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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX, winning all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The Intel Core 5 211TE does not claim a single win across any Cinebench or Passmark test.

The largest margins appear in floating-point math, where the Core Ultra 9 285HX scores 194998 against 26150 for the Core 5 211TE, a delta of -86.6%. Data encryption shows a similar gap, with the Ultra 9 delivering 48567 versus 7231, a -85.1% difference. Extended instructions also heavily favor the Ultra 9, which posts 49148 against 8615, representing a -82.5% delta.

Multi-core Cinebench results tell the same story. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 9 285HX reaches 36429.5 while the Core 5 211TE manages 12201, a -66.5% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 20236 for the Ultra 9 versus 5124 for the Core 5, a -74.7% gap. Cinebench R15 multi-core follows with 5656.5 against 1229, a -78.3% difference.

Single-core performance is closer but still decisively favors the Ultra 9. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2187.5 for the Ultra 9 versus 1722 for the Core 5, a -21.3% delta, the smallest margin in the entire comparison. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2856 against 723, a -74.7% gap, while Cinebench R15 single-core shows 323.5 versus 173, a -46.5% delta.

Passmark multi-threaded scoring reinforces the pattern. The Ultra 9 scores 56902 against 11685 for the Core 5, a -79.5% delta. Integer math shows 155076 versus 33991, a -78.1% difference. Random string sorting posts 77196 against 14838, a -80.8% delta. Find prime numbers shows 460 versus 72, a -84.3% gap, and physics scoring comes in at 3476 versus 1278, a -63.2% delta.

Passmark single-thread results, recorded twice in the data as both "single_thread" and "singlethread", show 4618 for the Ultra 9 against 1408 for the Core 5, a -69.5% delta in both entries. Data compression also favors the Ultra 9 heavily, with 631885 versus 133434, a -78.9% difference.

The average benchmark score cements the hierarchy. The Core Ultra 9 285HX averages 76155 across the recorded tests, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 211TE averages 15370, which puts it in the 69th percentile. That gap in percentile ranking reflects a difference of roughly five times the average score.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design lineages. The Intel Core 5 211TE belongs to the Bartlett Lake generation and uses the "Core 5" classification. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, uses Arrow Lake architecture, and carries the Arrow Lake-HX codename.

Process technology separates them sharply. The Core 5 211TE is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry, with a die size of 215 mm². The Core Ultra 9 285HX uses a 3 nm process fabricated by TSMC, with a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors. The Ultra 9's smaller process node allows for significantly higher transistor density despite the modest die size increase.

Core and thread counts diverge substantially. The Core 5 211TE provides 10 cores and 16 threads, indicating hyper-threading support. The Core Ultra 9 285HX provides 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning it operates without hyper-threading, relying instead on raw core count. That 14-core advantage explains much of the multi-core performance gap.

Clock speeds also favor the Ultra 9. The Core 5 211TE has a base clock of 1.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 285HX starts at 2.80 GHz base and reaches 5.50 GHz boost. Both the higher base and higher boost contribute to the single-core lead, though the Core 5's boost clock is closer to the Ultra 9's than the base clocks suggest.

Cache hierarchies differ in both size and organization. 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 285HX has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9's larger per-core caches and nearly double the L3 capacity give it a clear advantage in workloads that benefit from cached data.

Memory support shows a generation gap. The Core 5 211TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 285HX supports only DDR5. Memory bandwidth reflects this: the Core 5 delivers 76.8 GB/s, while the Ultra 9 reaches 102.4 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses. ECC memory is supported by both processors.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 5 211TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra 9 285HX provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, offering additional bandwidth for expansion devices.

Integrated graphics take different paths. The Core 5 211TE uses UHD Graphics 730. The Core Ultra 9 285HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The Arc-based solution represents a more modern graphics architecture, though benchmark data does not include iGPU tests.

The sockets are incompatible. The Core 5 211TE uses Intel Socket 1700 and is classified as a desktop part. The Core Ultra 9 285HX uses Intel BGA 2114 and is classified as a mobile part. The Ultra 9 also has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 5 does not.

Power envelopes differ by 10 watts. The Core 5 211TE has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Core Ultra 9 285HX has a TDP of 55 watts. Both parts are currently active in production and share the same release date of 2025-01-12.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 285HX wins every recorded benchmark, but the margins vary by workload type, which clarifies where each processor has relative strengths.

The Ultra 9's smallest advantage appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the delta is -21.3%. This suggests that the Core 5 211TE, despite its older process and lower clocks, can approach the Ultra 9 in lightly threaded tasks that depend heavily on single-core efficiency. The 4.80 GHz boost clock on the Core 5 helps close this gap.

The Ultra 9's largest advantages appear in floating-point math and encryption, with deltas of -86.6% and -85.1% respectively. These workloads scale with core count, and the Ultra 9's 24 cores versus 10 cores creates an insurmountable lead. The Core 5 211TE cannot compensate for the core deficit in these parallel workloads.

For productivity tasks, the Ultra 9 dominates consistently. Data compression shows a -78.9% delta, integer math shows -78.1%, and multi-threaded Passmark shows -79.5%. The Core 5 211TE's 16 threads, while useful for its 10-core configuration, cannot match the Ultra 9's 24 physical cores in sustained parallel throughput.

For single-threaded Passmark tests, the Ultra 9 leads by -69.5%. This is a larger gap than the Cinebench R23 single-core result, indicating that the specific instruction mix in Passmark's single-thread test favors the Ultra 9's higher clock speed and newer architecture more heavily.

The Core 5 211TE's only relative bright spot is the Cinebench R23 single-core result, where the -21.3% delta is far smaller than the -46.5% to -86.6% ranges seen elsewhere. This indicates the Core 5 can handle basic single-threaded office or browser workloads with acceptable performance, even if it trails by a wide margin.

For multi-core rendering, the Ultra 9's Cinebench R23 score of 36429.5 is roughly three times the Core 5's 12201. The R20 multi-core test shows a similar ratio at 20236 versus 5124. These results indicate the Ultra 9 is the appropriate choice for rendering, video encoding, simulation, and other threaded compute workloads.

The Ultra 9 also claims the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 sits at the 69th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 9 include the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX at -0.1% delta, the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P at -0.4%, and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX at -0.5%. The Core 5's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7543 at -0.7%, the AMD Ryzen 3 7440U at -2%, and the Intel Core i3-1315U at 2.3%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX wins all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 36429.5 against 12201 for the Core 5 211TE, a -66.5% delta. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it scores 20236 against 5124, a -74.7% delta.

Q: How close is single-core performance between the two?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285HX leads in all single-core tests, but the closest margin is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 2187.5 against 1722 for the Core 5 211TE, a -21.3% delta. Passmark single-thread shows a larger -69.5% delta with scores of 4618 versus 1408.

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 285HX has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Ultra 9 does not use hyper-threading, so its thread count equals its core count.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 5 211TE and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX support ECC memory. The Core 5 supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 9 supports DDR5 only.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Intel Core 5 211TE uses a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX uses a 3 nm process fabricated by TSMC. The Ultra 9 also has a larger die at 243 mm² compared to 215 mm².

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The Intel Core 5 211TE has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Ultra 9 also has a higher base clock at 2.80 GHz versus 1.70 GHz.

The Verdict

The recorded data presents an unambiguous hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX outperforms the Intel Core 5 211TE in every single recorded benchmark, winning all 17 head-to-head tests. The average benchmark score of 76155 for the Ultra 9 versus 15370 for the Core 5 places them in different performance tiers entirely, with the Ultra 9 at the 95th percentile of all CPUs and the Core 5 at the 69th percentile.

The Core Ultra 9 285HX is the clear choice for any workload that benefits from parallel processing. Its 24 cores, larger cache hierarchy, higher memory bandwidth, and more advanced 3 nm process deliver decisive advantages in rendering, encryption, compression, and floating-point math. The -85% or worse deltas in encryption, extended instructions, and floating-point operations indicate workloads that heavily thread will see roughly six to seven times the throughput on the Ultra 9.

The Core 5 211TE, while decisively slower, shows its best relative performance in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the -21.3% delta represents the smallest gap in the entire comparison. For basic single-threaded tasks, the Core 5's 4.80 GHz boost clock keeps it within competitive distance. Its 45 watt TDP also makes it a lower-power option, though the data does not include efficiency measurements.

The production status for both parts is active, and both share the same release date of 2025-01-12. The Core 5 211TE has a launch MSRP of $221, while the Ultra 9's launch MSRP is not recorded in the database.

For a desktop user with workloads that scale across cores, the Core Ultra 9 285HX is the only rational selection based on benchmark results. Its nearest rivals in the database, the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX at -0.1% delta and the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P at -0.4%, show it trades near the top of its performance class. The Core 5 211TE, by contrast, sits among rivals like the AMD EPYC 7543 at -0.7% and the Intel Core i3-1315U at 2.3%, positioning it in a much lower performance tier.

The data does not support any scenario where the Core 5 211TE wins a performance comparison. The only question is whether a workload is lightly threaded enough that the Core 5's deficit becomes tolerable. For all multi-threaded tasks, and for most single-threaded tasks, the Core Ultra 9 285HX delivers substantially higher scores, making it the superior processor across every measured dimension.