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

FAQ

Q: Which processor delivers the higher multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T scores 33,573 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 63.7% ahead of the Intel Core 5 211TE's 12,201.

Q: How does single-threaded performance compare between the two?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285T posts 4,739 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 1,722 for the Core 5 211TE, a 63.7% advantage for the Ultra 9.

Q: Which chip has the higher core count?

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

Q: What are the process nodes for each processor?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285T is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, while the Core 5 211TE uses Intel's 10 nm process.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285T has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 20 MB on the Core 5 211TE.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the PassMark multi-thread test?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285T scores 39,931, which is 70.7% higher than the Core 5 211TE's 11,685.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 211TE belongs to the Bartlett Lake generation and uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform. It is manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry, with a die size of 215 mm². The chip packs 10 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 1.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. Memory support covers both DDR4 and DDR5, with dual-channel operation and a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730, and PCIe connectivity is Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T comes from the Arrow Lake-S architecture, part of the Core Ultra Series 2. It uses the newer Intel Socket 1851 and is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The transistor count is listed at 17,800 million, with a die size of 243 mm². This processor has 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 1.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The cache is significantly larger: 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. Memory support is DDR5 only, still dual-channel, but the bandwidth rises to 102.4 GB/s. The integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, and PCIe expands to Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

Both processors support ECC memory and have locked multipliers. The Core 5 211TE launched on 2025-01-12, while the Core Ultra 9 285T launched on 2025-01-06. The part numbers are SRQDL for the Core 5 and SRQD3 for the Ultra 9. The production status is Active for both.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a complete sweep: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T wins all 17 recorded tests against the Intel Core 5 211TE. The smallest margin appears in PassMark physics, where the Ultra 9 leads by 55%, scoring 2,842 against 1,278. The largest gap is in PassMark floating point math, where the Ultra 9's 137,923 is 81% ahead of the Core 5's 26,150.

In Cinebench R15, the Ultra 9 posts 3,384 multi-core versus 1,229 for the Core 5, a 63.7% difference. The single-core result in R15 shows 477 against 173, again a 63.7% gap. Cinebench R20 follows the same pattern: multi-core 14,100 versus 5,124, single-core 1,990 versus 723, both with the identical 63.7% delta. Cinebench R23 repeats this exact margin: multi-core 33,573 versus 12,201, and single-core 4,739 versus 1,722.

PassMark tests reveal varying margins. Data compression shows the Ultra 9 at 384,140 versus 133,434, a 65.3% lead. Data encryption is closer in percentage but still decisive: 32,061 versus 7,231, a 77.4% advantage. Extended instructions score 27,477 versus 8,615, a 68.6% gap. Finding prime numbers shows 345 versus 72, a 79.1% difference. Integer math delivers 132,433 versus 33,991, a 74.3% lead. The multi-thread score is 39,931 versus 11,685, a 70.7% margin. Random string sorting results in 47,695 versus 14,838, a 68.9% gap. Single-thread performance shows 4,576 versus 1,408, a 69.2% difference.

The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 9 285T is 51,310, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 211TE averages 15,370, sitting in the 69th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 9 include the Intel Core i9-14900T with an average score of 51,015 and a delta of 0.6%, the Intel Core i9-13900F at 51,730 with a -0.8% delta, the Intel Core i7-13850HX at 50,761 with a 1.1% delta, and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT at 50,718 with a 1.2% delta. The Core 5 211TE's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7543 at 15,477 with a -0.7% delta, the AMD EPYC 7702P at 15,130 with a 1.6% delta, the AMD Ryzen 3 7440U at 15,682 with a -2% delta, and the Intel Core i3-1315U at 15,022 with a 2.3% delta.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T is the superior processor in every measured workload. Its 91st percentile ranking versus the Core 5 211TE's 69th percentile shows a massive class separation. The Ultra 9 delivers more than double the multi-core performance in Cinebench R23, and the margin holds across all PassMark tests.

The Core Ultra 9 285T is designed for heavy multi-threaded workloads. Its 24 cores and 36 MB L3 cache, combined with a 5.40 GHz boost clock, make it the clear choice for rendering, scientific computing, and data compression tasks. The 3 nm process from TSMC and higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s support these capabilities.

The Core 5 211TE targets a different segment. With 10 cores and 16 threads, a 4.80 GHz boost, and support for DDR4 and DDR5, it fits systems where the lower launch MSRP of $221 matters. Its 45 W TDP is higher than the Ultra 9's 35 W, but it still operates within a desktop platform. The integrated UHD Graphics 730 is less capable than the Arc Xe-LPG Graphics in the Ultra 9, but for basic display output it suffices.

For users prioritizing raw performance, the Core Ultra 9 285T is the definitive answer. The 63.7% gap in Cinebench multi-core tests and 70.7% gap in PassMark multi-thread leave no room for debate. The Core 5 211TE remains a functional desktop processor, but it cannot compete with the Ultra 9's output.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every specification. The Core Ultra 9 285T has 24 cores versus 10 on the Core 5 211TE, and 24 threads versus 16. The base clock is lower on the Ultra 9 at 1.40 GHz versus 1.70 GHz, but the boost clock is higher at 5.40 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. The TDP is lower on the Ultra 9 at 35 W versus 45 W.

The socket changes from Intel Socket 1700 to Intel Socket 1851. The process node moves from 10 nm to 3 nm, and the foundry shifts from Intel to TSMC. The transistor count is listed only for the Ultra 9 at 17,800 million, while the die size grows from 215 mm² to 243 mm².

Cache sizes are larger on the Ultra 9: L1 goes from 80 KB per core to 192 KB per core, L2 from 1.25 MB per core to 3 MB per core, and L3 from 20 MB shared to 36 MB shared. Memory support narrows from DDR4 and DDR5 to DDR5 only, but memory bandwidth rises from 76.8 GB/s to 102.4 GB/s. PCIe lanes increase from 16 to 20, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics change from UHD Graphics 730 to Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The launch MSRP is $221 for the Core 5 211TE and $549 for the Core Ultra 9 285T. Both processors have locked multipliers and ECC support.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T wins every benchmark in the database. The largest advantages appear in floating point math, where it leads by 81%, and prime number finding, where it leads by 79.1%. Data encryption shows a 77.4% lead, integer math a 74.3% lead, and multi-thread performance a 70.7% lead. These gains make the Ultra 9 the pick for compute-heavy applications that stress the CPU across many cores.

The Intel Core 5 211TE has no benchmark wins against the Ultra 9. Its strengths lie in its lower launch MSRP and support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, which allows it to fit into systems using older memory standards. The 45 W TDP is higher than the Ultra 9's 35 W, but the Core 5 still operates within a standard desktop power envelope. Its 10 nm process and Intel Socket 1700 compatibility may suit users with existing motherboards, though the database does not quantify this benefit.

For single-core tasks, the Ultra 9 leads by 69.2% in PassMark single-thread and 63.7% in Cinebench R23 single-core. This means even lightly threaded workloads, such as web browsing or office productivity, favor the Ultra 9. The Core 5 211TE cannot claim advantage in any measured category. The data indicates the Ultra 9 is the stronger choice for all processing roles, while the Core 5 serves as a lower-cost entry point into the desktop platform.