Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

The benchmark data presents a clear split between these two Intel processors. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H dominates the overall scoreboard, winning 15 of the 17 recorded comparisons, while the Intel Core 5 211E secures two notable victories. The Core Ultra X9 388H also holds a higher average benchmark score of 44466 compared to 37829 for the Core 5 211E, and it ranks in the 88th percentile against all CPUs, three points higher than the Core 5 211E's 86th percentile. Despite the Core 5 211E’s higher base clock of 2.70 GHz versus 2.10 GHz, the data indicates the Core Ultra X9 388H delivers superior performance in most workloads, driven by a fundamentally different architecture and a much lower TDP of 25 watts against 65 watts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant margin of victory for the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H appears in the PassMark physics test, where it scores 3226 against the Core 5 211E's 702, a delta of -78.2%. This result indicates a massive advantage in simulated physics calculations, a workload that often scales with core count and memory bandwidth. A similarly large gap is present in the PassMark find prime numbers test, with the Core Ultra X9 388H scoring 358 versus 43, a delta of -88%. These two results alone highlight the computational throughput advantage of the newer mobile processor.

In multi-threaded rendering tests, the Core Ultra X9 388H also proves substantially faster. In Cinebench R20 multicore, it scores 13101 against 8563, a delta of -34.6%. The Cinebench R15 multicore test shows a similar pattern, with scores of 2955 and 2055 respectively, a delta of -30.5%. The PassMark multithread test confirms this trend, with the Core Ultra X9 388H scoring 36811 against 23833, a delta of -35.3%. These results confirm that the Core Ultra X9 388H delivers significantly higher throughput in heavily parallel workloads.

The Core Ultra X9 388H also leads in floating-point math, scoring 112550 against 66402, a delta of -41%. Its advantage in data encryption is even more pronounced, with a score of 28490 versus 17938, a delta of -37%. The extended instructions test shows a delta of -27.9%, with scores of 29943 and 21592. Even in integer math, where the gap is smallest, the Core Ultra X9 388H still wins with 90882 against 88117, a delta of -3%.

The Intel Core 5 211E claims its victories in the Cinebench R23 tests. In the single-core test, it scores 2878 against 2200.5, a delta of 30.8%. This is a decisive win, showing that the Core 5 211E’s higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz, combined with its architecture, delivers superior single-threaded performance in this specific benchmark. In the Cinebench R23 multicore test, the Core 5 211E scores 20389 against 18911, a delta of 7.8%. This result is notable because it is the only multi-threaded test where the Core 5 211E outperforms the Core Ultra X9 388H, suggesting that the R23 workload responds differently to the two designs compared to other multi-threaded tests.

In single-threaded PassMark tests, the Core Ultra X9 388H wins with 4280 against 4006, a delta of -6.4%. The Cinebench R15 and R20 single-core tests also go to the Core Ultra X9 388H, with deltas of -6.6% and -34.7% respectively. The data shows a mixed picture for single-threaded performance, with the Core 5 211E winning one test decisively and the Core Ultra X9 388H winning the others.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has an average benchmark score of 44466, which is higher than the Intel Core 5 211E's average of 37829.

Q: How many benchmark comparisons does each processor win?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core 5 211E wins 2.

Q: What is the difference in process node between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is built on a 3 nm process, while the Intel Core 5 211E is built on a 10 nm process.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H does not.

Q: What is the difference in TDP between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has a TDP of 25 watts.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Core 5 211E's boost clock of 4.90 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is the clear winner for compute-heavy tasks. Its victories in PassMark physics, find prime numbers, floating-point math, data encryption, and extended instructions show that it is better suited for scientific simulations, cryptographic workloads, and complex mathematical processing. The multithreaded Cinebench R15 and R20 results, along with the PassMark multithread score, confirm its strength in rendering and other parallel workloads. The Core Ultra X9 388H is the preferred choice for mobile workstations or compact systems where maximum computational throughput is required, especially given its 25-watt TDP.

The Intel Core 5 211E wins in the Cinebench R23 tests, both single-core and multicore. The single-core victory with a 30.8% delta is particularly significant, indicating that for applications relying on a single thread, this desktop processor can deliver higher performance. The multicore win in R23, while smaller at 7.8%, shows that the Core 5 211E can outperform the Core Ultra X9 388H in specific rendering workloads. This processor is better suited for desktop systems where the Cinebench R23 workload is representative of the user's primary applications, and where the 65-watt TDP is acceptable.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in almost every core specification. The Intel Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The base clock of the Core 5 211E is 2.70 GHz, compared to 2.10 GHz for the Core Ultra X9 388H. The boost clock is higher on the Core Ultra X9 388H at 5.10 GHz versus 4.90 GHz. The TDP is drastically different, with the desktop part at 65 watts and the mobile part at 25 watts.

The cache configuration also differs. The Intel Core 5 211E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache is larger on the Core 5 211E, with 20 MB shared, compared to 18 MB shared on the Core Ultra X9 388H. Memory support is another key difference: the Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the Core Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The Core 5 211E supports ECC memory, but the Core Ultra X9 388H does not. PCIe lane counts also differ, with the Core 5 211E offering 16 Gen 5 lanes and the Core Ultra X9 388H offering 4 Gen 5 lanes.

Architecture Differences

The architectural differences are fundamental. 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 node at Intel's foundry and has a die size of 257 mm². It uses the Intel Socket 1700 and features UHD Graphics 730 as its integrated graphics. Its release date is recorded as 2025-01-12.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses the Panther Lake codename and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and Ultra X9 generation. It is built on a much more advanced 3 nm process node at Intel's foundry. It uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket and features Arc B390 as its integrated graphics. Its release date is recorded as 2026-01-04. The Core Ultra X9 388H uses a different memory architecture with LPDDR5X support, and its 3 nm process allows for a higher core count in a mobile package.

The Verdict

The data directs different buyers to each processor. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is the stronger processor overall, with a higher average score, a higher percentile ranking, and 15 wins in the head-to-head benchmarks. Its performance in physics, floating-point math, and encryption is exceptional, and its 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth and 16 cores make it a potent choice for mobile workstations. The 25-watt TDP makes it a highly efficient option for a laptop or compact system.

The Intel Core 5 211E is the better choice when the specific workload matches its strengths. The Cinebench R23 single-core result, with a 30.8% lead, shows that this processor can deliver superior performance in single-threaded applications. Its ECC memory support is a critical feature for systems requiring error correction, and its use of the Intel Socket 1700 makes it a desktop processor for traditional builds. The 65-watt TDP is higher, but the platform allows for more conventional cooling and expansion. The Core 5 211E also offers 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, which is a significant advantage for systems with multiple high-speed expansion cards. Users requiring ECC memory or extensive PCIe connectivity should select the Core 5 211E, while those prioritizing raw computational throughput and efficiency should choose the Core Ultra X9 388H.