Intel Core 5 211TE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265 Comparison

The Verdict

The data positions these two processors in completely different performance classes. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins every single recorded benchmark comparison, 17 out of 17 head-to-head tests, with no wins recorded for the Intel Core 5 211TE. The Core Ultra 7 265 sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 211TE lands at the 69th percentile. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 7 265 is 64,640, compared to 15,370 for the Core 5 211TE, a gap of roughly 4.2 times. The Core 5 211TE should be chosen only for builds constrained to Intel Socket 1700 with a 45 W TDP requirement, DDR4 memory support, and ECC memory capability. The Core Ultra 7 265 is the choice for anyone needing maximum multi-threaded throughput, higher memory bandwidth, and top-tier single-core performance, provided the platform can accommodate a 65 W TDP, Socket 1851, and DDR5-only memory. The Core 5 211TE has its place in compatibility-focused or ECC-requiring systems, but the benchmark data does not show a single workload where it outpaces the Core Ultra 7 265.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design generations and foundries. The Core 5 211TE is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry and uses the Bartlett Lake codename, with a die size of 215 mm². The Core Ultra 7 265 uses Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors. The Core Ultra 7 265 belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 family, while the Core 5 211TE has no series designation.

Core configuration differs substantially. The Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads, meaning its core count is double, but its thread count is only 25% higher. This indicates the Core Ultra 7 265 does not rely on hyper-threading across all cores, while the Core 5 211TE does. The Core Ultra 7 265 also clocks higher, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, versus 1.70 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost for the Core 5 211TE.

Cache hierarchies differ at every level. The Core 5 211TE has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 265 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 265 therefore has more cache per core at each level and a larger total L3 pool.

Memory support is another major split. The Core 5 211TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Core Ultra 7 265 supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but with a higher recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Core 5 211TE supports ECC memory; the Core Ultra 7 265 does not. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Core 5 211TE provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 7 265 provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics are different as well. The Core 5 211TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 7 265 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU. Both are desktop market segment parts, both are currently Active in production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. Release dates are close: the Core Ultra 7 265 launched on 2025-01-06, and the Core 5 211TE followed on 2025-01-12. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 211TE is $221, and the launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 7 265 is $394.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single benchmark gap appears in PassMark floating point math. The Core Ultra 7 265 scores 172,776 versus 26,150 for the Core 5 211TE, a delta of -84.9% from the perspective of the slower part. That is the steepest percentage deficit in the entire head-to-head set. Integer math shows a similar pattern: 134,773 versus 33,991, a -74.8% delta. Extended instructions also favor the Core Ultra 7 265 heavily, 41,478 versus 8,615, a -79.2% delta.

Cinebench results reinforce the multi-core dominance. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 265 scores 42,216 versus 12,201 for the Core 5 211TE, a -71.1% delta. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 4,255 versus 1,229, also -71.1%. Cinebench R20 multi-core is closer in relative terms at 6,268 versus 5,124, a -18.3% delta, the smallest multi-core gap in the set. Single-core Cinebench results follow the same direction: R23 single-core 5,960 versus 1,722 (-71.1%), R15 single-core 600 versus 173 (-71.2%), and R20 single-core 884 versus 723 (-18.2%).

PassMark multithread shows 49,682 versus 11,685, a -76.5% delta. Random string sorting delivers 63,833 versus 14,838, a -76.8% delta. Data compression scores 522,983 versus 133,434, a -74.5% delta. Data encryption shows 40,456 versus 7,231, a -82.1% delta. Find prime numbers is 418 versus 72, a -82.8% delta. Physics simulation scores 2,923 versus 1,278, a -56.3% delta, the smallest deficit for the Core 5 211TE outside the Cinebench R20 results. PassMark single-thread scores 4,689 versus 1,408, a -70% delta.

The recorded data indicates the Core Ultra 7 265 wins by a wide margin in every category. There is no benchmark in the set where the Core 5 211TE closes the gap to single-digit percentage territory. The closest margins are the Cinebench R20 tests at roughly -18%, which still represent a clear victory for the Core Ultra 7 265.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 211TE | Intel Core Ultra 7 265 |

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

| Cores | 10 | 20 |

| Threads | 16 | 20 |

| Base clock | 1.70 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 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 only |

| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 lanes | Gen 5, 20 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | $394 |

| Part number | SRQDL | SRQCX |

| Release date | 2025-01-12 | 2025-01-06 |

Both parts are desktop segments, Active in production, dual-channel memory bus, and locked multipliers. Both are manufactured by Intel as the brand, though the Core Ultra 7 265 uses TSMC as the foundry.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores, while the Intel Core 5 211TE has 10 cores. The Core Ultra 7 265 also has 20 threads versus 16 threads for the Core 5 211TE.

Q: Does the Core 5 211TE support DDR4 memory?

A: Yes, the Core 5 211TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The Core Ultra 7 265 supports only DDR5.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Core 5 211TE supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 7 265 does not list ECC memory support.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two?

A: The Core 5 211TE uses a 10 nm process at Intel, while the Core Ultra 7 265 uses a 3 nm process at TSMC.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 scores 42,216 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, versus 12,201 for the Core 5 211TE, a delta of -71.1% for the Core 5 211TE.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, compared to 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 211TE.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 265 wins every recorded benchmark category, so the use-case split is defined by platform requirements rather than workload victories. The Core 5 211TE is the only choice where ECC memory is mandatory, since the Core Ultra 7 265 does not support ECC. The Core 5 211TE also supports DDR4 memory, which matters for builds reusing existing DDR4 modules. Its 45 W TDP makes it suitable for lower-power systems, and its Socket 1700 compatibility fits older motherboards.

The Core Ultra 7 265 dominates in compute-heavy scenarios. Its PassMark floating point score of 172,776 versus 26,150 makes it the clear pick for workloads that stress math throughput. Data compression shows 522,983 versus 133,434, favoring the Core Ultra 7 265 for archival and database-style workloads. Data encryption at 40,456 versus 7,231 indicates a strong advantage for security-related processing. The physics simulation score of 2,923 versus 1,278 suggests better performance in simulation and physics-based applications. Single-thread performance at 4,689 versus 1,408 favors the Core Ultra 7 265 for lightly threaded applications that depend on high clock speeds, and its 5.30 GHz boost clock supports that result.

The Core Ultra 7 265 also provides more PCIe lanes at Gen 5, 20 versus 16, which benefits systems with multiple high-speed expansion cards or storage devices. Its larger L3 cache of 30 MB versus 20 MB, higher per-core L2 of 3 MB versus 1.25 MB, and larger per-core L1 of 192 KB versus 80 KB all contribute to its benchmark superiority. The 3 nm process at TSMC versus the 10 nm process at Intel explains part of the efficiency and performance advantage, though the TDP is higher at 65 W versus 45 W.

The Core Ultra 7 265 has no recorded benchmark loss to the Core 5 211TE. Anyone choosing the Core 5 211TE must do so for compatibility reasons: ECC support, DDR4 support, Socket 1700, or the lower 45 W TDP. Anyone choosing the Core Ultra 7 265 gets the higher percentile ranking, 93rd versus 69th, a much higher average benchmark score of 64,640 versus 15,370, and top-tier results across all 17 head-to-head tests. The data does not present a workload where the Core 5 211TE is the faster processor, so the decision rests entirely on platform constraints and feature requirements such as ECC and memory type.