 has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3.

Memory support is not shared. The Core 5 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s and has ECC memory support. The Ultra X7 supports only LPDDR5X with a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s and no ECC support. PCIe lanes differ substantially: the Core 5 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Ultra X7 provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes. Integrated graphics differ, with the Core 5 using UHD Graphics 730 and the Ultra X7 using Arc B390. The Core 5 has a recorded launch MSRP of $221; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Ultra X7. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The Core 5 211E is based on the Bartlett Lake architecture, part of the Core 5 generation. The Ultra X7 368H uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically Panther Lake-H, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3. These are different design families with different target platforms. The Core 5 is a desktop-oriented design built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. The Ultra X7 is a mobile-oriented design on a 3 nm process, also at Intel's foundry.

The core layout differs in a way that affects thread handling. The Core 5 has 10 cores and 16 threads, implying a mix of core types where some cores add hyper-threading. The Ultra X7 has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning no hyper-threading across its cores. The Ultra X7 therefore relies on physical core count rather than thread duplication for its multi-thread performance.

Cache architecture reflects the different design goals. The Ultra X7 has larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations, 192 KB and 2.5 MB respectively, versus 80 KB and 2 MB for the Core 5. The Core 5 has a larger shared L3 at 20 MB versus 18 MB for the Ultra X7. The Ultra X7 compensates for its smaller L3 with a much higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, which is exactly double the Core 5's 76.8 GB/s.

The PCIe topology is a major architectural split. The Core 5 offers 16 Gen 5 lanes for CPU-connected devices, suitable for desktop expansion. The Ultra X7 offers only 4 Gen 5 lanes, reflecting its mobile integration where most I/O is handled elsewhere. The Ultra X7 also lacks ECC memory support, while the Core 5 includes it. The process node difference, 3 nm versus 10 nm, explains how the Ultra X7 achieves higher performance despite a 40 W lower TDP.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H as the stronger processor overall. Its average benchmark score of 40518 is 7.1% higher than the Core 5 211E's 37829. It wins 13 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, including every Cinebench test, all major PassMark compute tests, and the multithread workload. The consistency of its 27.8% Cinebench margins across R15, R20, and R23 indicates a broad multi-core advantage that is not test-specific.

The Core 5 211E retains a role for specific workloads. Its data compression score is 10.8% higher, and it matches the Ultra X7 in integer math and single-thread PassMark tests. For tasks that are integer-bound or compression-heavy, the Core 5 is not outperformed. Its 65 W TDP and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes also make it suitable for desktop systems where expansion capability matters. The 10-core, 16-thread configuration still delivers solid multi-thread results, as shown by its 20389 Cinebench R23 multi-core score.

The Ultra X7 368H is the pick for compute-intensive mobile workloads. Its 16 physical cores, 3 nm process, and 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth give it commanding leads in floating-point math, physics, encryption, and prime number finding. The 86.6% advantage in prime number finding and 75.4% lead in physics are the largest gaps recorded. Its 25 W TDP makes it a high-performance option for compact systems, though it trades away PCIe lanes and ECC support.

Users who prioritize rendering, scientific computation, encryption, or physics simulation should select the Ultra X7 368H based on the recorded benchmarks. Users who need data compression speed, integer math, or desktop expansion with 16 PCIe lanes should consider the Core 5 211E. The percentile rankings are close, 87th versus 86th, but the breadth of the Ultra X7's wins across 13 tests makes it the more versatile processor in the database.