Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison
Intel Core 5 211E
Core Ultra X9 378H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H
The Verdict
The recorded data presents an unambiguous outcome: the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H secures 17 benchmark wins out of 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core 5 211E records zero wins across all tested workloads. The average benchmark score for the Ultra X9 378H is 47468, which places it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs tracked in the database. The Core 5 211E averages 37829, sitting at the 86th percentile. This places the two processors roughly 25.5% apart in overall average score, a substantial gap that reflects fundamental architectural and market positioning differences.
The Intel Core 5 211E, a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1700 with a 65 TDP and a launch MSRP of $221, targets traditional desktop builds. The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H, a mobile processor on Intel BGA 2540 with a 25 TDP, belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and is built on Panther Lake-H. The data suggests that for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance across all measured categories, the Ultra X9 378H is the clear choice, despite its mobile form factor and lower power envelope. The Core 5 211E remains competitive only in scenarios where the desktop socket, DDR4/DDR5 memory support, or ECC memory capability are decisive factors, though its performance deficit in every benchmark recorded makes it difficult to recommend on performance grounds alone.
Architecture Differences
The two processors diverge sharply at the architectural level. The Intel Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename with a 10 nm process node, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H employs the Panther Lake codename on a 3 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the process node difference is significant: the 3 nm node allows for denser transistor integration and improved power efficiency, which helps explain the Ultra X9 378H's ability to deliver higher performance at a 25 TDP compared to the 211E's 65 TDP.
Core and thread counts differ meaningfully. The 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra X9 378H has more physical cores but equal thread count, indicating that the 211E likely uses hyper-threading on some cores while the Ultra X9 378H relies on additional physical cores without hyper-threading. Cache hierarchies also differ: the 211E provides 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3, while the Ultra X9 378H offers 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. The Ultra X9 378H has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, while the 211E has a larger shared L3 pool.
Memory support diverges completely. The 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory support. The Ultra X9 378H supports only LPDDR5X in dual-channel configuration but doubles the bandwidth to 153.6 GB/s, with no ECC support. PCIe connectivity also differs: the 211E offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra X9 378H offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ as well, with the 211E featuring UHD Graphics 730 and the Ultra X9 378H featuring Arc B390.
Clock speeds show the Ultra X9 378H has a lower base clock of 2.00 GHz versus 2.70 GHz for the 211E, but a higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.90 GHz. The release dates are far apart: the 211E launched on 2025-01-12, while the Ultra X9 378H launched on 2026-04-03. Both are marked as Active production status and neither has an unlocked multiplier.
Where Each One Wins
Given that the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins all 17 recorded benchmarks, the performance landscape is one-sided. However, the magnitude of the wins varies considerably, which reveals distinct workload characteristics. The Ultra X9 378H dominates in compute-heavy and parallel workloads. Its largest margins appear in passmark_physics, where it scores 3404 versus 702 for the 211E, a delta of 79.4% in favor of the Ultra X9 378H. Similarly, passmark_find_prime_numbers shows a massive gap: 357 versus 43, an 88% difference. These results indicate that the Ultra X9 378H's additional physical cores and newer architecture provide substantial advantages in integer-heavy and physics simulation tasks.
The Ultra X9 378H also excels in floating-point math, scoring 114500 versus 66402, a 42% advantage. Data encryption shows a 39.9% lead (29840 versus 17938), and extended instructions reveal a 31% advantage (31315 versus 21592). These results suggest the Ultra X9 378H has significantly stronger computational throughput per clock and per watt.
The 211E's closest relative performance occurs in passmark_integer_math, where it scores 88117 versus 92603, a deficit of only 4.8%. This is the narrowest margin in the entire comparison. Single-thread performance also shows a relatively small gap: 4006 versus 4453, a 10% difference. Data compression is similarly close at 10.3% (346757 versus 386591). These areas indicate that in lightly threaded integer workloads, the 211E remains reasonably competitive, though still behind.
The Ultra X9 378H's Cinebench results are uniformly 37.4% ahead across R15, R20, and R23 in both multi-core and single-core tests. This consistency suggests a general architectural efficiency advantage rather than workload-specific optimization.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H has an average benchmark score of 47468, while the Intel Core 5 211E has an average score of 37829. The Ultra X9 378H also ranks in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 86th percentile for the 211E.
Q: How do the core counts compare?
A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra X9 378H has more physical cores but the same thread count, indicating a different threading approach.
Q: What memory types does each processor support?
A: The Intel Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H supports only LPDDR5X in dual-channel configuration with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support.
Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?
A: The Intel Core 5 211E has 20 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The 211E has a larger L3 pool, though the Ultra X9 378H has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches.
Q: What are the TDP values for these processors?
A: The Intel Core 5 211E has a TDP of 65, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H has a TDP of 25. The Ultra X9 378H delivers significantly higher performance at a much lower power envelope.
Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?
A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 211E has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Ultra X9 378H also has a lower base clock of 2.00 GHz versus 2.70 GHz for the 211E.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The head-to-head benchmark data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra X9 378H scores 3281 against 2055 for the 211E, a 37.4% advantage. Single-core R15 shows 462 versus 289, also a 37.4% difference. The same 37.4% delta appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core (13672 versus 8563) and single-core (1929 versus 1208). Cinebench R23 follows the pattern: multi-core 32553 versus 20389, single-core 4595 versus 2878, both at 37.4% in favor of the Ultra X9 378H.
PassMark results reveal a wider range of deltas. Data compression shows the Ultra X9 378H at 386591 versus 346757, a 10.3% lead. Data encryption shows a larger gap: 29840 versus 17938, a 39.9% advantage. Extended instructions score 31315 versus 21592, a 31% lead. The most dramatic difference appears in find prime numbers, where the Ultra X9 378H scores 357 versus 43, an 88% advantage. Floating-point math shows 114500 versus 66402, a 42% lead.
Physics testing reveals a massive difference: 3404 versus 702, a 79.4% advantage for the Ultra X9 378H. Random string sorting shows 44648 versus 34308, a 23.2% lead. Multithread performance shows 38298 versus 23833, a 37.8% advantage. Single-thread results show 4453 versus 4006, a 10% lead. Integer math is the closest test: 92603 versus 88117, only 4.8% apart in favor of the Ultra X9 378H.
The data indicates that the Ultra X9 378H's advantages are consistent across all tested categories, but the magnitude varies from under 5% in integer math to nearly 90% in prime number finding and over 79% in physics. This suggests that the Ultra X9 378H's architectural improvements are particularly pronounced in workloads that benefit from more physical cores, larger per-core caches, and the 3 nm process node's efficiency gains.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ across nearly every specification category in the database. The Intel Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.70 GHz for the 211E and 2.00 GHz for the Ultra X9 378H. Boost clocks are 4.90 GHz and 5.00 GHz respectively. TDP values are 65 for the 211E and 25 for the Ultra X9 378H.
Sockets differ completely: the 211E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra X9 378H uses Intel BGA 2540. Codenames are Bartlett Lake for the 211E and Panther Lake for the Ultra X9 378H. Process nodes are 10 nm and 3 nm respectively. Cache configurations differ: L1 is 80 KB per core for the 211E versus 192 KB per core for the Ultra X9 378H; L2 is 2 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core; L3 is 20 MB shared versus 18 MB shared.
Memory support shows the 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra X9 378H supports LPDDR5X only. Memory bus is dual-channel for both. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s for the 211E and 153.6 GB/s for the Ultra X9 378H. ECC memory support is present on the 211E but absent on the Ultra X9 378H. PCIe lanes are Gen 5 with 16 lanes for the 211E and Gen 5 with 4 lanes for the Ultra X9 378H. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 for the 211E and Arc B390 for the Ultra X9 378H.
Market segments differ: the 211E is Desktop, while the Ultra X9 378H is Mobile. Release dates are 2025-01-12 for the 211E and 2026-04-03 for the Ultra X9 378H. The 211E has a launch MSRP of $221, while the Ultra X9 378H has no recorded launch MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The 211E has a die size of 257 mm², while the Ultra X9 378H has no recorded die size. Part numbers are SRQERQ65F for the 211E and unknown for the Ultra X9 378H.