Intel Core 5 211TE vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

The Intel Core 5 211TE and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H occupy different segments of the processor market, and the recorded benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap between them. The Core Ultra X7 358H wins every single head-to-head comparison in the database, with margins ranging from modest single-core gains to massive multi-threaded advantages. This analysis walks through the specific benchmark results, the architectural reasons behind the differences, and where each processor fits based on measured performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains 17 head-to-head comparisons between the Intel Core 5 211TE and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H, and the Ultra X7 wins all 17. The largest relative victory comes in the PassMark prime number test, where the Ultra X7 scores 337 against 72 for the Core 5, a delta of -78.6% (meaning the Core 5 trails by that amount). This indicates a substantial advantage in integer-heavy, single-threaded workloads that rely on rapid iteration and conditional branching.

Floating-point math shows a similarly wide divide. The Ultra X7 records 103,842 in PassMark floating point math, while the Core 5 manages 26,150, a -74.8% delta. Data encryption follows at -72.2%, with the Ultra X7 scoring 26,046 versus 7,231. These three workloads, prime numbers, floating point, and encryption, all point to the Ultra X7 having significantly stronger per-core execution resources, not just more cores.

The extended instructions test shows a -68.4% delta, with 27,274 for the Ultra X7 against 8,615 for the Core 5. PassMark single-thread performance is also heavily lopsided: 4,124 versus 1,408, a -65.9% delta. The singlethread test, which appears twice in the database with identical scores, confirms the same result.

Multi-threaded benchmarks follow the same pattern. PassMark multithread shows 33,802 for the Ultra X7 versus 11,685 for the Core 5, a -65.4% delta. Random string sorting shows -63.2% (40,357 versus 14,838), and data compression shows -59.9% (332,508 versus 133,434). Integer math trails by -59.1%, with 83,147 against 33,991.

Cinebench results are more moderate but still favor the Ultra X7 across the board. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra X7 scores 18,747 against 12,201, a -34.9% delta. The single-core R23 test shows 2,080 versus 1,722, a -17.2% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 12,011 versus 5,124, a -57.3% delta, and the same percentage applies to the single-core R20 test (1,695 versus 723). Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a -59.4% delta (3,027 versus 1,229), while the single-core test shows -42.6% (301.5 versus 173).

The overall average benchmark scores in the database reflect this gap. The Core 5 211TE has an average score of 15,370, while the Ultra X7 358H averages 40,967. The Core 5 sits at the 69th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Ultra X7 reaches the 87th percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins every multi-core benchmark. The largest multi-core margin is in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where it scores 12,011 versus 5,124, a -57.3% delta. The smallest multi-core gap is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, at -34.9%.

Q: Is the single-core performance advantage of the Ultra X7 consistent across tests?

A: Yes. The single-core advantage appears in all three Cinebench single-core tests and both PassMark single-thread tests. The narrowest margin is Cinebench R23 single-core at -17.2%, while the widest is PassMark single-thread at -65.9%.

Q: How do the two processors compare in the nearest rival context?

A: The Core 5 211TE has an average score of 15,370, which places it 0.7% below the AMD EPYC 7543 and 2.3% above the Intel Core i3-1315U. The Ultra X7 358H averages 40,967, which is 0.6% below the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 and 0.7% below the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H.

Q: What is the most lopsided benchmark result between the two?

A: The PassMark prime number test shows the largest delta at -78.6%. The Ultra X7 scores 337, while the Core 5 scores 72. The second-largest is floating-point math at -74.8%.

Q: Does the Core 5 win any benchmark at all?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the Core 5 211TE across all 17 head-to-head tests. The Ultra X7 wins all 17.

Q: Which processor has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The Ultra X7 358H ranks at the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 211TE ranks at the 69th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins in every workload category measured. The widest margins appear in pure computational tasks: prime number finding, floating-point math, extended instructions, and encryption. These workloads benefit from high per-core throughput, and the Ultra X7 delivers between 2.3 and 4.7 times the performance of the Core 5 in these tests.

The Ultra X7 also dominates memory-sensitive workloads. Data compression shows 332,508 versus 133,434, and random string sorting shows 40,357 versus 14,838. These tests rely on memory bandwidth and cache efficiency, and the Ultra X7's memory configuration provides a clear advantage.

The Core 5 211TE has no benchmark wins in the database. Its closest relative performance comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it trails by only -17.2%. This suggests that in lightly threaded, short-duration workloads, the gap narrows considerably, but the Core 5 still does not overtake the Ultra X7.

In workloads that scale with core count, the Ultra X7's advantage grows. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a -59.4% delta, R20 multi-core shows -57.3%, and R23 multi-core shows -34.9%. The R23 result is notably smaller than the R15 and R20 deltas, which may indicate that the Core 5's multi-core scaling improves under longer sustained loads, but it remains firmly behind.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several fundamental specifications. The Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. This means the Core 5 relies on simultaneous multithreading to reach 16 threads, while the Ultra X7 achieves 16 threads with physical cores only.

Base clocks differ: 1.70 GHz for the Core 5 versus 1.90 GHz for the Ultra X7. Both have identical boost clocks of 4.80 GHz. Thermal design power differs substantially, with the Core 5 rated at 45 watts and the Ultra X7 at 25 watts, despite the Ultra X7 delivering significantly higher performance.

The socket types are different. The Core 5 uses Intel Socket 1700, which is a desktop platform, while the Ultra X7 uses Intel BGA 2540, indicating a mobile, soldered design. The market segments reflect this: the Core 5 is listed as Desktop, and the Ultra X7 is listed as Mobile.

Memory support also differs. The Core 5 supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra X7 supports LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth is listed at 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 and 153.6 GB/s for the Ultra X7, a 2x difference. ECC memory is supported on the Core 5 but not on the Ultra X7.

PCIe lanes differ significantly. The Core 5 provides 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the Ultra X7 provides only 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 5 uses UHD Graphics 730, and the Ultra X7 uses Arc B390.

The Core 5 211TE has a launch MSRP of $221. The Ultra X7 358H has no listed launch MSRP in the database. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The Core 5 211TE is built on the Bartlett Lake architecture, using a 10 nm process node from Intel. Its die size is 215 mm². The Ultra X7 358H uses the Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node, also from Intel. The die size for the Ultra X7 is not listed in the database.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Core 5 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra X7 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. While the Ultra X7 has less total L3, its per-core L1 and L2 allocations are much larger, which helps explain its single-core performance advantage.

The generation labels differ. The Core 5 is listed as Core 5 (Bartlett Lake), while the Ultra X7 is listed as Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H). The Ultra X7 belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 product family. Release dates differ by nearly a year: the Core 5 was released on 2025-01-12, and the Ultra X7 on 2026-01-04.

Both processors lack listed transistor counts. The Core 5 has a production status of Active, as does the Ultra X7. The part numbers differ, with the Core 5 using SRQDL and the Ultra X7 using SA4RAQ9ET.

The memory bandwidth difference of 153.6 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s is one of the most impactful architectural distinctions. The Ultra X7's LPDDR5X support provides double the theoretical bandwidth of the Core 5's DDR4/DDR5 configuration, which directly benefits bandwidth-sensitive workloads like data compression and random string sorting.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear hierarchy: the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H outperforms the Intel Core 5 211TE in every benchmark in the database. With 17 wins out of 17 head-to-head tests, the Ultra X7 holds an unqualified performance advantage.

The Ultra X7 achieves this while consuming less power on paper, with a 25 watt TDP compared to 45 watts for the Core 5. It also uses a more advanced 3 nm process node versus 10 nm, has double the memory bandwidth, and provides larger per-core caches. The Core 5 counters with a desktop socket, ECC memory support, 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, and a lower launch MSRP of $221.

For workloads that prioritize raw compute, encryption, compression, or floating-point math, the Ultra X7 is the clear choice based on the data. Its single-core performance is also substantially higher, which benefits most interactive and lightly threaded applications. The Core 5's advantages are limited to platform-level features: ECC support, more PCIe lanes, and a socketed desktop design that allows for board-level upgrades.

The percentile rankings support this split. The Core 5 sits at the 69th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra X7 reaches the 87th percentile. The nearest rivals in the database also reflect different competitive positions: the Core 5 trades closely with enterprise server chips like the AMD EPYC 7543, while the Ultra X7 sits alongside other high-end mobile parts such as the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440.

A buyer choosing between these two processors, based solely on the benchmark data, would select the Ultra X7 for virtually any performance-sensitive application. The only scenarios where the Core 5 appears preferable involve its desktop platform features: ECC memory support, 16 PCIe lanes, and the ability to use standard DDR4 or DDR5 memory. The database shows no workload where the Core 5 wins. The Ultra X7's 87th percentile ranking, combined with its 40,967 average benchmark score, makes it the stronger processor by every measured metric.