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

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two processors, with the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F taking every single recorded win. Across all 17 head-to-head tests, the Core Ultra 7 265F finishes ahead, leaving the Intel Core 5 211TE with zero victories. That dominance spans every category measured, from Cinebench render tests to PassMark's math, encryption, compression, and sorting workloads.

The Core Ultra 7 265F's largest advantage appears in floating-point math, where it scores 173855 against 26150 for the Core 5 211TE, a delta of 85% in favor of the Ultra part. The smallest gap comes in the PassMark physics test, where the Ultra 7 265F leads by 59.7%, posting 3172 versus 1278. Even that "smallest" margin is substantial, indicating the Core 5 211TE is not competitive in any measured workload against its higher-tier sibling.

For users focused on single-threaded responsiveness, the Core Ultra 7 265F delivers 4750 in PassMark single-thread and 5926 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Core 5 211TE manages 1408 and 1722 respectively. The single-core Cinebench R23 result shows a 70.9% deficit for the Core 5 211TE, a massive gap that will impact everyday application responsiveness, not just heavy multi-threaded tasks.

The Core 5 211TE does hold one structural advantage: it carries integrated graphics in the form of UHD Graphics 730, whereas the Core Ultra 7 265F lists no integrated graphics at all. That means systems built around the Core 5 211TE can operate without a discrete GPU, which is relevant for basic display output or troubleshooting. However, the performance data shows no scenario where the Core 5 211TE wins a computational benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and use different manufacturing approaches. The Core 5 211TE is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry, with the Bartlett Lake codename. The Core Ultra 7 265F uses Arrow Lake architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm node by TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 5 211TE has a 215 mm² die, but the transistor count is not recorded in the database.

Core and thread counts differ sharply. The Core 5 211TE offers 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 265F provides 20 cores and 20 threads. The latter has no hyper-threading, so thread count equals core count. Despite having fewer threads than cores plus threads on the Core 5 211TE, the Ultra 7 265F's additional physical cores and newer architecture deliver far higher throughput.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. 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 265F more than doubles those figures: 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3. Larger per-core caches help the Ultra part in latency-sensitive workloads, and the additional shared L3 provides more room for multi-threaded data sets.

Clock speeds favor the Core Ultra 7 265F as well. Its base clock is 2.40 GHz with a boost of 5.30 GHz, versus 1.70 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost on the Core 5 211TE. The higher boost clock on the Ultra part contributes to its single-threaded advantage, while the higher base clock helps sustained workloads.

Memory support differs fundamentally. The Core 5 211TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, with dual-channel memory and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 265F supports DDR5 only, also dual-channel, but with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra part offers more memory bandwidth, which matters for memory-intensive tasks like compression and encryption. The Core 5 211TE includes ECC memory support, while the Core Ultra 7 265F does not, a point for systems requiring error correction.

PCIe connectivity favors the Ultra part with Gen 5 and 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 5 211TE offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes. The sockets differ as well: the Core 5 211TE uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Core Ultra 7 265F uses Intel Socket 1851. These are not interchangeable platforms, so the choice of processor dictates the motherboard.

Power envelopes also separate the two. The Core 5 211TE has a 45 W TDP, while the Core Ultra 7 265F is rated at 65 W. The higher power draw on the Ultra part aligns with its larger core count and higher clock speeds, and the data shows that extra power is converted into substantial performance gains.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows the Core Ultra 7 265F ahead by roughly 70.9% to 71% across all six tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra part scores 4231 against 1229, a 71% deficit for the Core 5 211TE. The single-core R15 test shows 597 versus 173, again a 71% gap. Moving to R20, the multicore result is 17631 versus 5124, and single-core is 2488 versus 723, both at 70.9% deltas. The R23 results continue the pattern: 41980 versus 12201 in multicore and 5926 versus 1722 in single-core, both with 70.9% gaps.

PassMark tests reveal even larger separations in specific workloads. The data compression test shows the Core Ultra 7 265F at 507018 versus 133434, a 73.7% delta. Data encryption is more lopsided: 39468 versus 7231, an 81.7% gap. Extended instructions scores 39235 against 8615, a 78% delta. Prime number finding shows 416 versus 72, an 82.7% gap. Floating-point math is the most extreme, at 173855 versus 26150, a full 85% delta. Integer math posts 138078 versus 33991, a 75.4% gap.

Multithreaded PassMark results reinforce the pattern. The multithread score is 49410 versus 11685, a 76.4% delta. Physics testing yields 3172 versus 1278, a 59.7% gap, the narrowest margin recorded but still a decisive loss for the Core 5 211TE. Random string sorting shows 62439 versus 14838, a 76.2% delta. Single-thread PassMark is 4750 versus 1408, a 70.4% gap, consistent with the Cinebench single-core results.

The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 7 265F is 64438, placing it at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 5 211TE averages 15370, at the 69th percentile. That percentile difference of 24 points illustrates how far apart these two parts sit in the overall performance distribution. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 7 265F include the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 at 64640 average score with a 0.3% delta, and the AMD EPYC 7343 at 64202 with a 0.4% delta. The Core 5 211TE's nearest rivals are far lower in the rankings, such as the AMD EPYC 7543 at 15477 with a 0.7% delta and the Intel Core i3-1315U at 15022 with a 2.3% delta.

The Verdict

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins every benchmark in the database against the Intel Core 5 211TE, with deltas ranging from 59.7% to 85%. The Core 5 211TE never comes close in any test, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded, integer or floating-point, compression or encryption.

The Core Ultra 7 265F is the clear choice for any workload where computational performance matters. Its 20 cores and 20 threads, 5.30 GHz boost clock, 30 MB L3 cache, and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth deliver results that place it at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 211TE, with 10 cores, 4.80 GHz boost, 20 MB L3, and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, sits at the 69th percentile, a full 24 percentile points lower.

The only scenario where the Core 5 211TE holds an edge is display output, since it includes UHD Graphics 730 while the Core Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics. For systems that must run without a discrete GPU, the Core 5 211TE can function where the Core Ultra 7 265F cannot. The Core 5 211TE also supports ECC memory, which matters for certain reliability-focused builds, and it uses the older Socket 1700 platform, which may be relevant for existing motherboard investments.

For anyone building a new system where performance is the priority, the Core Ultra 7 265F is the only rational selection from this data. The 65 W TDP is higher than the 45 W on the Core 5 211TE, but the benchmark results show that additional power buys roughly three to seven times the performance in many tests. The launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 7 265F is $379, and the Core 5 211TE is $221. The performance gap vastly exceeds the price gap, making the Ultra part the stronger choice by every measured metric except integrated graphics and ECC support.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F scores 41980 in Cinebench R23 multicore, compared to 12201 for the Intel Core 5 211TE, a 70.9% delta in favor of the Ultra part.

Q: Does the Core 5 211TE win any benchmark in the database?

A: No. Across all 17 head-to-head tests, the Core 5 211TE records zero wins. The Core Ultra 7 265F wins all 17.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark floating-point math, where the Core Ultra 7 265F scores 173855 versus 26150, an 85% delta in favor of the Ultra part.

Q: Do these processors use the same motherboard socket?

A: No. The Core 5 211TE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 7 265F uses Intel Socket 1851. They require different platforms.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Core 5 211TE includes UHD Graphics 730. The Core Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics, so it requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: How do their memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265F offers 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth with DDR5 support, while the Core 5 211TE provides 76.8 GB/s and supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The Ultra part also lacks ECC support, which the Core 5 211TE includes.