Intel Core 5 211TE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

The Intel Core 5 211TE and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 occupy different tiers in the desktop market, and the benchmark data reflects a clear performance hierarchy. The Core Ultra 9 285, built on a newer 3 nm process with 24 cores, dominates every single recorded benchmark against the 10-core Core 5 211TE. The Core 5 211TE is a 45 W part on Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 9 285 is a 65 W part on Socket 1851. This analysis breaks down where each processor stands based on the recorded measurements.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285. In the head-to-head comparison, it wins all 17 recorded benchmarks, leaving the Core 5 211TE with zero wins. The Core Ultra 9 285 delivers a 75.1% advantage across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both single-core and multi-core. The largest margin appears in PassMark floating point math, where the Core Ultra 9 285 leads by 86.6%.

The Core 5 211TE does not win a single category, but its role is defined by efficiency and platform compatibility rather than raw performance. It uses a 10 nm process and a 45 W TDP, which suggests it is positioned for lower-power desktop builds. The Core Ultra 9 285, with its 3 nm TSMC process and 65 W TDP, is the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads. The database places the Core Ultra 9 285 in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 211TE sits at the 69th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and use different manufacturing approaches. The Core 5 211TE is codenamed Bartlett Lake, built on Intel's 10 nm process, and uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform. The Core Ultra 9 285 is codenamed Arrow Lake-S, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, and uses Intel Socket 1851.

Core configuration differs substantially. The Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Core Ultra 9 285 has no hyper-threading, so its thread count equals its core count. The Core 5 211TE has 16 threads from 10 cores, implying some cores support two threads each. Cache hierarchies also differ: 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 9 285 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 5 211TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the Core Ultra 9 285 reaches 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth versus 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 211TE. Both support ECC memory. The Core Ultra 9 285 has PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the Core 5 211TE has PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes. The integrated graphics also differ: the Core 5 211TE uses UHD Graphics 730, and the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results show a consistent 75.1% gap in favor of the Core Ultra 9 285 across every version of the test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945 versus 12,201 for the Core 5 211TE. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 6,909 versus 1,722. The same 75.1% delta appears in R15 and R20, indicating that the performance ratio holds steady across rendering workloads regardless of the Cinebench version.

PassMark results show larger deltas in some areas. The biggest gap is in floating point math, where the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 194,988 versus 26,150, a difference of 86.6%. Data encryption shows an 84.6% gap, with the Core Ultra 9 285 at 46,949 versus 7,231. Prime number finding shows an 84.3% gap, with 459 versus 72. Extended instructions show an 81% gap, with 45,357 versus 8,615.

Other PassMark tests show slightly smaller but still decisive margins. Integer math scores 164,869 versus 33,991, a 79.4% gap. Multithread scores 56,602 versus 11,685, also a 79.4% gap. Random string sorting shows a 79.9% gap, with 73,651 versus 14,838. Data compression shows a 77.8% gap, with 602,121 versus 133,434. Single-thread performance shows a 71.2% gap, with 4,881 versus 1,408. The smallest gap in the entire set is in PassMark physics, where the Core Ultra 9 285 leads by 64.5%, scoring 3,598 versus 1,278.

The average benchmark score reinforces the gap. The Core Ultra 9 285 has an average score of 75,488, while the Core 5 211TE averages 15,370. The nearest rivals in the database place the Core 5 211TE near the AMD EPYC 7543, which has an average score of 15,477 and a delta of 0.7%, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7440U, which scores 15,682 with a delta of 2%. The Core Ultra 9 285 sits near the AMD EPYC 8224P, which scores 75,582 with a delta of 0.1%, and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D, which scores 75,716 with a delta of 0.3%. These rival deltas confirm that both processors perform at the expected level for their respective tiers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the boost clock difference?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 boosts to 5.60 GHz, while the Core 5 211TE boosts to 4.80 GHz. The base clocks are 2.50 GHz and 1.70 GHz respectively.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Core 5 211TE and the Core Ultra 9 285 support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 has 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 5 211TE has 20 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for each?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 has 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Core 5 211TE has 76.8 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 ranks in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 211TE ranks in the 69th percentile.

The Verdict

The benchmark data gives a straightforward answer. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is faster in every recorded test, with a minimum 64.5% lead in PassMark physics and a maximum 86.6% lead in floating point math. It has more cores, more cache, higher clocks, a newer 3 nm process, and higher memory bandwidth. The 24-core configuration with 24 threads and 36 MB of L3 cache makes it the stronger choice for any multi-threaded workload in the database.

The Core 5 211TE is the processor for a different set of priorities. It uses a 10 nm process, a 45 W TDP, and supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. Its 10 cores and 16 threads place it far below the Core Ultra 9 285 in raw throughput, and its 69th percentile ranking versus the 95th percentile ranking of the Core Ultra 9 285 confirms the gap. The Core 5 211TE also supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Core Ultra 9 285 has 20 lanes.

The choice depends on workload and platform. The Core Ultra 9 285, with a launch MSRP of $579, is the clear pick for users who need maximum multi-core performance. The Core 5 211TE, with a launch MSRP of $221, suits builds that prioritize lower power consumption and memory flexibility. The data does not show any scenario where the Core 5 211TE outperforms the Core Ultra 9 285, so the decision rests on budget and platform constraints rather than benchmark wins.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 211TE | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 |

|----------------|--------------------|------------------------|

| Cores | 10 | 24 |

| Threads | 16 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 1.70 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 215 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 20 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | $579 |

| Production Status | Active | Active |