Intel Core 5 211TE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H defeats the Intel Core 5 211TE in every single recorded test. Across 17 head-to-head comparisons, the Core Ultra 5 225H records 17 wins, while the Core 5 211TE records none. The magnitude of the victory varies by workload, but the direction is consistent throughout.

The largest single-core gap appears in PassMark single-thread testing, where the Core Ultra 5 225H scores 4258 against 1408 for the Core 5 211TE, a 66.9% advantage. The Cinebench single-core results confirm the pattern, though with a narrower margin: the Core Ultra 5 225H leads by 40% in Cinebench R15 single-core (288.5 versus 173) and by 49% in Cinebench R20 single-core (1417 versus 723). In Cinebench R23 single-core, the lead narrows to 12.5%, with scores of 1969 and 1722 respectively. This suggests that the Core Ultra 5 225H has a substantial architectural edge in lightly threaded workloads, but the gap compresses under the newer Cinebench R23 test.

Multi-core results show even larger deltas. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 225H scores 2397.5, which is 48.7% ahead of the Core 5 211TE's 1229. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 49% lead (10041 versus 5124). The Cinebench R23 multi-core gap is smaller at 16.6%, with the Core Ultra 5 225H scoring 14629.5 against 12201. This pattern, where the R23 gap is much smaller than the R15 and R20 gaps, indicates that the Core 5 211TE scales relatively better under sustained heavy multi-core load, though it still trails decisively.

PassMark integer math shows the Core Ultra 5 225H at 68520 versus 33991 for the Core 5 211TE, a 50.4% advantage. Floating point math is the most lopsided result: 86540 versus 26150, a 69.8% lead. Data compression favors the Core Ultra 5 225H by 52.9% (283451 versus 133434), while data encryption shows a 66.3% gap (21428 versus 7231). The Core Ultra 5 225H also leads in extended instructions by 60.7% (21915 versus 8615) and in find prime numbers by 67.3% (220 versus 72).

Random string sorting favors the Core Ultra 5 225H by 55.9% (33654 versus 14838). PassMark multi-thread shows a 58.4% lead (28119 versus 11685), while PassMark physics shows a comparatively modest 31.9% advantage (1877 versus 1278).

The overall average benchmark score tells the same story. The Core Ultra 5 225H averages 31508 across all tests, placing it in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 5 211TE averages 15370, placing it in the 69th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 5 225H are the Intel Core i5-13500 with an average score of 31510 and a 0% delta, the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX at 31495 with a 0% delta, the Intel Core 7 240H at 31483 with a 0.1% delta, and the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 at 31473 with a 0.1% delta. The Core 5 211TE sits near the AMD EPYC 7543 (15477, 0.7% ahead), the AMD EPYC 7702P (15130, 1.6% behind), the AMD Ryzen 3 7440U (15682, 2% ahead), and the Intel Core i3-1315U (15022, 2.3% behind).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H has an average benchmark score of 31508, while the Intel Core 5 211TE averages 15370. The Core Ultra 5 225H also sits in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 69th percentile for the Core 5 211TE.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap between the two?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225H leads by 40% in Cinebench R15 single-core and 49% in Cinebench R20 single-core. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the lead is 12.5%. PassMark single-thread shows a 66.9% advantage for the Core Ultra 5 225H.

Q: Which processor is more efficient in terms of power draw?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225H has a TDP of 28 watts, while the Core 5 211TE has a TDP of 45 watts. The Core Ultra 5 225H delivers substantially higher performance at a lower rated power draw.

Q: Do both processors support DDR5 memory?

A: Yes, both support DDR5. The Core 5 211TE supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 225H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Core Ultra 5 225H has a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s compared to 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 211TE.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225H has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads. Despite having fewer threads, the Core Ultra 5 225H wins every multi-threaded benchmark in the recorded data.

Q: Do either of these processors have unlocked multipliers?

A: Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Both the Core 5 211TE and the Core Ultra 5 225H are locked, so overclocking is not supported according to the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different platforms. The Core 5 211TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is manufactured on a 10 nm process by Intel, with a die size of 215 mm². The Core Ultra 5 225H uses the Arrow Lake-H codename, is built on a 3 nm process by TSMC, and has no die size recorded in the database. The process node difference of 10 nm versus 3 nm is a major factor in the performance and efficiency gap.

The Core 5 211TE is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 225H is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 2049. The Core 5 211TE belongs to the Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) generation, and the Core Ultra 5 225H belongs to the Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake-H) generation within the Core Ultra Series 2 family.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The Core 5 211TE has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 225H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 225H has larger per-core caches, while the Core 5 211TE has a slightly larger L3 pool.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 5 211TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 225H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Core 5 211TE supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 5 225H does not. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 5 211TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 5 225H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics differ: the Core 5 211TE uses UHD Graphics 730, and the Core Ultra 5 225H uses Arc Graphics 130T.

The Core 5 211TE has a base clock of 1.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 225H also has a base clock of 1.70 GHz but a higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz. Both have a production status of Active and a release date of 2025-01-12. The Core 5 211TE has a launch MSRP of $221. The Core Ultra 5 225H has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H is faster than the Intel Core 5 211TE in every benchmark recorded, from Cinebench single-core to PassMark floating point math. The smallest advantage is 12.5% in Cinebench R23 single-core, and the largest is 69.8% in PassMark floating point math. The average benchmark score difference is 16138 points, or roughly double the Core 5 211TE's entire average.

The Core Ultra 5 225H achieves this with a lower TDP of 28 watts versus 45 watts, a smaller process node of 3 nm versus 10 nm, and a higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. It also benefits from larger per-core caches, with 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core, compared to 80 KB and 1.25 MB respectively on the Core 5 211TE.

The Core 5 211TE does retain a few distinct advantages. It supports ECC memory, which the Core Ultra 5 225H does not. It also offers 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, double the 8 lanes on the Core Ultra 5 225H. It has a larger shared L3 cache at 20 MB versus 18 MB, and it supports DDR4 memory in addition to DDR5, which can matter for system compatibility.

The Core 5 211TE's 16 threads versus the Core Ultra 5 225H's 14 threads do not translate into any benchmark win. Even in multi-threaded tests, the Core Ultra 5 225H leads by margins ranging from 16.6% in Cinebench R23 multi-core to 58.4% in PassMark multi-thread.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications that differ between the two processors are as follows:

• Cores: Core 5 211TE has 10, Core Ultra 5 225H has 14.
• Threads: Core 5 211TE has 16, Core Ultra 5 225H has 14.
• Boost clock: Core 5 211TE is 4.80 GHz, Core Ultra 5 225H is 4.90 GHz.
• TDP: Core 5 211TE is 45 watts, Core Ultra 5 225H is 28 watts.
• Socket: Core 5 211TE uses Intel Socket 1700, Core Ultra 5 225H uses Intel BGA 2049.
• Codename: Core 5 211TE is Bartlett Lake, Core Ultra 5 225H is Arrow Lake-H.
• Process node: Core 5 211TE is 10 nm, Core Ultra 5 225H is 3 nm.
• Foundry: Core 5 211TE uses Intel, Core Ultra 5 225H uses TSMC.
• Die size: Core 5 211TE is 215 mm², Core Ultra 5 225H is not recorded.
• L1 cache: Core 5 211TE is 80 KB per core, Core Ultra 5 225H is 192 KB per core.
• L2 cache: Core 5 211TE is 1.25 MB per core, Core Ultra 5 225H is 3 MB per core.
• L3 cache: Core 5 211TE is 20 MB shared, Core Ultra 5 225H is 18 MB shared.
• Memory support: Core 5 211TE supports DDR4 and DDR5, Core Ultra 5 225H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X.
• Memory bandwidth: Core 5 211TE is 76.8 GB/s, Core Ultra 5 225H is 102.4 GB/s.
• ECC memory: Core 5 211TE supports it, Core Ultra 5 225H does not.
• PCIe lanes: Core 5 211TE has 16 Gen 5 lanes, Core Ultra 5 225H has 8 Gen 5 lanes.
• Integrated graphics: Core 5 211TE uses UHD Graphics 730, Core Ultra 5 225H uses Arc Graphics 130T.
• Market segment: Core 5 211TE is Desktop, Core Ultra 5 225H is Mobile.
• Launch MSRP: Core 5 211TE is $221, Core Ultra 5 225H has none recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H wins in every performance category measured. For users prioritizing raw compute, the choice is straightforward: the Core Ultra 5 225H leads in single-core, multi-core, integer math, floating point math, encryption, compression, and every Cinebench iteration. Its 82nd percentile ranking versus the 69th percentile for the Core 5 211TE reflects a processor that sits much higher in the overall performance distribution.

The Core Ultra 5 225H is also the better choice for power-sensitive scenarios. Its 28 watt TDP, combined with the 3 nm process from TSMC, means it delivers roughly double the average benchmark score at a lower rated power draw. The mobile BGA 2049 socket and support for LPDDR5X memory indicate it is designed for compact, battery-powered systems where efficiency matters.

The Core 5 211TE has a narrower set of advantages. Its ECC memory support makes it suitable for error-sensitive workloads where data integrity is critical, a feature the Core Ultra 5 225H lacks. The 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide more CPU-attached expansion bandwidth for devices such as storage controllers or accelerators. The DDR4 compatibility allows the use of existing memory infrastructure. The desktop Socket 1700 platform offers a traditional upgrade and cooling path.

The Core 5 211TE's 16 threads versus 14 on the Core Ultra 5 225H does not produce any performance win in the recorded data. The higher thread count is offset by the Core Ultra 5 225H's larger per-core caches, higher boost clock, and more advanced process node. The 20 MB L3 cache on the Core 5 211TE is larger than the 18 MB on the Core Ultra 5 225H, but this does not result in any benchmark advantage.

For workloads that stress floating point, encryption, or prime number calculation, the Core Ultra 5 225H is decisively ahead, with margins between 66.3% and 69.8%. For workloads that rely on sustained multi-core rendering, the Cinebench R23 multi-core gap of 16.6% is the smallest margin in the entire dataset, but it still favors the Core Ultra 5 225H. The Core 5 211TE comes closest to parity in that specific test, but it never reaches it.