Intel Core 5 211TE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher overall benchmark average?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has a higher average benchmark score of 23,219 compared to the Intel Core 5 211TE's 15,370. The Core Ultra 9 288V also sits in the 76th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 211TE is in the 69th percentile.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-core rendering workloads?

A: The results are mixed. The Core 5 211TE wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core with a score of 12,201 versus 10,178 for the Core Ultra 9 288V, a 19.9% advantage. However, the Core Ultra 9 288V wins in Cinebench R15 multi-core (1,583 vs 1,229) and R20 multi-core (7,069 vs 5,124).

Q: Which processor is stronger in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V dominates every single-core benchmark. Its PassMark single-thread score is 4,274 versus 1,408 for the Core 5 211TE, a 67.1% gap. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 288V scores 1,950 against 1,722.

Q: What are the socket and platform differences?

A: The Core 5 211TE uses Intel Socket 1700 and is a desktop part, while the Core Ultra 9 288V uses Intel BGA 2833 and is a mobile processor. The Core 5 211TE supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, whereas the Core Ultra 9 288V supports PCIe Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core 5 211TE supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 9 288V does not. The Core 5 211TE also supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 9 288V is limited to LPDDR5X.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Core Ultra 9 288V does not support simultaneous multithreading, so its thread count equals its core count.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent distinct architectural approaches from Intel. The Core 5 211TE is built on the Bartlett Lake architecture and uses a 10 nm process node manufactured by Intel. Its die size is 215 mm². The Core Ultra 9 288V uses the Lunar Lake architecture, codenamed Lunar Lake, and is built on a 3 nm process node manufactured by TSMC.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The Core 5 211TE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 288V has larger per-core caches: 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger L3 on the Core 5 211TE helps compensate for its smaller per-core caches when many threads access shared data.

Memory architecture separates the two as well. The Core 5 211TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory through a dual-channel interface, delivering 76.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 288V uses LPDDR5X memory, also dual-channel, but with a significantly higher memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. The Core 5 211TE supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the Core Ultra 9 288V.

PCIe lane counts differ markedly. The Core 5 211TE offers 16 Gen 5 CPU lanes, suitable for a desktop platform with expansion cards. The Core Ultra 9 288V provides only 4 Gen 5 CPU lanes, reflecting its mobile design where most I/O is integrated. Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 5 211TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 9 288V uses Arc 140V graphics.

Clock speeds favor the Core Ultra 9 288V. Its base clock is 3.30 GHz with a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Core 5 211TE has a lower base clock of 1.70 GHz but a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 288V also has a lower TDP of 30 watts versus 45 watts for the Core 5 211TE.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner in the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V. It wins 16 of 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons and holds a 51% advantage in average benchmark score (23,219 vs 15,370). Its single-core performance is decisively superior, with a 67.1% lead in PassMark single-thread and a 42.6% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core.

The Core 5 211TE wins only one benchmark: Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 12,201 versus 10,178, a 19.9% advantage. This single win suggests that in certain heavily threaded rendering workloads, the combination of 10 cores, 16 threads, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache can overcome the Core Ultra 9 288V's architectural advantages.

For users prioritizing single-thread responsiveness, encryption, compression, floating-point math, or integer math, the Core Ultra 9 288V is the stronger choice. Its PassMark data encryption score is 14,141 versus 7,231, a 48.9% lead, and its floating-point math score is 59,536 versus 26,150, a 56.1% lead. The Core Ultra 9 288V also offers lower power consumption at 30 watts TDP, making it suitable for mobile platforms.

The Core 5 211TE targets desktop systems with Socket 1700, supports ECC memory, and provides 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. These platform features matter for workstation or server-like deployments where ECC reliability and expansion capacity are required. Its 45-watt TDP is higher but still modest for a desktop part.

The data indicates the Core Ultra 9 288V is the better overall performer, but the Core 5 211TE has a place in systems requiring ECC memory, larger L3 cache, or desktop socket compatibility.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 211TE | Intel Core Ultra 9 288V |

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

| Cores | 10 | 8 |

| Threads | 16 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 1.70 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 30 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2833 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Lunar Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 215 mm² | Not specified |

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

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 20 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 136.5 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 4 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc 140V |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2024-09-23 |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | Not specified |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V wins 16 of 17 benchmark comparisons. The largest margins come in PassMark single-thread tests, where the Core Ultra 9 288V scores 4,274 versus 1,408 for the Core 5 211TE, a 67.1% difference. This gap appears in both the PassMark single_thread and singlethread entries.

PassMark floating-point math shows a 56.1% lead for the Core Ultra 9 288V, with scores of 59,536 versus 26,150. Data encryption results are similarly lopsided: the Core Ultra 9 288V scores 14,141 against 7,231, a 48.9% gap. Extended instructions also favor the Core Ultra 9 288V heavily, with 15,613 versus 8,615, a 44.8% difference.

Prime number finding shows the Core Ultra 9 288V at 195 versus 72 for the Core 5 211TE, a 63.1% advantage. PassMark multithread scores give the Core Ultra 9 288V a 41% lead, 19,810 versus 11,685. Random string sorting favors the Core Ultra 9 288V by 34.4%, with scores of 22,622 versus 14,838.

Data compression shows the Core Ultra 9 288V at 186,521 versus 133,434, a 28.5% lead. Integer math gives the Core Ultra 9 288V 44,019 versus 33,991, a 22.8% advantage. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 301.5 versus 173, a 42.6% gap, and Cinebench R20 single-core shows 997 versus 723, a 27.5% gap.

Cinebench R20 multi-core favors the Core Ultra 9 288V at 7,069 versus 5,124, also a 27.5% difference. Cinebench R15 multi-core gives the Core Ultra 9 288V 1,583 versus 1,229, a 22.4% lead. PassMark physics shows 1,637 versus 1,278, a 21.9% difference.

The Core 5 211TE's only win is Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 12,201 versus 10,178 for the Core Ultra 9 288V, a 19.9% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core goes to the Core Ultra 9 288V at 1,950 versus 1,722, an 11.7% lead.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V wins in every workload category except one. Its strengths are most pronounced in single-threaded tasks, encryption, floating-point math, and extended instruction workloads. The PassMark single-thread score of 4,274 indicates strong per-core performance that benefits everyday applications and lightly threaded software. Its 136.5 GB/s memory bandwidth supports data-intensive operations.

The Core Ultra 9 288V also excels in PassMark multithread with a score of 19,810, showing that even without multithreading, its 8 cores deliver substantial parallel throughput. Its 3 nm process node and 30-watt TDP make it an efficient choice for mobile platforms where power consumption matters.

The Intel Core 5 211TE wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core rendering. Its score of 12,201 versus 10,178 suggests that in this specific rendering workload, the combination of 10 cores, 16 threads, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache provides an advantage. This indicates that applications heavily optimized for multi-threaded rendering may prefer the Core 5 211TE.

The Core 5 211TE also holds platform advantages not reflected in raw benchmark scores. It supports ECC memory, which is critical for error-sensitive computing. Its 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes allow for multiple expansion devices. The desktop Socket 1700 platform enables traditional desktop motherboards. Its 76.8 GB/s memory bandwidth is lower than the Core Ultra 9 288V, but it supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory types.

For users building desktop systems that require ECC memory or extensive PCIe expansion, the Core 5 211TE is the appropriate selection despite its lower benchmark scores. For mobile users or those prioritizing raw performance across most workloads, the Core Ultra 9 288V is the clear choice based on the recorded data.