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

# Intel Core 5 211TE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

The Intel Core 5 211TE and Intel Core Ultra 9 285K occupy opposite ends of Intel's desktop lineup, with the database showing the Ultra 9 winning every single recorded benchmark. The Core 5 211TE is a 10-core Bartlett Lake part on Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 9 285K is a 24-core Arrow Lake-S flagship on Socket 1851. The data reveals a 69th percentile placement for the Core 5 versus a 96th percentile for the Ultra 9, a distance that shows up in every workload category measured.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark table lists 17 tests, and the Core Ultra 9 285K wins all 17. The Core 5 211TE has zero wins in the recorded data. This is not a close contest in any category. The Ultra 9 leads in single-threaded, multi-threaded, encryption, compression, math, physics, and sorting workloads.

The Core 5 211TE still holds a position in the desktop market, with an average benchmark score of 15370 and a percentile of 69. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7543 at 15477 (0.7% higher), the AMD Ryzen 3 7440U at 15682 (2% higher), and the Intel Core i3-1315U at 15022 (2.3% lower). These comparisons show the Core 5 sitting in a mid-range performance band, close to both mobile and server parts from other families.

The Core Ultra 9 285K, with an average score of 83807, sits near the top of the database. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus at 84003 (0.2% higher), the AMD EPYC 4584PX at 83090 (0.9% lower), and the AMD EPYC 9135 at 82980 (1% lower). The Ultra 9 is effectively tied with these parts, all within a 1.5% band, confirming its position as a high-end desktop processor. The use-case split is therefore simple: the Ultra 9 is the choice for any workload where performance matters, while the Core 5 211TE serves a lower-power segment, evidenced by its 45 W TDP versus 125 W.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different foundries and nodes. The Core 5 211TE uses Intel's 10 nm process with a die size of 215 mm², while the Core Ultra 9 285K uses a 3 nm process from TSMC with a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors. The node difference explains much of the performance gap, as the Ultra 9 packs more cores into a similar physical footprint.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 5 has 10 cores and 16 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement with some efficiency cores. The Core Ultra 9 has 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning no hyper-threading on this part. Cache hierarchies reflect the core count difference. The Core 5 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 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 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra 9 supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs: the Core 5 offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 9 offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Core 5 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 9 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Clock speeds show the Ultra 9's advantage: 3.70 GHz base and 5.70 GHz boost versus 1.70 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. The multiplier is unlocked on the Ultra 9, locked on the Core 5. The sockets are incompatible: Socket 1700 for the Core 5, Socket 1851 for the Ultra 9.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single-threaded gap appears in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Ultra 9 scores 359 against the Core 5's 173, a 51.8% difference. The gap narrows in Cinebench R23 single-core, with 2377 versus 1722, a 27.6% delta. PassMark single-thread shows 5087 versus 1408, a 72.3% gap. These numbers indicate that even in lightly threaded tasks, the Ultra 9's higher clocks and newer architecture dominate.

Multi-threaded tests show even larger deltas. Cinebench R15 multi-core gives 6494 versus 1229, an 81.1% difference. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 24003 versus 5124, a 78.7% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core delivers 42522 versus 12201, a 71.3% difference. PassMark multi-thread shows 67260 versus 11685, an 82.6% gap. The pattern is consistent: the Ultra 9's 24 cores and 3 nm process translate to roughly 4 to 6 times the multi-threaded throughput of the Core 5.

Specialized workloads follow the same trend. PassMark data compression shows 790052 versus 133434, an 83.1% delta. Data encryption gives 57745 versus 7231, an 87.5% gap. Extended instructions show 62277 versus 8615, an 86.2% difference. Floating point math gives 224324 versus 26150, an 88.3% delta, the largest in the dataset. Integer math shows 172379 versus 33991, an 80.3% gap. Find prime numbers gives 541 versus 72, an 86.7% difference. Physics shows 3938 versus 1278, a 67.5% gap. Random string sorting gives 94927 versus 14838, an 84.4% delta.

The closest margins are in single-threaded Cinebench R23 at 27.6% and physics at 67.5%. The widest margins are in floating point math at 88.3% and data encryption at 87.5%. Every recorded test shows the Ultra 9 ahead by at least a quarter, and most by more than three quarters.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports one conclusion: the Core Ultra 9 285K outperforms the Core 5 211TE in every measured benchmark. The Core 5 211TE has zero wins across 17 head-to-head tests. Its average benchmark score of 15370 places it at the 69th percentile, while the Ultra 9's average of 83807 places it at the 96th percentile.

The Core 5 211TE does offer a lower TDP of 45 W versus 125 W, and it supports DDR4 memory, which the Ultra 9 does not. It also uses the widely available Socket 1700 platform. These factors make it a plausible choice for systems where power draw and memory flexibility matter more than raw performance.

The Core Ultra 9 285K is the clear pick for any workload that depends on compute throughput. Its 24 cores, 36 MB of L3 cache, 5.70 GHz boost clock, and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth produce benchmark scores that rival server-class EPYC parts in the database. The data shows no scenario where the Core 5 211TE wins a benchmark, so the choice depends entirely on whether the Core 5's lower power envelope and DDR4 support outweigh a performance deficit that ranges from 27.6% to 88.3% depending on the test.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

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

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

A: The largest delta is in PassMark floating point math, where the Core Ultra 9 285K scores 224324 versus 26150 for the Core 5 211TE, an 88.3% difference.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

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

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: The Intel Core 5 211TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K supports only DDR5.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 5 211TE has a TDP of 45 W, and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K has a TDP of 125 W.

Q: Which processor has a higher clock speed?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, compared to the Core 5 211TE's 1.70 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Cores | 10 | 24 |

| Threads | 16 | 24 |

| Base clock | 1.70 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.70 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 125 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| 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 |

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

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

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | $589 |