Intel Core 5 211TE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive sweep. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with no wins for the Intel Core 5 211TE. The margins are substantial across every category, starting with Cinebench. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Ultra 5 scores 42,718 against 12,201 for the Core 5, a 71.4% advantage. The single-core R23 result is similarly lopsided: 6,030 versus 1,722, again a 71.4% delta. These percentages repeat almost uniformly across the Cinebench suite. R15 multicore shows 4,305 against 1,229 (71.5% delta), and R20 multicore shows 17,941 against 5,124 (71.4% delta). Single-core R15 and R20 follow the same pattern with 71.5% and 71.4% deltas respectively.

PassMark tests tell the same story with even larger gaps in some cases. The most extreme difference appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 5 scores 452 against 72, an 84.1% delta. Floating point math shows 159,824 versus 26,150, an 83.6% delta. Data encryption shows 41,292 versus 7,231, an 82.5% delta. Extended instructions show 42,880 versus 8,615, a 79.9% delta. Random string sorting shows 67,209 versus 14,838, a 77.9% delta. Multithread performance shows 50,146 versus 11,685, a 76.7% delta. Data compression shows 553,155 versus 133,434, a 75.9% delta.

The smallest recorded gap is still a 59.8% delta in PassMark physics, where the Ultra 5 scores 3,183 against 1,278. Integer math shows a 72.4% delta (123,030 versus 33,991). The single-thread PassMark tests show 4,698 versus 1,408, a 70% delta. No test in the database places the two processors close to parity. The Ultra 5's average benchmark score of 66,159 places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5's average of 15,370 puts it in the 69th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 211TE does not win any of the 17 recorded benchmark tests, so its case rests entirely on platform characteristics rather than measured performance. The data indicates the Ultra 5 is the stronger choice for every workload category represented in the benchmark suite. The largest deltas, such as the 84.1% gap in prime number finding and the 83.6% gap in floating point math, suggest particularly strong advantages in computational and mathematical workloads. The 82.5% delta in data encryption points to a clear edge in security-related processing. The 75.9% delta in data compression indicates faster archiving and file-handling operations.

The Core 5 211TE does have characteristics that matter outside raw throughput. Its 45 watt TDP is far lower than the Ultra 5's 125 watt TDP, so systems built around it will generate less heat and require less substantial cooling. It also includes UHD Graphics 730 integrated graphics, while the Ultra 5 has no integrated graphics at all. That makes the Core 5 usable without a discrete GPU for basic display output, something the Ultra 5 cannot do. The Core 5 also supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, whereas the Ultra 5 only supports DDR5. Those are real advantages for a low-power or budget-oriented build, even if they do not appear in the benchmark scores.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families and use different manufacturing processes. The Core 5 211TE is a Bartlett Lake part built on Intel's 10 nm process with a die size of 215 mm². The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is an Arrow Lake Refresh part built on TSMC's 3 nm process with a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors. The process node difference explains a great deal of the performance gap. The Ultra 5 packs 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Core 5 has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Core 5 uses Hyper-Threading to reach 16 threads from 10 cores, while the Ultra 5 runs with one thread per core.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The Core 5 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. Every cache level is larger on the Ultra 5. Clock speeds also favor the Ultra 5. Its base clock is 4.20 GHz with a 5.30 GHz boost, versus 1.70 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost for the Core 5. The Core 5's low base clock is notable, though its boost clock closes part of the gap.

Memory bandwidth is another major split. The Ultra 5 supports DDR5 only with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core 5 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 at 76.8 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses. PCIe support differs as well. The Ultra 5 provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the Core 5 provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. Both support ECC memory. The sockets are incompatible: the Core 5 uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Ultra 5 uses Intel Socket 1851. The Ultra 5 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 5 does not. The Ultra 5 lacks integrated graphics entirely, while the Core 5 includes UHD Graphics 730.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The Intel Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Core 5 reaches 16 threads through multithreading on 10 cores, while the Ultra 5 uses a single thread per core.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes. Both the Intel Core 5 211TE and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core 5 211TE has integrated graphics, using UHD Graphics 730. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core 5 211TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports DDR5 only. Both use a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: How much faster is the Ultra 5 in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 42,718 in Cinebench R23 multicore, which is 71.4% higher than the Intel Core 5 211TE's score of 12,201.

Q: Are the two processors socket-compatible?

A: No. The Intel Core 5 211TE uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses Intel Socket 1851. They cannot be swapped into the same motherboard.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 211TE | Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus |

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

| Cores | 10 | 18 |

| Threads | 16 | 18 |

| Base clock | 1.70 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 125 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake Refresh |

| Process node | 10 nm (Intel) | 3 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | Not listed | 17,800 million |

| Die size | 215 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 cache | 80 KB per core | 192 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 1.25 MB per core | 3 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 20 MB shared | 30 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 lanes (CPU) | Gen 5, 20 lanes (CPU) |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | N/A |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | $184 |

The Verdict

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity about performance. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus beats the Intel Core 5 211TE in every single benchmark test in the database, with deltas ranging from 59.8% to 84.1%. Its average benchmark score of 66,159 places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, compared to the Core 5's 69th percentile. Anyone choosing between these two for raw compute throughput should pick the Ultra 5 without hesitation.

The Core 5 211TE has its own valid use cases, but they are not performance-driven. Its 45 watt TDP makes it a fit for compact or thermally constrained systems. Its integrated UHD Graphics 730 means it can run a display without a separate GPU. Its support for both DDR4 and DDR5 gives builders flexibility on memory selection. These are platform-level benefits that matter for specific builds, but they do not show up in the benchmark results.

The Ultra 5 counters with a lower launch MSRP of $184 versus $221, an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, a larger cache at every level, higher memory bandwidth, and more PCIe lanes. It uses a newer 3 nm TSMC process with 17,800 million transistors, and it delivers more than three times the average benchmark score. The only meaningful trade-offs are the lack of integrated graphics and the higher 125 watt TDP. For a system with a discrete GPU and adequate cooling, which is a requirement anyway given the absence of integrated graphics, the Ultra 5 is the clear choice. The Core 5 suits a lower-power, integrated-graphics build where benchmark dominance is not the priority.