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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX wins every single one of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests. There is no test in the database where the Intel Core 5 211TE comes out ahead. The data shows a consistent, sweeping performance advantage for the mobile Arrow Lake-HX part.

The most decisive victories for the Core Ultra 5 235HX come in the PassMark suite. In the floating point math test, it scores 129,819 against the Core 5 211TE's 26,150, a delta of -79.9%. The prime number finding test shows an even larger gap: 361 versus 72, a -80.1% difference. Data encryption is similarly lopsided, with the Ultra 5 scoring 32,697 against 7,231, a -77.9% margin. Extended instructions also favor the newer chip heavily, 34,808 versus 8,615, representing a -75.2% difference.

The Cinebench results tell the same story, though with slightly narrower margins. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 235HX scores 34,731 while the Core 5 211TE manages 12,201, a -64.9% delta. Single-core R23 shows 4,903 against 1,722, also a -64.9% difference. The same -64.9% pattern repeats across Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core and single-core tests, suggesting a consistent architectural scaling factor rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

The smallest relative gap appears in PassMark physics, where the Ultra 5 scores 2,550 versus 1,278, a -49.9% delta. Still a clear win, but the closest contest in the entire dataset. Random string sorting shows a -70.9% margin (50,929 versus 14,838), while integer math is -65% (97,177 versus 33,991). The multi-thread PassMark test gives the Ultra 5 a score of 40,849 against 11,685, a -71.4% difference.

The overall average benchmark score confirms the hierarchy. The Core Ultra 5 235HX sits at an average of 52,073, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 5 211TE averages 15,370, landing in the 69th percentile. For context, the Core 5 211TE's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7543 (average score 15,477, a -0.7% difference) and the AMD Ryzen 3 7440U (15,682, -2%). The Core Ultra 5 235HX, by contrast, trades blows with the AMD EPYC 8124P (52,121, -0.1%), the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X (51,947, 0.2%), and the Intel Core i7-14700 (52,301, -0.4%). The Ultra 5 is competing in a vastly higher performance class.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX dominates. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 34,731 versus 12,201 for the Core 5 211TE, a -64.9% difference. The PassMark multi-thread test shows 40,849 versus 11,685, a -71.4% margin.

Q: Is the single-core performance gap as large as the multi-core gap?

A: Yes, the single-core results are nearly identical in relative terms. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 4,903 for the Ultra 5 and 1,722 for the Core 5 211TE, a -64.9% delta. PassMark single-thread scores are 4,683 versus 1,408, a -69.9% difference.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Core 5 211TE (average score 15,370) is within 2.3% of the Intel Core i3-1315U (15,022) and within 2% of the AMD Ryzen 3 7440U (15,682). The Core Ultra 5 235HX (average 52,073) is within 0.7% of the Intel Core i9-13900F (51,730) and within 0.4% of the Intel Core i7-14700 (52,301).

Q: What is the largest benchmark gap between the two chips?

A: The PassMark prime number test shows the biggest relative difference. The Core Ultra 5 235HX scores 361, while the Core 5 211TE scores 72, a -80.1% delta.

Q: Are there any workloads where the Core 5 211TE is competitive?

A: The closest contest is PassMark physics, where the Ultra 5 scores 2,550 against 1,278, a -49.9% delta. This is still a decisive win for the Ultra 5, but it is the narrowest margin in the entire benchmark set.

Q: What do the Cinebench R15 scores show?

A: In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 5 scores 3,500 versus 1,229 for the Core 5 211TE, a -64.9% delta. Single-core R15 shows 494 versus 173, a -65% difference.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design lineages. The Intel Core 5 211TE is built on the Bartlett Lake architecture, manufactured on a 10 nm process by Intel, with a die size of 215 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-HX variant, and is manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. The Ultra 5's die measures 243 mm² and contains 17,800 million transistors. No transistor count is recorded for the Core 5 211TE.

Core configurations differ significantly. The Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads, implying hyper-threading on some cores. The Core Ultra 5 235HX has 14 cores and 14 threads, meaning no hyper-threading is present. Despite having fewer threads, the Ultra 5's higher core count and newer microarchitecture deliver vastly superior performance.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 5 211TE uses 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 235HX uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core caches and higher total L3 on the Ultra 5 contribute to its substantial lead in memory-sensitive workloads like data compression and random string sorting.

Clock speeds follow the same pattern. The Core 5 211TE has a base clock of 1.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 235HX runs at 2.90 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost. The higher boost clock, combined with the 3 nm process from TSMC, explains the significant single-core advantage.

Memory support is another point of separation. The Core 5 211TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 235HX supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but with a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, and it lacks ECC support. PCIe connectivity also favors the Ultra 5: it provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the Core 5 211TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 211TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 48 execution units. The market segments reflect their intended use: the Core 5 211TE is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX is a mobile part on Intel BGA 2114. The TDP values also differ: 45 watts for the Core 5 211TE and 55 watts for the Ultra 5. The Ultra 5 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 5 211TE does not.

The Verdict

The data leaves no room for ambiguity. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX outperforms the Intel Core 5 211TE in every single recorded benchmark. The 91st percentile placement of the Ultra 5 versus the 69th percentile of the Core 5 211TE reflects the performance class separation. The average benchmark score of 52,073 for the Ultra 5 is more than three times the 15,370 average of the Core 5 211TE.

The Core 5 211TE competes with a different tier entirely. Its nearest rivals, the AMD EPYC 7543, AMD EPYC 7702P, AMD Ryzen 3 7440U, and Intel Core i3-1315U, all sit within a 2.3% range of its average score. This places it as a mid-range desktop processor, suitable for general computing tasks where its 10 cores and 16 threads are adequate.

The Core Ultra 5 235HX belongs to the high-performance tier. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X and Intel Core i9-13900F, both flagship-class desktop processors from previous generations. The fact that a mobile chip in a BGA package trades blows with these desktop parts indicates a significant architectural advantage.

For desktop users on Socket 1700, the Core 5 211TE offers a specific feature set: ECC memory support, DDR4 compatibility, and a 45-watt TDP. The Ultra 5, in contrast, is locked to a mobile form factor, supports only DDR5, and draws 55 watts. These are not competing in the same socket or the same market segment. The choice between them is dictated by platform requirements, not by performance parity, because none exists.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show the Core 5 211TE and Core Ultra 5 235HX differ in nearly every field:

• Cores: 10 (Core 5 211TE) versus 14 (Core Ultra 5 235HX)
• Threads: 16 versus 14
• Base clock: 1.70 GHz versus 2.90 GHz
• Boost clock: 4.80 GHz versus 5.10 GHz
• TDP: 45 W versus 55 W
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 2114
• Codename: Bartlett Lake versus Arrow Lake-HX
• Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• Die size: 215 mm² versus 243 mm²
• Transistors: not recorded versus 17,800 million
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core
• L2 cache: 1.25 MB per core versus 3 MB per core
• L3 cache: 20 MB shared versus 24 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 versus DDR5 only
• Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s
• ECC memory: true versus false
• PCIe lanes: Gen 5, 16 lanes versus Gen 5, 20 lanes
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 48EU
• Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile
• Multiplier unlocked: false versus true
• Part number: SRQDL versus SRVFL
• Launch MSRP: $221 versus not recorded (stated once as launch MSRP, no further pricing analysis)

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 235HX wins everywhere in the benchmark data. There are zero tests where the Core 5 211TE takes the lead. The question is not which workloads favor the Ultra 5, but rather which workloads show the greatest relative gap.

The Ultra 5's largest advantages appear in compute-heavy PassMark tests: prime number finding (-80.1%), floating point math (-79.9%), data encryption (-77.9%), and extended instructions (-75.2%). These are computationally intensive, instruction-level workloads that benefit most from the 3 nm process, higher clocks, and larger caches.

The Cinebench suite shows a uniform -64.9% delta across all versions and both single and multi-core tests. This consistency suggests the Ultra 5's advantage is architectural rather than workload-specific. Every Cinebench test, from R15 to R23, scales by the same factor.

The Core 5 211TE's closest contest is PassMark physics, at -49.9%. Physics simulations often rely on fixed-point arithmetic and branch prediction, which may partially mitigate the clock speed disadvantage. Still, the Ultra 5 wins by a substantial margin.

For desktop users who need ECC memory support, DDR4 compatibility, and a 45-watt TDP on Socket 1700, the Core 5 211TE is the only option in this comparison. For users who prioritize raw performance, higher memory bandwidth, more PCIe lanes, and are building on a mobile platform, the Core Ultra 5 235HX delivers results that rival flagship desktop processors from the previous generation. The benchmark data does not identify a single scenario where the Core 5 211TE offers a performance advantage over the Core Ultra 5 235HX.