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

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T is the dominant processor in this comparison, winning all 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 5 211TE, while a functional desktop chip, trails by margins ranging from roughly 46% to nearly 80% across the entire test suite. The performance gap is vast and consistent, making the 265T the clear choice for any workload that values raw throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 7 265T wins every single benchmark in the database. The smallest victory comes in PassMark physics, where the 265T scores 2391 against the 211TE's 1278, a lead of 46.5%. This is the only test where the gap drops below 50%, and it still represents a substantial advantage in a workload that often favors multi-core designs.

The Cinebench suite shows a strikingly uniform margin. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 265T posts 31558 against 12201 for the 211TE, a 61.3% advantage. Single-core R23 follows the same pattern: 4455 versus 1722, also a 61.3% gap. The Cinebench R15 and R20 results are nearly identical in relative terms, with deltas of 61.4% and 61.3% respectively in both single and multi-core variants. This consistency suggests the architectural differences between the two chips affect both single-threaded and multi-threaded performance proportionally.

The PassMark integer math test shows the 265T scoring 104943 against 33991, a 67.6% lead. Floating point math is even more lopsided: 129817 versus 26150, a 79.9% advantage. That floating point result is the largest margin in the entire comparison. The 265T also leads by 77.6% in the prime number search test, scoring 322 versus 72.

Data compression and encryption show the 265T's strength in throughput-heavy tasks. The 265T compresses data at a score of 370158 versus 133434, a 64% lead. Encryption is even more decisive: 29687 versus 7231, a 75.6% gap. Extended instruction workloads follow with a 69.9% margin, 28609 versus 8615.

The multithreaded PassMark score confirms the pattern: 37084 for the 265T against 11685 for the 211TE, a 68.5% difference. Random string sorting shows a 66.6% gap, with scores of 44400 and 14838. The single-thread PassMark result is 4338 versus 1408, a 67.5% lead.

The average benchmark score in the database places the 265T at 47697, compared to 15370 for the 211TE. In percentile terms, the 265T sits at the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the 211TE is at the 69th. The 265T's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D, which trails by 0.4%, and the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945, which the 265T beats by 0.4%. The 211TE, by contrast, sits near chips like the AMD EPYC 7543, which beats it by 0.7%, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7440U, which leads it by 2%.

The Verdict

The data supports only one conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T is the superior processor in every measured category. Any workload that benefits from CPU compute, whether single-threaded responsiveness or heavy multi-threaded throughput, will perform better on the 265T. The 211TE has no benchmark wins to cite in its favor.

The 265T's 90th percentile ranking places it among high-end desktop processors, while the 211TE's 69th percentile is solidly mid-range. The 265T's average benchmark score is more than three times that of the 211TE, a gap that dwarfs the differences seen between chips within the same performance tier.

The 211TE remains a functional desktop processor, and its 45 W TDP is higher than the 265T's 35 W figure, but the performance deficit is too large to overlook. For users prioritizing compute performance, the 265T is the only rational selection. The 211TE would only make sense in scenarios where the specific platform attributes of Socket 1700 or DDR4 memory support are mandatory, since no performance metric favors it.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different Intel design families. The 211TE is based on Bartlett Lake, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own fabs, with a die size of 215 mm². The 265T uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, fabricated on a 3 nm process by TSMC, with a die size of 243 mm² and a transistor count of 17,800 million.

The core configuration differs significantly. The 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads, indicating hyper-threading on some cores. The 265T has 20 cores and 20 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. Despite having fewer threads per core, the 265T's higher core count gives it a massive multi-threaded advantage, as reflected in the 61.3% Cinebench R23 multi-core lead.

Cache hierarchies are also different. The 211TE uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The 265T has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core caches on the 265T likely contribute to its single-threaded performance advantage, which is consistent across all single-core tests.

Memory support diverges as well. The 211TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the 265T supports only DDR5. Memory bandwidth figures reflect this: the 265T delivers 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s for the 211TE. The 211TE supports ECC memory; the 265T does not.

The integrated graphics differ. The 211TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the 265T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The PCIe connectivity also differs: the 211TE offers Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the 265T offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

Specification Differences

The socket is a hard divider: the 211TE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the 265T uses Intel Socket 1851. These platforms are not interchangeable.

Clock speeds favor the 265T. The 211TE has a base clock of 1.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The 265T has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The lower base clock on the 265T is offset by a 500 MHz higher boost ceiling.

TDP figures differ by 10 W: the 211TE is rated at 45 W, the 265T at 35 W. The 265T delivers substantially higher performance while drawing less power per the TDP rating.

The launch MSRP for the 211TE is $221. The launch MSRP for the 265T is $384. Both processors have locked multipliers and are classified as desktop market segments. The 211TE was released on 2025-01-12, and the 265T on 2025-01-06. Part numbers are SRQDL for the 211TE and SRQCS for the 265T.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How much faster is the Core Ultra 7 265T in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The 265T scores 31558, while the 211TE scores 12201. The 265T leads by 61.3%.

Q: Do both processors support DDR4 memory?

A: No. The 211TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The 265T supports only DDR5.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The 211TE supports ECC memory. The 265T does not.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each processor?

A: The 265T is in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. The 211TE is in the 69th percentile.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The 265T has 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The 211TE has 20 MB of shared L3 cache.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 265T wins every benchmark category in the database. There are no tests where the 211TE records a higher score. The 265T's advantages are largest in floating point math, with a 79.9% lead, and encryption, with a 75.6% lead. Its smallest margin is in physics, at 46.5%.

The 211TE's only advantages are platform-level, not performance-level. It supports DDR4 memory, which could matter for users with existing DDR4 modules, and it supports ECC memory, which is relevant for certain reliability-sensitive workloads. It also uses Socket 1700, a platform that predates the 265T's Socket 1851.

The 265T is the choice for compute-heavy tasks. Its higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz, larger cache hierarchy, 20 cores, and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth position it as a high-end desktop part. The 90th percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 47697 place it in a different class from the 211TE's 69th percentile and 15370 average score.

The 211TE serves a narrower role. Its 45 W TDP is higher than the 265T's 35 W, so it is not an efficiency pick. Its lower core count and smaller caches limit its multi-threaded performance. The only workloads where it could be considered are those requiring ECC memory or DDR4 compatibility, since no recorded benchmark favors it.