Intel Core 5 211TE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins every single recorded benchmark. There are 17 head-to-head tests, and the Core Ultra 5 338H takes all 17. The Intel Core 5 211TE does not post a single victory. The scale of the win varies widely, but the direction never changes.

The largest gap appears in PassMark data encryption. The Core Ultra 5 338H scores 21367, while the Core 5 211TE manages 7231. That is a delta of -66.2%, meaning the Ultra part is nearly three times faster in this workload. Similarly, PassMark single-thread performance shows 4180 against 1408, a delta of -66.3%. The Ultra 5 338H also dominates PassMark floating point math with 84067 versus 26150, a delta of -68.9%.

The smallest gap is in Cinebench R23 multi-core. There, the Ultra 5 338H scores 16331, and the Core 5 211TE scores 12201. The delta is -25.3%. That is still a substantial lead, but it is the closest the Core 5 211TE comes to its rival. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a -15.8% delta, with 2044 versus 1722. Those two results suggest the Core 5 211TE is more competitive in sustained multi-threaded rendering than in bursty or single-threaded tasks.

Other Cinebench results show even larger deltas. Cinebench R15 multi-core: 2504 versus 1229, a -50.9% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core: 10213 versus 5124, a -49.8% delta. Cinebench R15 single-core: 305 versus 173, a -43.3% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core: 1441 versus 723, also -49.8%.

PassMark integer math shows 64934 versus 33991, a -47.7% delta. PassMark multithread shows 28717 versus 11685, a -59.3% delta. PassMark physics shows 2697 versus 1278, a -52.6% delta. PassMark random string sorting shows 34082 versus 14838, a -56.5% delta. PassMark extended instructions shows 23906 versus 8615, a -64% delta. PassMark find prime numbers shows 304 versus 72, a -76.3% delta. PassMark data compression shows 276539 versus 133434, a -51.7% delta.

The average benchmark score tells the same story. The Core Ultra 5 338H averages 33989, placing it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 5 211TE averages 15370, placing it in the 69th percentile. That is a massive average score gap of roughly 18619 points. The nearest rival data confirms the positioning: the Core 5 211TE sits near the AMD EPYC 7543 (15477, -0.7%) and the AMD Ryzen 3 7440U (15682, -2%). The Core Ultra 5 338H sits near the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H (34083, -0.3%) and the Intel Core i7-12800HX (33875, 0.3%). The Ultra 5 338H is competing in a much higher performance tier.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and target different markets. The Core 5 211TE is a desktop part based on the Bartlett Lake codename, built on Intel's 10 nm process node. It uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform and belongs to the Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) generation. The Core Ultra 5 338H is a mobile part based on the Panther Lake architecture, specifically Panther Lake-H, built on Intel's 3 nm process node. It uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket.

The core and thread counts differ in an interesting way. The Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads, meaning it uses hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads, meaning it does not. Despite having fewer threads, the Ultra 5 338H still wins every benchmark, which points to a large per-core efficiency advantage from the newer 3 nm process and Panther Lake architecture.

Cache configurations also differ significantly. The Core 5 211TE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 338H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra part has more L1 and L2 per core, but slightly less total L3 (18 MB versus 20 MB). The die size for the Core 5 211TE is recorded at 215 mm², while the Core Ultra 5 338H has no die size listed in the database.

Memory support differs completely. The Core 5 211TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, with a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 338H supports only LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus, with a much higher memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. It does not support ECC memory. That bandwidth difference likely contributes to the Ultra part's large wins in memory-sensitive PassMark workloads.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 5 211TE offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 5 338H offers Gen 5 with only 4 lanes (CPU only). The desktop part has far more PCIe lanes for expandability. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 5 211TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 338H uses Arc B370.

Clock speeds are close but not identical. The Core 5 211TE has a base clock of 1.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 338H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The desktop part has the higher boost clock, but the mobile part has the higher base clock. The TDP values are very different: 45 watts for the Core 5 211TE versus 25 watts for the Core Ultra 5 338H. The mobile part delivers far higher performance at a lower power envelope, which is a direct consequence of the 3 nm process.

The release dates are also different. The Core 5 211TE has a release date of 2025-01-12, and the Core Ultra 5 338H has a release date of 2026-01-04. The Core 5 211TE has a launch MSRP of $221, while the Core Ultra 5 338H has no launch MSRP recorded. Both processors are listed as Active in production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores, while the Intel Core 5 211TE has 10 cores.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 211TE has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H's boost clock of 4.70 GHz.

Q: How much faster is the Core Ultra 5 338H in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H scores 16331, compared to 12201 for the Core 5 211TE. That is a delta of -25.3% in favor of the Ultra part.

Q: Does the Core 5 211TE support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Core 5 211TE supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 338H does not support ECC memory.

Q: What socket does each processor use?

A: The Core 5 211TE uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Core Ultra 5 338H uses Intel BGA 2540.

Q: Which processor has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H has a memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s, while the Core 5 211TE has 76.8 GB/s.

Q: Which processor is in a higher performance percentile?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H is in the 84th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 211TE is in the 69th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification category. The Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads. Base clock: 1.70 GHz versus 1.90 GHz. Boost clock: 4.80 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. TDP: 45 watts versus 25 watts. Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 2540. Codename: Bartlett Lake versus Panther Lake. Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm.

Cache differences: L1 per core is 80 KB on the Core 5 211TE versus 192 KB on the Core Ultra 5 338H. L2 per core is 1.25 MB versus 2.5 MB. L3 shared is 20 MB versus 18 MB. Memory support: DDR4 and DDR5 versus LPDDR5X only. Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s versus 136.5 GB/s. ECC support: true versus false. PCIe: Gen 5 with 16 lanes versus Gen 5 with 4 lanes. Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc B370. Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile. Die size: 215 mm² for the Core 5 211TE, no value recorded for the Core Ultra 5 338H.

Release dates differ: 2025-01-12 for the Core 5 211TE, 2026-01-04 for the Core Ultra 5 338H. The Core 5 211TE has a launch MSRP of $221, and the Core Ultra 5 338H has no launch MSRP. Part numbers also differ: SRQDL for the Core 5 211TE, SA4REQ9EW for the Core Ultra 5 338H.

The average benchmark score difference is stark: 15370 for the Core 5 211TE versus 33989 for the Core Ultra 5 338H. The percentile difference is 69 versus 84. The nearest rivals confirm the gulf: the Core 5 211TE sits alongside server and mobile parts like the AMD EPYC 7543 and AMD Ryzen 3 7440U, while the Core Ultra 5 338H sits alongside the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H and Intel Core i7-12800HX.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is one-sided. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins all 17 head-to-head tests, with deltas ranging from -15.8% to -76.3%. The average benchmark score is more than double that of the Core 5 211TE, and the percentile ranking is 15 points higher. There is no recorded workload where the Core 5 211TE pulls ahead.

The Core 5 211TE does have advantages in specific non-performance areas. It supports ECC memory, which the Ultra 5 338H does not. It offers 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes compared to 4 on the Ultra part. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra part is limited to LPDDR5X. It also has a higher boost clock at 4.80 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. And it has a larger shared L3 cache at 20 MB versus 18 MB.

The Core Ultra 5 338H counters with a lower TDP of 25 watts versus 45 watts, a smaller 3 nm process node versus 10 nm, higher memory bandwidth at 136.5 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s, and more L1 and L2 cache per core. It also uses the newer Panther Lake architecture, which is reflected in its massive benchmark advantage.

From a pure performance standpoint, the Core Ultra 5 338H is the clear choice. Its wins in every Cinebench and PassMark test, combined with its higher percentile ranking, make it the stronger processor in the database. The Core 5 211TE is only relevant where ECC memory, desktop socket compatibility, or PCIe lane count are hard requirements.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins everywhere in the recorded benchmarks. Its largest margins come in PassMark find prime numbers (-76.3%), PassMark floating point math (-68.9%), PassMark single-thread (-66.3%), PassMark data encryption (-66.2%), and PassMark extended instructions (-64%). These are compute-heavy and memory-heavy workloads where the 3 nm process, newer architecture, and higher memory bandwidth all contribute. The Ultra part also wins heavily in PassMark multithread (-59.3%), random string sorting (-56.5%), physics (-52.6%), and data compression (-51.7%).

The Core 5 211TE wins only in platform-level attributes, not in any benchmark. It offers ECC memory support, which the Ultra part lacks. It offers 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, versus 4 on the Ultra part, so it is better suited for systems requiring many expansion devices. It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, providing broader memory compatibility than the LPDDR5X-only Ultra part. Its 20 MB L3 cache is larger than the Ultra part's 18 MB. Its boost clock of 4.80 GHz is marginally higher than the Ultra part's 4.70 GHz. It also has a recorded die size of 215 mm², while the Ultra part has no die size listed.

For workloads like Cinebench R23 multi-core, the gap narrows to -25.3%, but the Ultra part still wins. The Core 5 211TE comes closest in that sustained rendering workload, which suggests its 16 threads and 20 MB L3 cache help it close some of the gap. But the Ultra part's 12 cores on 3 nm are simply more efficient per thread, and its higher base clock of 1.90 GHz gives it an edge in shorter workloads.

The data does not support any scenario where the Core 5 211TE outperforms the Core Ultra 5 338H in computing tasks. The only reasons to select the Core 5 211TE are ECC memory support, the desktop socket, the larger PCIe lane count, or the broader memory type compatibility. For anyone measuring raw performance across the 17 recorded benchmarks, the Core Ultra 5 338H is the definitive winner.