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

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a decisive hierarchy: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core 5 211TE. The Ultra 9 285H posts an average benchmark score of 38312, placing it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 211TE averages 15370 and sits in the 69th percentile. The performance gap is substantial, with the Ultra 9 leading by margins ranging from 19.1% in Cinebench R23 single-core to 78.2% in PassMark find prime numbers.

For desktop users requiring a capable processor with ECC memory support and a lower launch MSRP of $221, the Core 5 211TE serves as a functional entry point. The Core Ultra 9 285H, with a launch MSRP of $651, targets mobile workloads that demand high multi-threaded throughput and single-thread responsiveness. The data does not support any scenario where the Core 5 211TE outperforms the Core Ultra 9 285H in the measured tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent distinct design generations and manufacturing approaches. The Intel Core 5 211TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on Intel's 10 nm process node with a 215 mm² die size. It belongs to the Core 5 generation and uses the Intel Socket 1700. The Core Ultra 9 285H uses the Arrow Lake-H codename, belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, and is fabricated on TSMC's 3 nm process node. It uses the Intel BGA 2049 socket, reflecting its mobile market segment.

Core counts differ significantly. The Core 5 211TE provides 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285H provides 16 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 9 has more physical cores but equal thread count, indicating a different threading architecture. Cache hierarchies also differ: the Core 5 211TE has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 285H has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. The Ultra 9 holds advantages in every cache level.

Clock speeds favor the Ultra 9 as well. The Core 5 211TE has a base clock of 1.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 285H has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. Both processors carry a 45 W TDP, but the Ultra 9 achieves higher clocks within the same power envelope. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Memory support differs in capacity and bandwidth. The Core 5 211TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with dual-channel memory and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. PCIe configuration also differs: the Core 5 211TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 9 285H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 211TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 9 285H uses Arc Graphics 140T. Both processors are active in production, share a release date of 2025-01-12, and use part numbers SRQDL and SRQAL respectively.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows consistent Ultra 9 dominance across all 17 measured tests. The largest single margin appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 9 285H scores 330 against the Core 5 211TE's 72, a 78.2% advantage. Floating point math shows similar scale: the Ultra 9 posts 109190 versus 26150, a 76.1% lead. Data encryption favors the Ultra 9 by 72.3%, with scores of 26140 and 7231.

Multi-threaded workloads show the Ultra 9 ahead by wide margins. Cinebench R15 multi-core scores are 3177.5 for the Ultra 9 and 1229 for the Core 5 211TE, a 61.3% difference. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 12201 versus 5124, a 58% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core records 20781.5 against 12201, a 41.3% lead. PassMark multi-thread scores are 34171 versus 11685, a 65.8% advantage. PassMark integer math shows 85922 versus 33991, a 60.4% gap. Data compression results in 335859 versus 133434, a 60.3% difference. Random string sorting favors the Ultra 9 by 63.7%, with scores of 40931 and 14838. Extended instructions show a 67.8% lead, with 26794 versus 8615.

Single-thread performance also favors the Ultra 9, though by smaller margins. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2129.5 versus 1722, a 19.1% lead, the narrowest gap in the entire comparison. Cinebench R20 single-core records 1722 versus 723, a 58% difference. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 313 versus 173, a 44.7% gap. PassMark single-thread scores are 4415 versus 1408, a 68.1% advantage. PassMark physics shows 2513 versus 1278, a 49.1% lead.

The Core Ultra 9 285H also carries additional Geekbench results not present for the Core 5 211TE: 14743 in multi-core and 2178 in single-core. These scores are consistent with its higher percentile ranking of 86 versus 69.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H has an average benchmark score of 38312, compared to 15370 for the Intel Core 5 211TE. The Ultra 9 also ranks in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 211TE ranks in the 69th percentile.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 9 285H scores 330 against the Core 5 211TE's 72, a 78.2% advantage. Floating point math shows a 76.1% gap (109190 versus 26150).

Q: How does single-thread performance compare?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285H leads in all single-thread tests. The closest margin is Cinebench R23 single-core at 19.1% (2129.5 versus 1722). Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 44.7% gap (313 versus 173), and PassMark single-thread shows a 68.1% gap (4415 versus 1408).

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 5 211TE and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H support ECC memory. Memory types differ: the Core 5 211TE supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 285H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

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 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Despite having more cores, the Ultra 9 does not increase thread count.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285H provides 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the Core 5 211TE provides 76.8 GB/s. Both use a dual-channel memory bus.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data records zero wins for the Intel Core 5 211TE across all 17 head-to-head tests. The Core Ultra 9 285H wins every comparison, so the use-case split is defined by the magnitude of the gaps and the platform differences rather than by test victories.

The Core Ultra 9 285H is the clear choice for workloads that stress multi-threaded throughput. Its PassMark multi-thread score of 34171 versus 11685, a 65.8% advantage, and its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20781.5 versus 12201, a 41.3% lead, indicate strong performance in rendering, compression, and encryption tasks. Data compression shows 335859 versus 133434, and data encryption shows 26140 versus 7231, both favoring the Ultra 9 by over 60%. The 16-core design and larger L3 cache contribute to these results.

The Ultra 9 also leads in single-thread responsiveness. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2129.5 versus 1722, and PassMark single-thread shows 4415 versus 1408. The higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz versus 4.80 GHz supports this advantage. For interactive applications and lightly threaded software, the Ultra 9 provides faster response.

The Core 5 211TE retains relevance only in platform-specific contexts. It uses the Intel Socket 1700, which targets desktop builds, while the Ultra 9 uses the Intel BGA 2049 socket for mobile systems. The Core 5 211TE supports DDR4 memory, which may suit existing desktop platforms, and offers 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus 8 for the Ultra 9. The Core 5 211TE carries a launch MSRP of $221, while the Ultra 9 carries $651, but pricing does not alter the benchmark outcome.

For users restricted to Socket 1700 desktop platforms, the Core 5 211TE provides ECC support, DDR4 compatibility, and functional performance. For users prioritizing raw compute across all measured categories, the Core Ultra 9 285H delivers superior results with no exceptions in the recorded data.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Cores | 10 | 16 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Base clock | 1.70 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2049 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-H |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die size | 215 mm² | Not recorded |

| 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) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc Graphics 140T |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | $651 |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | No |

| Part number | SRQDL | SRQAL |

| Release date | 2025-01-12 | 2025-01-12 |

| Production status | Active | Active |

The table summarizes the recorded differences. The Ultra 9 uses a smaller process node, higher clocks, larger caches, and higher memory bandwidth. The Core 5 211TE offers more PCIe lanes and a desktop socket. Both share the same TDP, release date, ECC support, dual-channel memory bus, and production status.