Intel Core 5 211TE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 226V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core Ultra 5 226V, winning 16 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons. The single exception is the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, where the Intel Core 5 211TE delivers a 12201 score against 9848 for the Core Ultra 5 226V, a 23.9% advantage. This result indicates that the desktop chip’s higher core count and thread count provide a tangible benefit in sustained multi-threaded rendering workloads, despite the mobile chip’s newer architecture.

Outside of that single win, the Core Ultra 5 226V dominates across nearly every other metric. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 5 scores 1501 versus 1229 for the 211TE, a 18.1% margin. The single-core gap widens considerably in Cinebench R15, where the Ultra 5 posts 267 against 173, a 35.2% difference. Cinebench R20 shows a similar pattern: the Ultra 5 leads by 19.7% in both multi-core (6381 vs 5124) and single-core (900 vs 723) tests.

The PassMark suite reveals the most dramatic discrepancies. The Ultra 5 226V scores 3754 in PassMark single-thread, which is 62.5% higher than the 211TE’s 1408. Floating point math performance shows a 50% deficit for the 211TE, with the Ultra 5 scoring 52270 against 26150. Prime number finding favors the Ultra 5 by 56.6% (166 vs 72), and data encryption shows a 43.1% gap (12710 vs 7231). Extended instructions testing gives the Ultra 5 a 41.5% lead (14724 vs 8615).

The multi-threaded PassMark result also favors the Ultra 5, with a score of 17850 versus 11685 for the 211TE, a 34.5% margin. Data compression shows a 21.8% advantage for the Ultra 5 (170687 vs 133434), while random string sorting gives the Ultra 5 a 28.7% edge (20813 vs 14838). Integer math is closer, with the Ultra 5 scoring 38647 against 33991, a 12% gap. Physics testing shows an 11.8% lead for the Ultra 5 (1449 vs 1278).

The overall average benchmark score confirms this trend. The Core Ultra 5 226V sits at 19368, placing it in the 73rd percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 211TE averages 15370, in the 69th percentile. The database’s nearest rival analysis places the Ultra 5 alongside the AMD Ryzen 5 7533HS (0% delta) and Intel Core i5-1345U (-0.2% delta). The 211TE’s closest competitors include the AMD EPYC 7543 (-0.7% delta) and AMD Ryzen 3 7440U (-2% delta).

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core 5 211TE wins with a score of 12201, a 23.9% advantage over the Core Ultra 5 226V’s 9848.

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

A: In PassMark single-thread, the Core Ultra 5 226V scores 3754 versus 1408 for the 211TE, a 62.5% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 35.2% gap (267 vs 173).

Q: What is the difference in overall benchmark percentile?

A: The Core Ultra 5 226V ranks in the 73rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 211TE sits in the 69th percentile.

Q: Which chip has more cores and threads?

A: The Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 5 226V has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Does the Core 5 211TE win any benchmark at all?

A: Yes, it wins only the Cinebench R23 multi-core test. The Core Ultra 5 226V wins the other 16 head-to-head comparisons.

Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core 5 211TE has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 226V boosts to 4.50 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design lineages. The Core 5 211TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename, built on a 10 nm Intel process with a die size of 215 mm². The Core Ultra 5 226V is a Lunar Lake part, fabricated on TSMC’s 3 nm process. This process node difference explains part of the efficiency and performance-per-watt gap between the two.

Core organization differs substantially. The 211TE packs 10 physical cores with 16 threads, indicating Hyper-Threading support on some cores. The 226V has 8 cores and 8 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. Cache layouts diverge sharply: the 211TE provides 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. The 226V offers 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, but only 8 MB shared L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 on the Lunar Lake chip likely contributes to its strong single-thread performance, while the 211TE’s larger shared L3 helps in multi-threaded workloads.

Memory support reveals another key split. The 211TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a measured bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The 226V lists memory support as dependent on the motherboard, with dual-channel operation but no ECC capability. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the 211TE provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the 226V provides Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes, reflecting the mobile platform’s constrained connectivity.

Integrated graphics also differ. The 211TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the 226V carries Arc 130V graphics. The market segments confirm the intended use cases: the 211TE is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700, while the 226V is a mobile part on Intel BGA 2833.

Power characteristics are not directly comparable in the database, but the thermal design points are listed: 45 for the 211TE and 17 for the 226V. The 226V’s much lower TDP aligns with its mobile positioning. The 211TE has a launch MSRP of $221; the 226V has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 226V for the majority of workloads. Its 62.5% single-thread lead, 50% floating point advantage, and 43.1% encryption edge show that the Lunar Lake architecture delivers substantially stronger per-core performance. The 226V also achieves a higher overall average benchmark score (19368 vs 15370) and a higher percentile ranking (73rd vs 69th). For users who prioritize responsiveness, encryption, compression, or any workload that leverages strong single-thread execution, the 226V is the superior choice based on the recorded measurements.

The Intel Core 5 211TE wins only in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where its 10 cores and 16 threads produce a 23.9% advantage. This suggests that highly parallel rendering tasks that scale across many threads can benefit from the desktop chip’s higher core count. Additionally, the 211TE supports ECC memory and offers 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, features absent from the 226V. The 211TE also supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the 226V’s memory support depends on the motherboard.

The 226V’s 8 MB shared L3 is smaller than the 211TE’s 20 MB, yet the Ultra 5 still wins most multi-threaded benchmarks. This indicates that the Lunar Lake core design and larger per-core caches compensate for the smaller shared cache. The 226V also wins PassMark multi-thread by 34.5% despite having fewer threads, further confirming that architectural efficiency outweighs raw thread count in most measured scenarios.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ across nearly every specification field. The Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads; the Core Ultra 5 226V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 1.70 GHz for the 211TE and 2.10 GHz for the 226V. Boost clocks are 4.80 GHz and 4.50 GHz respectively. TDP is listed as 45 for the 211TE and 17 for the 226V.

Sockets diverge: the 211TE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the 226V uses Intel BGA 2833. The codenames are Bartlett Lake versus Lunar Lake. Process nodes are 10 nm (Intel foundry) versus 3 nm (TSMC foundry). Die size is 215 mm² for the 211TE, with no die size recorded for the 226V.

Cache configurations differ in every level. L1 is 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core. L2 is 1.25 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core. L3 is 20 MB shared versus 8 MB shared. Memory support lists DDR4/DDR5 for the 211TE and motherboard-dependent for the 226V. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s for the 211TE, with no value recorded for the 226V. ECC memory is supported on the 211TE only.

PCIe lanes are 16 Gen 5 for the 211TE versus 4 Gen 5 for the 226V. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc 130V. Market segments are Desktop versus Mobile. Release dates are 2025-01-12 for the 211TE and 2024-09-23 for the 226V. The 211TE has a launch MSRP of $221, while the 226V has none recorded. Part numbers are SRQDL for the 211TE and SRPMQSRPMR for the 226V.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 226V wins in all but one measured benchmark category. Its advantages are especially pronounced in single-thread workloads, where it leads by 62.5% in PassMark single-thread and 35.2% in Cinebench R15 single-core. Applications that rely on per-core speed, such as encryption, compression, and extended instruction processing, all favor the 226V. The data shows 43.1%, 21.8%, and 41.5% leads in those respective PassMark tests. Floating point math, prime number finding, and random string sorting also favor the 226V by margins between 28.7% and 56.6%.

The 226V also wins the majority of multi-threaded benchmarks despite having fewer cores. PassMark multi-thread shows a 34.5% lead, and Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 19.7% edge. Even in Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 226V wins by 18.1%. This pattern indicates that the Lunar Lake architecture’s efficiency and higher per-core throughput allow it to outperform a chip with 25% more cores and 100% more threads in most parallel workloads.

The Core 5 211TE’s sole win comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where its 12201 score beats the 226V’s 9848. This specific benchmark appears to scale well with the 211TE’s 10-core, 16-thread configuration. The 211TE also offers platform-level advantages not captured in the benchmark scores: ECC memory support, 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, and DDR4/DDR5 memory compatibility. For desktop users who need ECC for reliability or require extensive PCIe connectivity for expansion cards, the 211TE provides capabilities the 226V lacks.

The 226V’s integrated Arc 130V graphics likely provide better visual output than the 211TE’s UHD Graphics 730, though no graphics benchmarks are recorded. The 226V’s mobile form factor and low TDP make it suitable for portable systems, while the 211TE targets desktop builds. The production status for both is Active, and both lack an unlocked multiplier.

In summary, the data supports choosing the Core Ultra 5 226V for general computing, single-thread-heavy tasks, and most multi-threaded workloads. The Core 5 211TE is the pick only when Cinebench R23 multi-core rendering is the primary workload, or when ECC memory and high PCIe lane counts are required.