Intel Core 5 211TE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark record splits cleanly, with the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H claiming every single head-to-head contest in the database. The Intel Core 5 211TE records zero wins across the 17 measured tests, while the Core Ultra 7 356H takes all 17. This is not a close matchup; the data shows a systematic performance gap rather than a trade-off between different strengths.

The Core 5 211TE does hold one positional advantage: its market segment. It is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 7 356H is a mobile part on Intel BGA 2540. For a desktop builder, that socket difference matters more than any benchmark score. The Core 5 211TE also supports ECC memory, which the Core Ultra 7 356H does not, and it uses DDR4 or DDR5, whereas the mobile chip is limited to DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Those are functional distinctions, but they do not translate into any computational win in the recorded tests.

The Core Ultra 7 356H dominates in every workload category represented. Its smallest margin comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it leads by 15.6 percent. Its largest margin appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where it leads by 78 percent. The spread between those extremes reveals a pattern: the mobile chip widens its advantage as workloads become more parallel or more compute-intensive, but even in lightly threaded tasks it remains clearly ahead.

The Verdict

The database points to one conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H is the faster processor in every measured dimension. Its average benchmark score of 41215 places it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 211TE averages 15370 and sits in the 69th percentile. That percentile gap of 18 points is substantial, and the rival lists confirm the difference in class.

The Core Ultra 7 356H competes with processors like the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, sitting just 0.4 percent below that desktop flagship in average score. The Core 5 211TE, by contrast, sits near the AMD Ryzen 3 7440U and the Intel Core i3-1315U, with deltas of 2 percent and 2.3 percent respectively. Those are entry-level or mid-range positions, not high-end ones.

Yet the verdict is not purely about speed. The Core 5 211TE is a desktop chip with a 45 watt TDP, ECC support, and a socket that fits existing desktop boards. The Core Ultra 7 356H is a 25 watt mobile part with no ECC and a BGA socket that cannot be upgraded. Anyone building a stationary desktop system should weigh the socket and memory compatibility, while anyone prioritizing raw performance in a mobile form factor should choose the Core Ultra 7 356H without hesitation. The data does not support any other reading.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single margin in the head-to-head set is PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 7 356H scores 327 against 72 for the Core 5 211TE, a 78 percent advantage. That workload is highly sensitive to integer throughput and memory latency, and the mobile chip's architecture handles it far more efficiently.

PassMark data encryption shows a 72.6 percent gap, with the Core Ultra 7 356H scoring 26345 versus 7231. Encryption workloads benefit from wider SIMD units and higher sustained clocks, both of which favor the newer Panther Lake design. PassMark floating point math follows at 74.6 percent, 103128 versus 26150. That test exercises FPU pipelines, and the Core Ultra 7 356H's 16 cores with 2.5 MB L2 per core provide a clear structural edge.

PassMark extended instructions shows a 69.1 percent gap, 27898 versus 8615. This test measures AVX and other extended instruction throughput, where the Panther Lake core design is markedly stronger. PassMark multithread shows 33978 versus 11685, a 65.6 percent gap, and PassMark single thread shows 4072 versus 1408, a 65.4 percent gap. The fact that even single-thread performance is nearly two-thirds higher indicates a per-core IPC advantage, not merely a core count advantage.

Cinebench results follow the same pattern but with smaller margins. R15 multicore shows 3055 versus 1229, a 59.8 percent gap. R20 multicore shows 12153 versus 5124, a 57.8 percent gap. R23 multicore shows 18395 versus 12201, a 33.7 percent gap. The R23 gap is the smallest multicore margin in the set, suggesting that the Core 5 211TE's 4.80 GHz boost clock helps in sustained rendering workloads, but not enough to overcome the structural deficit.

Single-core Cinebench tells a similar story. R15 single core shows 303 versus 173, a 42.9 percent gap. R20 single core shows 1715 versus 723, a 57.8 percent gap. R23 single core shows 2040 versus 1722, a 15.6 percent gap. The R23 single-core result is the closest any test comes to a competitive race, yet the Core Ultra 7 356H still wins by a clear margin.

PassMark physics shows 2895 versus 1278, a 55.9 percent gap. PassMark integer math shows 83111 versus 33991, a 59.1 percent gap. PassMark data compression shows 336177 versus 133434, a 60.3 percent gap. PassMark random string sorting shows 40990 versus 14838, a 63.8 percent gap. Every category, from compression to sorting to math, lands in the same range: the Core Ultra 7 356H is roughly 1.5 to 4.5 times faster, depending on the test.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H averages 41215, while the Intel Core 5 211TE averages 15370. The Core Ultra 7 356H also sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, versus the 69th percentile for the Core 5 211TE.

Q: How do the two compare in single-core performance?

A: The Core Ultra 7 356H wins every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core it scores 2040 versus 1722, a 15.6 percent advantage. In PassMark single thread it scores 4072 versus 1408, a 65.4 percent advantage.

Q: Does the Core 5 211TE win any benchmark at all?

A: No. The head-to-head record shows 0 wins for the Core 5 211TE and 17 wins for the Core Ultra 7 356H across all 17 recorded tests.

Q: What are the closest results between the two?

A: The closest margin is Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core Ultra 7 356H leads by 15.6 percent. The next closest is Cinebench R23 multicore at 33.7 percent. All other margins exceed 42 percent.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 5 211TE supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H does not, and it is limited to DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Core 5 211TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: How do the two compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra 7 356H offers 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the Core 5 211TE offers 76.8 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel lineages. The Core 5 211TE uses Bartlett Lake, a 10 nm desktop design with the codename Bartlett Lake and the generation label Core 5 (Bartlett Lake). The Core Ultra 7 356H uses Panther Lake, built on a 3 nm process, with the architecture name Panther Lake and the generation label Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H).

The process node difference is significant: 10 nm versus 3 nm. That alone explains much of the efficiency gap, since the Core Ultra 7 356H delivers far higher performance at a 25 watt TDP versus the Core 5 211TE's 45 watt TDP. The die size for the Core 5 211TE is listed at 215 mm², while the Core Ultra 7 356H has no recorded die size.

Core and thread counts differ in an unusual way. The Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads, meaning it uses hyperthreading on some cores. The Core Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning it has no hyperthreading at all. The mobile chip achieves its performance with more physical cores and no SMT, while the desktop chip relies on fewer cores with SMT to reach 16 threads.

Cache hierarchies are also different. The Core 5 211TE has 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 20 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 356H has 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, with 18 MB of shared L3. The mobile chip has more L1 and L2 per core but slightly less total L3. For workloads that fit in L2, the Core Ultra 7 356H has a major advantage.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 211TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 7 356H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. Both are integrated solutions, but the Xe3 architecture is newer and the mobile chip's 3 nm process allows for a more capable GPU block.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field in the database. Starting with clock speeds, the Core 5 211TE has a base clock of 1.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 356H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The desktop chip boosts 0.10 GHz higher, but the mobile chip has a 0.20 GHz higher base clock.

Power draw differs by 20 watts: 45 watts for the Core 5 211TE versus 25 watts for the Core Ultra 7 356H. That is a substantial efficiency difference, especially given the mobile chip's performance advantage.

Sockets are incompatible. The Core 5 211TE uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket. The Core Ultra 7 356H uses Intel BGA 2540, a soldered mobile socket. No upgrade path exists between them.

Memory support differs in both type and bandwidth. The Core 5 211TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 with 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 356H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The mobile chip offers 38.4 GB/s more bandwidth, a 50 percent increase.

PCIe lanes differ: the Core 5 211TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 7 356H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes. The desktop chip has four more PCIe lanes, which matters for discrete GPU and NVMe configurations.

ECC memory support is exclusive to the Core 5 211TE. The Core Ultra 7 356H does not support ECC. This makes the desktop chip the only option for error-correcting memory workloads.

Release dates differ by about a year. The Core 5 211TE was released on 2025-01-12, while the Core Ultra 7 356H was released on 2026-01-04. Both are marked as Active in production status.

The launch MSRP for the Core 5 211TE is $221. The Core Ultra 7 356H has no recorded launch MSRP in the database, which is consistent with its mobile BGA packaging and typical OEM distribution.

The part numbers also differ: SRQDL for the Core 5 211TE and SA4RGQ9EU for the Core Ultra 7 356H. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported on either part.