Intel Core 5 211TE vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

Intel Core 5 211TE and Intel Core Ultra X9 388H occupy different corners of the Intel lineup, one a desktop part for Socket 1700, the other a mobile processor on BGA 2540. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, with the Core Ultra X9 388H winning all 17 recorded head-to-head tests. However, the two chips serve different physical environments, and the Core 5 211TE retains advantages in platform compatibility and memory flexibility that matter for specific builds.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins every single benchmark in the database, from Cinebench R15 multicore to PassMark integer math. Its average benchmark score of 44466 places it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 211TE sits at 15370 average and the 69th percentile. The data shows no workload category where the Core 5 211TE takes the lead, whether in synthetic rendering, encryption, or floating-point calculations.

The Core 5 211TE does not win any of the 17 head-to-head tests, but its platform characteristics give it a distinct role. It uses Intel Socket 1700, which supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, and it has ECC memory support. These features are absent from the Core Ultra X9 388H, which only supports LPDDR5X and no ECC. For a desktop system requiring error-correcting memory or legacy DDR4 modules, the Core 5 211TE is the only option between the two.

The Core Ultra X9 388H wins on raw compute density. It delivers a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 18911 against 12201, and a PassMark multithread score of 36811 against 11685. Its single-thread performance is equally dominant, with a PassMark single-thread score of 4280 versus 1408. The mobile chip also has a higher boost clock at 5.10 GHz compared to 4.80 GHz, reinforcing its lead in lightly threaded tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use fundamentally different Intel fabrication nodes. The Core 5 211TE is built on a 10 nm process with a die size of 215 mm², while the Core Ultra X9 388H uses a 3 nm node. This node advantage contributes to the Core Ultra X9 388H’s higher performance despite a much lower TDP of 25 watts against 45 watts for the Core 5 211TE.

Core counts differ significantly. The Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra X9 388H has no hyper-threading advantage, but its additional physical cores and newer architecture deliver substantially higher multicore throughput. Cache hierarchies also diverge: the Core 5 211TE has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra X9 388H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3, so it carries more per-core cache but slightly less total L3.

Memory support marks a major split. The Core 5 211TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel access and a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Core Ultra X9 388H uses only LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but reaches 153.6 GB/s. That is exactly double the memory bandwidth, which helps explain its lead in data-heavy PassMark tests like data compression and encryption.

PCIe configurations also differ. The Core 5 211TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra X9 388H provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes. Integrated graphics are another contrast: the Core 5 211TE uses UHD Graphics 730, whereas the Core Ultra X9 388H includes Arc B390. The Core 5 211TE belongs to the Bartlett Lake codename, and the Core Ultra X9 388H is Panther Lake, with the latter’s architecture listed as Panther Lake as well.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest percentage gap appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra X9 388H scores 358 against 72, a delta of 79.9 percent. That workload is highly sensitive to per-core instruction throughput, and the newer Panther Lake design with its higher boost clock and larger cache handles it far better.

Floating-point math shows a similar chasm. The Core Ultra X9 388H posts 112550 versus 26150, a 76.8 percent advantage. Integer math is less extreme but still lopsided: 90882 against 33991, a 62.6 percent gap. The Core Ultra X9 388H also leads data encryption by 74.6 percent (28490 vs 7231), extended instructions by 71.2 percent (29943 vs 8615), and data compression by 63.1 percent (361763 vs 133434).

Cinebench results confirm the same trend across rendering workloads. In R15 multicore, the Core Ultra X9 388H scores 2955 against 1229, a 58.4 percent lead. R20 multicore shows 13101 versus 5124, a 60.9 percent gap. R23 multicore narrows the delta to 35.5 percent (18911 vs 12201), but the winner remains unchanged. Single-core Cinebench tests also favor the Core Ultra X9 388H: R15 single-core is 309.5 versus 173 (44.1 percent), R20 single-core is 1849 versus 723 (60.9 percent), and R23 single-core is 2200.5 versus 1722 (21.7 percent).

PassMark multithread and physics scores reinforce the multicore dominance. Multithread is 36811 versus 11685, a 68.3 percent gap. Physics is 3226 versus 1278, a 60.4 percent gap. Random string sorting shows a 66.3 percent lead for the Core Ultra X9 388H (44010 vs 14838). Every recorded test, all 17 of them, goes to the Core Ultra X9 388H, with no exceptions.

FAQ

Q: Does the Core Ultra X9 388H support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core 5 211TE supports ECC memory, but the Core Ultra X9 388H does not have ECC support.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra X9 388H has a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, exactly double the 76.8 GB/s of the Core 5 211TE.

Q: What sockets do these processors use?

A: The Core 5 211TE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra X9 388H uses Intel BGA 2540.

Q: How do their TDPs compare?

A: The Core 5 211TE has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Core Ultra X9 388H has a TDP of 25 watts, meaning the mobile chip uses less power while delivering higher performance.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores, while the Core 5 211TE has 10 cores. Both have 16 threads.

Q: What is the integrated graphics difference?

A: The Core 5 211TE includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra X9 388H includes Arc B390.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy: the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H outperforms the Core 5 211TE in every recorded benchmark. Its average benchmark score of 44466 is nearly three times the 15370 of the Core 5 211TE, and its 88th percentile standing against all CPUs is well above the 69th percentile of the desktop part. The Core Ultra X9 388H also carries a 5.10 GHz boost clock, 16 cores, and 153.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, all of which support its dominant scores.

The Core 5 211TE should be chosen for desktop builds that require Socket 1700 compatibility, DDR4 or DDR5 memory support, or ECC memory. Its 10 cores and 4.80 GHz boost clock still provide competent performance, and its 20 MB of shared L3 cache is larger than the 18 MB on the Core Ultra X9 388H. The Core 5 211TE also offers 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, which is far more than the 4 lanes on the mobile part.

The Core Ultra X9 388H is the right pick for mobile systems where power efficiency and raw compute matter equally. Its 25 watt TDP, combined with a 3 nm process and 5.10 GHz boost, makes it an exceptionally strong mobile processor. The Arc B390 integrated graphics add further capability, and the 153.6 GB/s LPDDR5X bandwidth supports data-intensive tasks. The Core 5 211TE cannot match any of these attributes, so the choice depends entirely on form factor and memory requirements, not on benchmark performance.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 211TE | Intel Core Ultra X9 388H |

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

| Cores | 10 | 16 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 1.70 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Panther Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Die Size | 215 mm² | Not specified |

| 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) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc B390 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | Not specified |

| Unlocked Multiplier | No | No |