Intel Core 5 211TE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 134U Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core 5 211TE wins 10 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 134U wins 7. However, the average benchmark scores tell a closer story: the Core Ultra 5 134U averages 15910 points versus 15370 for the Core 5 211TE.

Q: How do the two compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The Core Ultra 5 134U dominates in PassMark single-thread testing with a score of 3063 versus 1408 for the Core 5 211TE, a massive 117.5% advantage. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core Ultra 5 134U also leads with 221 versus 173, a 27.7% edge. The Core 5 211TE counters in Cinebench R20 and R23 single-core, winning by 7.9% and 8.5% respectively.

Q: What about multi-core rendering workloads?

A: The Core 5 211TE wins all three Cinebench multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 12201 versus 5572, a 54.3% advantage. It also leads in Cinebench R15 multi-core (1229 versus 894, 27.3% ahead) and Cinebench R20 multi-core (5124 versus 4725, 7.8% ahead).

Q: Which processor has better integrated graphics?

A: The Core Ultra 5 134U features Arc Xe-LPG 64EU integrated graphics, while the Core 5 211TE uses UHD Graphics 730. The benchmark data does not include direct graphics tests, so the comparison is limited to specification differences.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: Only the Core 5 211TE supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 134U does not list ECC support in the database. The Core 5 211TE also supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 5 134U supports DDR5 only, with capacity depending on the motherboard.

Q: How do their market segments differ?

A: The Core Ultra 5 134U is classified as a Mobile processor with a 9 W TDP, while the Core 5 211TE is a Desktop processor with a 45 W TDP. The Core 5 211TE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 134U uses Intel BGA 2551.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different Intel design approaches. The Core Ultra 5 134U is built on Meteor Lake architecture using a 7 nm process node, while the Core 5 211TE uses Bartlett Lake architecture on a 10 nm process. The die size for the Core 5 211TE is recorded at 215 mm², while no die size is listed for the Core Ultra 5 134U.

Core configuration differs significantly. The Core Ultra 5 134U packs 12 cores and 14 threads, while the Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads. This means the Core 5 211TE achieves higher thread counts despite fewer physical cores, suggesting a different core topology. Cache hierarchies also diverge: the Core Ultra 5 134U has 112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core with 12 MB shared L3, while the Core 5 211TE has 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core with a larger 20 MB shared L3.

Clock speeds favor the Core 5 211TE in terms of peak boost, running at 4.80 GHz versus 4.40 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 134U. The base clock difference is substantial: 1.70 GHz for the Core 5 211TE versus 700 MHz for the Core Ultra 5 134U. Power envelopes are starkly different, with the Core Ultra 5 134U rated at 9 W TDP compared to 45 W for the Core 5 211TE.

PCIe capabilities favor the Core 5 211TE, which supports Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 5 134U supports Gen 4 with 8 lanes. Memory bandwidth is recorded only for the Core 5 211TE at 76.8 GB/s. The Core 5 211TE also includes ECC memory support, a feature absent from the Core Ultra 5 134U.

Release timing differs by roughly one year: the Core Ultra 5 134U launched on 2023-12-13, while the Core 5 211TE launched on 2025-01-12. Both processors are currently listed as Active in production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results reveal a clear split: the Core 5 211TE excels in rendering workloads and physics, while the Core Ultra 5 134U dominates math operations and single-threaded tasks.

The largest win for the Core 5 211TE comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 12201 versus 5572 for the Core Ultra 5 134U, a 54.3% advantage. This rendering advantage extends to Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the Core 5 211TE leads by 27.3% (1229 versus 894), and Cinebench R20 multi-core, where it leads by 7.8% (5124 versus 4725). PassMark physics also favors the Core 5 211TE, with a 30.9% edge (1278 versus 883).

The Core Ultra 5 134U strikes back with its own decisive wins. PassMark single-thread shows the largest margin: 3063 versus 1408, a 117.5% advantage. Integer math goes to the Core Ultra 5 134U by 50.9% (51306 versus 33991). Floating point math also favors the Core Ultra 5 134U, scoring 32425 versus 26150, a 24% lead. Data encryption shows an 11.7% edge for the Core Ultra 5 134U (8077 versus 7231), and multithread performance favors it by 6.7% (12464 versus 11685).

Several benchmarks show narrower margins. The Core 5 211TE wins extended instructions by 18.7% (8615 versus 7002), find prime numbers by 22.2% (72 versus 56), random string sorting by 7.7% (14838 versus 13702), and data compression by 6.5% (133434 versus 124771). In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Core 5 211TE wins 723 versus 666 (7.9%), and in Cinebench R23 single-core it wins 1722 versus 1576 (8.5%).

Cinebench R15 single-core is the only single-thread test where the Core Ultra 5 134U wins, scoring 221 versus 173, a 27.7% margin. The overall pattern suggests the Core 5 211TE is better suited for sustained multi-core rendering, while the Core Ultra 5 134U excels in math-heavy and single-threaded workloads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 134U | Intel Core 5 211TE |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 12 | 10 |

| Threads | 14 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 700 MHz | 1.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 9 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2551 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Meteor Lake | Bartlett Lake |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 10 nm |

| Die Size | Not listed | 215 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 112 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, depends on motherboard | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 76.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 8 lanes | Gen 5, 16 lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG 64EU | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2023-12-13 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | $332 | $221 |

| Part Number | SRN84 | SRQDL |

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two processors with opposing strengths. The Core 5 211TE is the clear choice for multi-core rendering workloads, winning all three Cinebench multi-core tests and delivering a 54.3% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core. Its physics performance is also substantially better, with a 30.9% lead. Desktop users running rendering, physics simulation, or compression tasks should favor the Core 5 211TE.

The Core Ultra 5 134U dominates in math-intensive and single-threaded workloads. Its 117.5% lead in PassMark single-thread and 50.9% lead in integer math are decisive. The Core Ultra 5 134U also wins floating point math by 24% and encryption by 11.7%. Mobile users prioritizing single-thread responsiveness and math throughput should prefer the Core Ultra 5 134U.

Both processors sit at similar overall performance percentiles: the Core Ultra 5 134U ranks at the 70th percentile versus 69th for the Core 5 211TE. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 5 134U is 15910, slightly above 15370 for the Core 5 211TE. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 5 134U include the AMD Ryzen 5 40 (0.2% ahead), AMD EPYC 9334 (0.2% ahead), AMD EPYC 75F3 (0.3% behind), and AMD EPYC 9354P (0.5% behind). The Core 5 211TE sits near the AMD EPYC 7543 (0.7% behind), AMD EPYC 7702P (1.6% ahead), AMD Ryzen 3 7440U (2% behind), and Intel Core i3-1315U (2.3% ahead).

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 211TE wins in:

• Multi-core rendering: Cinebench R23 multi-core leads by 54.3%, R15 by 27.3%, R20 by 7.8%
• Physics simulation: PassMark physics leads by 30.9%
• Prime number computation: PassMark find prime numbers leads by 22.2%
• Extended instructions: PassMark extended instructions leads by 18.7%
• Data compression: PassMark data compression leads by 6.5%
• Random string sorting: PassMark random string sorting leads by 7.7%
• Single-core Cinebench R20 and R23: leads by 7.9% and 8.5% respectively

The Core Ultra 5 134U wins in:

• Single-threaded PassMark: leads by 117.5%
• Integer math: leads by 50.9%
• Floating point math: leads by 24%
• Data encryption: leads by 11.7%
• PassMark multithread: leads by 6.7%
• Cinebench R15 single-core: leads by 27.7%

The use-case split is clear. For desktop rendering, physics, and compression workloads, the Core 5 211TE is the stronger choice. For mobile deployments, math-heavy applications, encryption, and general single-thread responsiveness, the Core Ultra 5 134U is superior. The Core 5 211TE also offers ECC memory support, PCIe Gen 5 connectivity, and a larger 20 MB shared L3 cache, making it more suitable for workstation-class tasks. The Core Ultra 5 134U counters with a dramatically lower 9 W TDP, making it far more efficient for battery-powered devices, and its Arc Xe-LPG 64EU integrated graphics represent a more modern GPU architecture than the UHD Graphics 730.