Intel Core 5 211TE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235A Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A compare to the Intel Core 5 211TE in overall benchmark performance?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235A holds a commanding lead. Its average benchmark score is 48201, while the Core 5 211TE averages 15370. The Core Ultra 5 235A also sits in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Core 5 211TE sits in the 69th percentile.

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A wins decisively. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 4607 versus 1722 for the Core 5 211TE, a delta of -62.6%. PassMark single-thread results confirm this, with the Core Ultra 5 235A scoring 4557 against 1408.

Q: Is the Intel Core 5 211TE competitive in multi-threaded applications?

A: No. The Core Ultra 5 235A outscores it by a wide margin in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 32633 to 12201, a -62.6% delta. PassMark multithread shows 38392 for the Core Ultra 5 235A versus 11685 for the Core 5 211TE, a -69.6% delta.

Q: What are the memory support differences between the two CPUs?

A: The Core 5 211TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 235A supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but with higher bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s. The Core 5 211TE supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 5 235A does not.

Q: Which processor uses a more advanced manufacturing process?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235A uses a 3 nm process from TSMC. The Core 5 211TE uses Intel's 10 nm process. The Core Ultra 5 235A also has a larger die size at 243 mm², compared to 215 mm² for the Core 5 211TE.

Q: Do both processors have the same socket and PCIe support?

A: No. The Core 5 211TE uses Intel Socket 1700 with Gen 5 PCIe at 16 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 5 235A uses Intel Socket 1851 with Gen 5 PCIe at 20 lanes (CPU only).

The Verdict

The data points to a single clear outcome: the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A outperforms the Intel Core 5 211TE in every benchmark category recorded. Out of 17 head-to-head tests, the Core Ultra 5 235A wins all 17. The Core 5 211TE does not win a single test.

The Core Ultra 5 235A belongs in a system where processing throughput is the priority. It delivers substantially higher scores across rendering, encryption, compression, and physics simulations. Its 90th percentile standing among all CPUs confirms its high-end placement.

The Core 5 211TE, with its 69th percentile placement, is a moderate performer. It remains an active product with support for DDR4 and ECC memory, which are characteristics some system builders may need. However, for raw performance, no benchmark in the database shows it catching up to the Core Ultra 5 235A.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest delta between the two processors appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test. The Core Ultra 5 235A scores 392, while the Core 5 211TE scores 72, a -81.6% delta. This indicates a massive gap in integer-heavy, single-threaded computational tasks.

Floating point math also shows a large divide. The Core Ultra 5 235A scores 118778, compared to 26150 for the Core 5 211TE, a -78% delta. Data encryption shows a -76% delta, with scores of 30136 versus 7231. Extended instructions follow at -72.8%, with 31625 versus 8615.

Random string sorting yields a -70% delta, with the Core Ultra 5 235A at 49489 and the Core 5 211TE at 14838. PassMark multithread shows a -69.6% delta, and single-thread shows -69.1%, with scores of 4557 versus 1408. Data compression shows a -66.1% delta, at 393800 versus 133434.

Cinebench results are consistent across all versions. R15 multi-core shows 3289 versus 1229, R20 multi-core shows 13705 versus 5124, and R23 multi-core shows 32633 versus 12201. Each carries a -62.6% delta. Single-core Cinebench tests show the same -62.6% or -62.7% delta pattern, with R23 single-core at 4607 versus 1722.

The smallest delta in the entire set is PassMark physics, at -47.6%. The Core Ultra 5 235A scores 2437, while the Core 5 211TE scores 1278. Even the narrowest gap remains a substantial loss for the Core 5 211TE.

PassMark integer math shows a -61.6% delta, with 88626 versus 33991. This is the smallest delta among the PassMark tests, but still a decisive win for the Core Ultra 5 235A.

Specification Differences

The Intel Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Core 5 211TE uses hyper-threading, while the Core Ultra 5 235A does not, which explains the thread count disparity despite fewer physical cores.

Base clocks differ significantly. The Core 5 211TE runs at 1.70 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 235A runs at 3.40 GHz. Boost clocks are closer, with the Core 5 211TE at 4.80 GHz and the Core Ultra 5 235A at 5.00 GHz.

Thermal design power differs by 20 watts. The Core 5 211TE is rated at 45 W, while the Core Ultra 5 235A is rated at 65 W.

Socket compatibility is not shared. The Core 5 211TE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 235A uses Intel Socket 1851.

Cache hierarchies differ across all levels. The Core 5 211TE has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 235A has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3.

Memory support is narrower on the Core Ultra 5 235A, which supports only DDR5. The Core 5 211TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth is higher on the Core Ultra 5 235A at 102.4 GB/s, versus 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 211TE.

ECC memory is supported on the Core 5 211TE but not on the Core Ultra 5 235A. PCIe lane counts differ, with 16 lanes on the Core 5 211TE and 20 lanes on the Core Ultra 5 235A, both Gen 5.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 211TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 235A uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU.

The release dates are separated by several months. The Core 5 211TE was released on 2025-01-12, and the Core Ultra 5 235A on 2025-07-28.

The Core Ultra 5 235A has a launch MSRP of $269. The Core 5 211TE has a launch MSRP of $221.

Architecture Differences

The Core Ultra 5 235A uses the Arrow Lake architecture, codenamed Arrow Lake-S, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2. The Core 5 211TE uses the Bartlett Lake architecture, with the generation listed as Core 5 (Bartlett Lake).

Manufacturing processes are fundamentally different. The Core Ultra 5 235A is built by TSMC on a 3 nm process. The Core 5 211TE is built by Intel on a 10 nm process. The Core Ultra 5 235A also lists 17,800 million transistors, a figure not provided for the Core 5 211TE.

Die size favors the Core Ultra 5 235A at 243 mm², versus 215 mm² for the Core 5 211TE. The larger die and advanced node reflect a more complex implementation.

Core organization differs in a meaningful way. The 14 cores and 14 threads on the Core Ultra 5 235A indicate a design without simultaneous multi-threading, while the 10 cores and 16 threads on the Core 5 211TE indicate a design that uses it.

Cache architecture is more generous on the Core Ultra 5 235A at every level. L1 per core is 192 KB versus 80 KB, L2 per core is 3 MB versus 1.25 MB, and shared L3 is 24 MB versus 20 MB.

The integrated graphics solution is also generationally different. Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU on the Core Ultra 5 235A represents a newer GPU architecture than the UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 5 211TE.

The memory controller on the Core Ultra 5 235A is DDR5-only, whereas the Core 5 211TE retains a dual-standard controller for DDR4 and DDR5. The higher memory bandwidth on the Core Ultra 5 235A, 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s, aligns with its newer memory architecture.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A wins in every measured category. There is no benchmark in the database where the Intel Core 5 211TE takes a single win.

For rendering workloads, the Core Ultra 5 235A is the clear choice. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 32633 versus 12201, and R20 multi-core shows 13705 versus 5124. The delta remains consistent at -62.6% across all Cinebench multi-core versions.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the Core Ultra 5 235A again dominates. Cinebench R23 single-core at 4607 versus 1722, and PassMark single-thread at 4557 versus 1408, both show a roughly 2.2x advantage.

For data-heavy tasks, the Core Ultra 5 235A leads by even larger margins. Data compression at 393800 versus 133434, data encryption at 30136 versus 7231, and random string sorting at 49489 versus 14838 all favor the Core Ultra 5 235A.

For mathematical workloads, the Core Ultra 5 235A shows its strongest relative advantage. Floating point math at 118778 versus 26150 and find prime numbers at 392 versus 72 represent the largest deltas in the dataset.

The Core 5 211TE does offer characteristics that may suit specific use cases. It supports ECC memory, which the Core Ultra 5 235A does not. It also supports DDR4 memory, which can be relevant for systems reusing existing DDR4 modules. Its lower 45 W TDP and lower 1.70 GHz base clock suggest a more power-conscious design, though the database does not include measured power consumption figures to confirm this.

For physics simulations, the Core Ultra 5 235A wins, but with the smallest margin in the dataset at -47.6%. The scores are 2437 versus 1278. Even this narrowest gap represents a near-doubling of performance.

The percentile standings summarize the split. The Core Ultra 5 235A at the 90th percentile is positioned among high-performance desktop processors. The Core 5 211TE at the 69th percentile is a mid-range part. Buyers choosing between these two should base their decision on the performance requirements of their workloads, as the Core Ultra 5 235A is the stronger performer in every recorded test.