Intel Core 5 211TE vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

Intel Core 5 211TE and Intel Core Ultra X9 378H represent two distinct Intel platforms with different design goals. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, but the architectural and platform differences are just as significant. This analysis breaks down where each processor excels based on recorded measurements.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins every single benchmark in the database. Out of 17 head-to-head comparisons, the Ultra X9 takes all 17, while the Core 5 211TE records zero wins. This is not a close contest by any metric.

The Core Ultra X9 378H dominates in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4595 crushes the Core 5 211TE's 1722, a massive 62.5% delta. In multi-core, the Ultra X9's 32553 versus 12201 shows the same 62.5% gap. The pattern repeats across every PassMark test, from data compression to physics simulations.

The Core 5 211TE's only advantage lies in its platform positioning. It is a desktop processor with an Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra X9 is a mobile chip with an Intel BGA 2540 socket. For desktop builds, the Core 5 211TE offers upgrade paths and standard desktop memory support. But strictly from benchmark performance, the Ultra X9 wins every workload category.

Data compression shows the Ultra X9 at 386591 versus 133434, a 65.5% lead. Integer math delivers 92603 versus 33991, a 63.3% margin. Even the closest race, Cinebench R15 multi-core, still shows a 62.5% advantage for the Ultra X9. The Core 5 211TE cannot claim victory in any measured category.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel nodes. The Core 5 211TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra X9 378H is Panther Lake on a 3 nm node. This process gap explains much of the performance difference, as the 3 nm node allows higher clocks and better efficiency.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Both processors have equal thread counts, but the Ultra X9 spreads its threads across more physical cores. This changes multi-threaded scheduling behavior.

Cache hierarchies are completely different. The Core 5 211TE uses 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra X9 378H uses 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. The Ultra X9 has larger per-core caches but less total L3, a trade-off that favors single-thread performance.

Memory support diverges sharply. The Core 5 211TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra X9 378H only supports LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, exactly double the Core 5's throughput. ECC memory is available on the Core 5 211TE but not on the Ultra X9.

PCIe connectivity differs. The Core 5 211TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Ultra X9 offers Gen 5 with only 4 lanes. Integrated graphics also change: UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 5 versus Arc B390 on the Ultra X9. The Ultra X9's iGPU is clearly more capable, though the database does not include graphics benchmarks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows consistent 62.5% deltas across every test. R15 multi-core scores 1229 for the Core 5 and 3281 for the Ultra X9. R15 single-core is 173 versus 462. R20 multi-core reads 5124 versus 13672, and R20 single-core is 723 versus 1929. R23 multi-core shows 12201 versus 32553, with single-core at 1722 versus 4595. Every Cinebench test lands at exactly 62.5% difference, indicating a uniform performance scaling factor.

PassMark tests reveal larger gaps in specific workloads. Data encryption shows the biggest divergence at 75.8%, with the Ultra X9 scoring 29840 versus 7231. Find prime numbers follows closely at 79.8%, with 357 versus 72. Floating point math delivers 114500 versus 26150, a 77.2% gap. Extended instructions show 31315 versus 8615, a 72.5% difference.

Integer math trails at 63.3%, with 92603 versus 33991. Random string sorting shows 44648 versus 14838, a 66.8% gap. Data compression delivers 386591 versus 133434, a 65.5% margin. The multithread PassMark test scores 38298 versus 11685, a 69.5% difference. Physics simulation shows 3404 versus 1278, a 62.5% gap.

Single-thread PassMark scores are 4453 versus 1408, a 68.4% advantage for the Ultra X9. This single-thread lead is consistent with the Cinebench single-core results. The Ultra X9's advantages in L1 and L2 cache sizes, plus its higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.80 GHz, contribute to this consistent single-thread superiority.

The average benchmark score tells the same story. The Core Ultra X9 378H averages 47468, placing it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 211TE averages 15370, sitting in the 69th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Ultra X9 are AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 (0.1% behind), Intel Core i7-13700KF (0.3% ahead), Intel Core Ultra 7 265T (0.5% ahead), and Intel Core i9-12900F (0.6% behind). The Core 5 211TE's nearest rivals include AMD EPYC 7543 (0.7% behind), AMD EPYC 7702P (1.6% behind), AMD Ryzen 3 7440U (2% ahead), and Intel Core i3-1315U (2.3% behind).

Specification Differences

Clock speeds differ modestly. The Core 5 211TE has a base clock of 1.70 GHz and boost of 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra X9 378H starts at 2.00 GHz base and boosts to 5.00 GHz. The Ultra X9 is slightly faster at both ends.

TDP ratings show the biggest platform difference. The Core 5 211TE draws 45 W, while the Ultra X9 is rated at 25 W. This means the Ultra X9 delivers vastly more performance while consuming nearly half the power budget. The 3 nm process enables this efficiency.

Socket and form factor are exclusive. The Core 5 211TE uses Intel Socket 1700 for desktops, while the Ultra X9 uses Intel BGA 2540 for mobile. The Core 5 has a 215 mm² die size, while the Ultra X9's die size is not recorded. Both processors have unlocked multipliers set to false.

Release dates are separated by over a year. The Core 5 211TE launched on 2025-01-12 with a launch MSRP of $221. The Core Ultra X9 378H launched on 2026-04-03 with no recorded MSRP. The Core 5 has part number SRQDL, while the Ultra X9's part number is unknown.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores, while the Intel Core 5 211TE has 10 cores. Both have 16 threads.

Q: How much faster is the Ultra X9 in single-threaded Cinebench R23?

A: The Ultra X9 scores 4595 versus 1722, a 62.5% advantage in single-core performance.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 5 211TE supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra X9 378H supports LPDDR5X only.

Q: Do either of these processors support ECC memory?

A: The Core 5 211TE supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra X9 378H does not support ECC.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Core 5 211TE has a TDP of 45 W, while the Core Ultra X9 378H has a TDP of 25 W.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra X9 378H has 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, exactly double the Core 5 211TE's 76.8 GB/s.

The Verdict

The benchmark data leaves no ambiguity. The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H outperforms the Intel Core 5 211TE in every recorded test. Its 62.5% to 79.8% margins across Cinebench and PassMark workloads demonstrate a generational leap in computing capability. The 3 nm process, 16-core configuration, larger per-core caches, and higher memory bandwidth all contribute to this dominance.

The Core 5 211TE remains relevant only for specific desktop scenarios. Its Intel Socket 1700 platform offers DDR4 and DDR5 memory support, ECC memory capability, and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. For desktop builds requiring ECC or extensive PCIe expansion, the Core 5 211TE provides those features. Its 45 W TDP also suggests it can sustain workloads in a desktop thermal environment.

The Core Ultra X9 378H is the clear performance choice. Its 89th percentile ranking versus the Core 5's 69th percentile shows where each sits in the broader CPU landscape. The Ultra X9's nearest rivals include high-end desktop chips like the Intel Core i7-13700KF and i9-12900F, while the Core 5 competes with AMD EPYC server parts and low-power mobile chips.

For mobile users or anyone prioritizing raw compute, the Ultra X9 is the only rational pick. Its 25 W TDP combined with top-tier performance makes it exceptionally efficient. For desktop builders needing ECC or a standard socket with upgrade options, the Core 5 211TE has a purpose, but its performance ceiling is far below the Ultra X9. The data shows a one-sided matchup with no benchmark where the Core 5 211TE can claim a win.