Intel Core 5 211TE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is the dominant performer in this comparison, winning every single benchmark recorded in the database. The data shows a decisive and consistent advantage across all tested workloads, from single-threaded tasks to heavily multithreaded rendering and encryption. The Intel Core 5 211TE, while a capable desktop processor, is outclassed in every measurable category by the mobile-focused Core Ultra 7 366H.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded benchmark results, the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins in every single category. There are zero wins for the Intel Core 5 211TE across all 17 head-to-head tests. The Core Ultra 7 366H demonstrates superiority in both single-core and multi-core workloads, as well as in specialized tasks like data compression, encryption, and physics calculations.

The Intel Core 5 211TE holds no advantage in any benchmark category. Its best relative performance comes in the cinebench_r15_singlecore test, where it trails by 57.3%, and the passmark_physics test, where it trails by 55.6%. Even in these "closest" results, the margin is substantial and indicates a clear performance gap that no specific workload can overcome.

The Core Ultra 7 366H's wins span across all tested areas. In Cinebench tests, it delivers massively higher multi-core scores, indicating strong performance in rendering and CPU-intensive compute tasks. In PassMark tests, it excels in both integer and floating-point math, data encryption, and extended instruction sets, showing broad applicability across different types of software workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies and manufacturing processes. The Intel Core 5 211TE is built on the Bartlett Lake architecture using a 10 nm process node, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses the newer Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the process node difference is significant and explains much of the performance disparity.

The core configurations differ substantially. The Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. This means the Core Ultra 7 366H has more physical cores but the same thread count, indicating a different approach to core design and simultaneous multithreading.

Cache hierarchies also differ between the two. 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 7 366H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 366H has larger per-core caches but slightly less total L3 cache, which contributes to its higher per-core performance.

Memory support represents another key architectural difference. The Core 5 211TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The memory bandwidth figures reflect this: the Core 5 211TE has a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the Core Ultra 7 366H reaches 115.2 GB/s, a substantial increase that benefits memory-intensive workloads.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 211TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics, indicating a generational leap in the graphics component. The Core 5 211TE supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 7 366H does not, a feature that makes the desktop chip more suitable for error-sensitive computing environments.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a consistent pattern of dominance for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 366H scores 28,477 compared to the Core 5 211TE's 12,201, a 57.2% advantage. The single-core result tells a similar story: 4,020 versus 1,722, also a 57.2% gap. These Cinebench results indicate that the Core Ultra 7 366H delivers roughly 2.3 times the multi-core performance and 2.3 times the single-core performance of the Core 5 211TE.

The PassMark suite reinforces this pattern. In integer math, the Core Ultra 7 366H scores 83,695 against 33,991 for the Core 5 211TE, a 59.4% difference. Floating-point math shows an even larger gap: 103,615 versus 26,150, representing a 74.8% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 366H. These results suggest the Core Ultra 7 366H has substantially better arithmetic processing capabilities.

Data encryption shows the widest margin in the entire benchmark set. The Core Ultra 7 366H scores 25,845 while the Core 5 211TE manages only 7,231, a 72% difference. Data compression follows with 327,455 versus 133,434, a 59.3% gap. The extended instructions test shows a 68% difference, with scores of 26,901 and 8,615 respectively.

The prime number finding test reveals the largest relative gap. The Core Ultra 7 366H scores 326 against 72 for the Core 5 211TE, a 77.9% difference. This test often reflects the efficiency of the processor's branch prediction and integer execution pipeline, and the recorded data suggests the Core Ultra 7 366H's architecture is significantly more efficient in this area.

Physics calculations and multithreaded performance follow the same trend. The passmark_physics test shows 2,880 for the Core Ultra 7 366H versus 1,278 for the Core 5 211TE, a 55.6% difference. The passmark_multithread test shows 33,429 versus 11,685, a 65% difference. Random string sorting shows 39,814 versus 14,838, a 62.7% gap.

The single-threaded PassMark score confirms that the Core Ultra 7 366H's advantage is not solely due to core count. It scores 4,043 against 1,408 for the Core 5 211TE, a 65.2% difference. This indicates that the Core Ultra 7 366H has superior per-core performance, which is consistent with its much newer 3 nm process node and larger per-core cache allocation.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several key specifications. The Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 1.70 GHz for the Core 5 211TE and 2.00 GHz for the Core Ultra 7 366H. Both share the same boost clock of 4.80 GHz.

The thermal design power differs significantly. The Core 5 211TE has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Core Ultra 7 366H has a TDP of 25 watts, despite delivering substantially higher performance. This makes the Core Ultra 7 366H a more power-efficient processor per unit of performance.

Socket compatibility separates the two entirely. The Core 5 211TE uses Intel Socket 1700 for desktop systems, while the Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel BGA 2540 for mobile platforms. The Core 5 211TE has a die size of 215 mm², while no die size is recorded for the Core Ultra 7 366H. The Core 5 211TE supports Gen 5 PCIe with 16 lanes, while the Core Ultra 7 366H supports Gen 5 PCIe with 12 lanes.

ECC memory support is exclusive to the Core 5 211TE. The Core 5 211TE was released on 2025-01-12 and has a launch MSRP of $221. The Core Ultra 7 366H has a recorded release date of 2026-01-04, and no launch MSRP is recorded in the database. Both processors have locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is significantly faster in single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 4,020 versus 1,722 for the Core 5 211TE, a 57.2% advantage. PassMark single-thread testing confirms this with scores of 4,043 and 1,408, a 65.2% difference.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-core workloads?

A: The Core Ultra 7 366H dominates multi-core tests. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 28,477 versus 12,201, a 57.2% gap. PassMark multithread shows 33,429 versus 11,685, a 65% difference. The Core Ultra 7 366H wins every multi-core benchmark in the database.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Despite having more cores, the Core Ultra 7 366H does not have a higher thread count.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 5 211TE supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H does not support ECC memory, which makes the Core 5 211TE the appropriate choice for workloads requiring error-correcting memory.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The Core Ultra 7 366H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the Core 5 211TE has 76.8 GB/s. The Core Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, while the Core 5 211TE supports DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the processors?

A: The Core 5 211TE has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Core Ultra 7 366H has a TDP of 25 watts. The Core Ultra 7 366H delivers higher performance across all benchmarks while consuming less thermal design power.

The Verdict

The benchmark data provides an unambiguous result. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins every single recorded test against the Intel Core 5 211TE, with advantages ranging from 55.6% to 77.9% depending on the workload. Its nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H with an average score of 41,215 and a delta of 0.1%, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 at 41,208, and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X at 41,376. The Core 5 211TE, by contrast, sits near processors like the AMD EPYC 7543 and the Intel Core i3-1315U in the database's average score rankings.

The Core Ultra 7 366H occupies the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 211TE sits at the 69th percentile. Its average benchmark score of 41,263 dwarfs the Core 5 211TE's 15,370, representing a 62.8% gap in overall performance.

The choice between these two processors depends entirely on platform requirements rather than performance considerations. The Core 5 211TE uses Intel Socket 1700, supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, includes ECC support, and has a 45-watt TDP. The Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel BGA 2540, supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, has no ECC support, and operates at a 25-watt TDP. The Core 5 211TE is a desktop part with a 215 mm² die on a 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 7 366H is a mobile part on a 3 nm process.

For any application where performance is the primary criterion, the recorded data points exclusively to the Core Ultra 7 366H. It delivers more than double the multi-core Cinebench performance and substantially higher scores in every PassMark test. The Core 5 211TE's only distinguishing features in the database are its ECC memory support and its desktop socket compatibility. Systems requiring those specific attributes would need the Core 5 211TE, but they would also need to accept a processor that trails its rival by at least 55.6% in every benchmark category.