Intel Core 5 211TE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data presents an unusually one-sided comparison. Across the 17 head-to-head tests tracked in the database, the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX wins every single contest. The Intel Core 5 211TE does not hold a win in any measured workload category. This is not a case of a balanced trade-off where one processor excels in certain tasks and the other in different ones; the Ultra 9 275HX dominates uniformly.

That said, the degree of dominance varies significantly by workload type. The smallest advantage appears in single-threaded workloads, where the Ultra 9 275HX delivers a 21.9% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core (2204 versus 1722). The Core 5 211TE is closer here, though still clearly behind. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ultra 9 275HX scores 334 against 173, a 48.2% gap. This pattern suggests that while the Core 5 211TE has a competitive single-thread architecture for its class, it cannot match the newer design's per-core efficiency.

The largest gaps appear in floating-point math and data encryption. In PassMark floating-point math, the Ultra 9 275HX scores 191186 versus 26150, a 86.3% deficit for the Core 5 211TE. Data encryption shows an 84.7% gap (47112 versus 7231). These are workloads that scale heavily with core count, wider execution resources, and memory bandwidth, all areas where the Ultra 9 275HX holds a structural advantage.

Multi-threaded rendering workloads show consistent 65% to 78% leads for the Ultra 9 275HX. Cinebench R23 multi-core delivers 35589 versus 12201 (65.7% ahead), while Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 19899 versus 5124 (74.2% ahead). PassMark multi-thread reports 55759 versus 11685, a 79% gap. The data compression test also shows a 78.1% difference (608381 versus 133434).

The Core 5 211TE does not have a single category where it outperforms its rival, but its closest relative performance comes in Cinebench R23 single-core. That workload, which stresses a single thread with moderate cache demands, narrows the gap to 21.9%. Even there, the Ultra 9 275HX remains firmly ahead.

The Verdict

The database records show two processors aimed at different market positions. The Intel Core 5 211TE is a 10-core, 16-thread desktop part with a 45 W TDP and a launch MSRP of $221. The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is a 24-core, 24-thread mobile part with a 55 W TDP. Their sockets differ entirely: Socket 1700 for the Core 5 211TE, BGA 2114 for the Ultra 9 275HX. No user would choose between them for the same system, since they are not socket-compatible.

The Ultra 9 275HX is the clear performance leader in every recorded benchmark. Its average benchmark score of 67469 places it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals, the Intel Xeon w5-3525 (67673, 0.3% higher) and AMD EPYC 4484PX (67822, 0.5% higher), are extremely close, indicating that the Ultra 9 275HX sits at the top of the performance hierarchy among all recorded parts.

The Core 5 211TE, with an average benchmark score of 15370, sits in the 69th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7543 (15477, 0.7% higher), AMD Ryzen 3 7440U (15682, 2% higher), and Intel Core i3-1315U (15022, 2.3% lower). This places the Core 5 211TE in a mid-range position, competitive with entry-level server and mobile parts but nowhere near the top tier.

For a user constrained to the Core 5 211TE's platform, the data indicates a capable mid-range desktop processor. For maximum throughput, the Ultra 9 275HX is in a completely different class. The choice is not about workload preference; it is about platform and performance tier. The Core 5 211TE serves desktops, the Ultra 9 275HX serves high-end mobile systems, and the benchmark data reflects that hierarchy without exception.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head table contains 17 entries, all won by the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX. The largest margin is in PassMark floating-point math, where the Ultra 9 275HX leads by 86.3% (191186 versus 26150). This workload benefits from the Ultra 9 275HX's wider vector execution and higher core count. Second-largest is data encryption at 84.7% (47112 versus 7231), a workload that scales with core count and cryptographic instruction throughput.

PassMark find prime numbers shows an 83.9% gap (448 versus 72). This test is highly dependent on integer throughput and core count, both favoring the Ultra 9 275HX. Extended instructions show an 81.7% gap (47016 versus 8615), and random string sorting shows an 80% gap (74320 versus 14838).

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent pattern. R15 multi-core: 5619.5 versus 1229, a 78.1% gap. R20 multi-core: 19899 versus 5124, a 74.2% gap. R23 multi-core: 35589 versus 12201, a 65.7% gap. Note that the R23 gap is smaller than the R15 and R20 gaps, suggesting that the Core 5 211TE's 20 MB L3 cache helps more in the longer R23 workload, which is more cache-sensitive.

Single-core Cinebench results show the narrowest gaps. R23 single-core: 2204 versus 1722, a 21.9% gap. R20 single-core: 2809 versus 723, a 74.3% gap. R15 single-core: 334 versus 173, a 48.2% gap. The R20 single-core result is an outlier, showing a much larger gap than the R23 single-core result. This may reflect different instruction mix and clock behavior between the two test versions, but the recorded data shows the Ultra 9 275HX ahead in all cases.

PassMark single-thread shows 4713 versus 1408, a 70.1% gap. PassMark physics shows 3338 versus 1278, a 61.7% gap. PassMark multi-thread shows 55759 versus 11685, a 79% gap. Integer math shows 155218 versus 33991, a 78.1% gap. Data compression shows 608381 versus 133434, also a 78.1% gap.

The smallest single-core gap anywhere in the table is the 21.9% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core. That is the only test where the Core 5 211TE comes within a quarter of its rival's score. Every other test shows at least a 48.2% gap.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Core 5 211TE supports hyper-threading (16 threads from 10 cores), while the Ultra 9 275HX does not (24 threads from 24 cores).

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 9 275HX scores 2204 versus 1722 for the Core 5 211TE, a 21.9% lead. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the gap widens to 48.2% (334 versus 173). PassMark single-thread shows a 70.1% gap (4713 versus 1408).

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speed?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The Intel Core 5 211TE has a base clock of 1.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz.

Q: What are the cache configurations?

A: The Core 5 211TE has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. The Ultra 9 275HX has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 5 211TE supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX does not support ECC memory.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Ultra 9 275HX has an average benchmark score of 67469, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 211TE has an average score of 15370, placing it in the 69th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and use different fabrication processes. The Core 5 211TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm Intel process, with a die size of 215 mm². The Ultra 9 275HX uses the Arrow Lake-HX codename on a 3 nm TSMC process, with a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors. The 3 nm process gives the Ultra 9 275HX a significant transistor density advantage despite its larger die, enabling more cores and larger caches in a mobile power envelope.

Core organization differs substantially. The Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads, indicating a hybrid or asymmetric configuration within the Bartlett Lake design. The Ultra 9 275HX has 24 cores and 24 threads, a purely symmetric arrangement with no hyper-threading. The per-core cache sizes are larger on the Ultra 9 275HX: 192 KB L1 versus 80 KB, and 3 MB L2 versus 1.25 MB. Shared L3 is 36 MB versus 20 MB.

Memory support diverges. The Core 5 211TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 9 275HX supports only DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 211TE and 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 9 275HX, a 33% advantage for the larger part. ECC memory is supported only on the Core 5 211TE.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 5 211TE provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra 9 275HX provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 5 211TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 9 275HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

The sockets are incompatible. The Core 5 211TE uses Intel Socket 1700 for desktop systems, while the Ultra 9 275HX uses Intel BGA 2114, a soldered mobile package. Power targets are 45 W for the Core 5 211TE and 55 W for the Ultra 9 275HX. The Ultra 9 275HX has an unlocked multiplier; the Core 5 211TE does not.

Both processors were released on the same date, 2025-01-12, and both remain in active production. The Core 5 211TE has a launch MSRP of $221; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Ultra 9 275HX. Market segments differ: the Core 5 211TE is a desktop part, while the Ultra 9 275HX is a mobile part. These architectural distinctions explain the benchmark results: the Ultra 9 275HX uses a newer process, more cores, larger caches, higher clocks, and higher memory bandwidth, all of which contribute to its dominance across every recorded workload.