Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records a decisive sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus across all 17 head-to-head comparisons. The Intel Core 5 211E does not win a single test. The margins are substantial, but they vary widely depending on the workload class.

The largest gap appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 452 against 43 for the Core 5 211E, a delta of 90.5%. This is an extreme outlier, and it suggests the newer chip has a major advantage in integer-heavy, branch-dense loops. In physics simulation, the Ultra part leads 3183 to 702, a 77.9% delta. Floating point math shows a 58.5% advantage (159824 versus 66402). Data encryption is 56.6% higher on the Ultra part (41292 versus 17938). Extended instructions are 49.6% higher (42880 versus 21592). Random string sorting is 49% higher (67209 versus 34308). Data compression is 37.3% higher (553155 versus 346757). The smallest multi-threaded gap is in integer math, where the Ultra part leads 123030 to 88117, a 28.4% delta.

The Cinebench suite shows a remarkably consistent pattern. Every Cinebench test, single-core and multi-core alike, lands at a delta of roughly 52.3% in favor of the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra part scores 42718 against 20389. In R23 single-core, it scores 6030 against 2878. R20 multi-core is 17941 versus 8563, R20 single-core is 2532 versus 1208, R15 multi-core is 4305 versus 2055, and R15 single-core is 607 versus 289. The uniformity of that 52.3% delta across all six Cinebench tests indicates the performance gap is not workload-specific within that renderer; it is a consistent throughput difference.

PassMark single-thread is the closest contest. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 4698 versus 4006, a delta of 14.7%. That is still a clear win, but it is far narrower than the multi-threaded gaps. The PassMark multithread test shows a 52.5% delta (50146 versus 23833), closely matching the Cinebench multi-core deltas. This suggests the single-thread gap is modest in absolute terms, while the multi-thread gap is roughly double that, driven by the difference in core count and thread scheduling.

The average benchmark score in the database confirms the overall picture. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus posts an average score of 66159, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 211E averages 37829, which sits in the 86th percentile. For context, the Core 5 211E's nearest rivals are all AMD parts with average scores between 37762 and 37904, plus the Intel Core i9-14901E at 37911. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus sits near the Intel Core 9 273PQE (66099, 0.1% delta), the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (65914, 0.4% delta), the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus (66855, 1% higher), and the AMD EPYC 4465P (66925, 1.1% higher). The two chips occupy different performance tiers entirely.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins more benchmarks in the database?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 5 211E records zero wins.

Q: What is the closest contest between the two?

A: PassMark single-thread, where the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus leads by 14.7% (4698 versus 4006). Every other test shows a larger gap.

Q: How large is the multi-threaded performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 42718 versus 20389, a 52.3% lead. The PassMark multithread test shows a 52.5% lead (50146 versus 23833).

Q: Where does the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus rank among all CPUs?

A: It sits in the 93rd percentile with an average benchmark score of 66159. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Core 9 273PQE, AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, and AMD EPYC 4465P.

Q: Where does the Core 5 211E rank?

A: It sits in the 86th percentile with an average benchmark score of 37829. Its nearest rivals are all close in average score, within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132, AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435, AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370, and Intel Core i9-14901E.

Q: Does the Core 5 211E have any advantage in the recorded data?

A: No benchmark shows it ahead. Its advantages are limited to non-performance fields such as integrated graphics, a lower 65 W TDP, and support for DDR4 memory.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design lineages. The Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. That process difference is significant: the newer part packs 17,800 million transistors into a 243 mm² die, while the older part's die is 257 mm² with no transistor count listed in the database.

Core organization differs sharply. The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, implying a hybrid arrangement with some cores contributing extra threads. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, meaning every core is single-threaded. The newer chip relies on raw core count rather than simultaneous multithreading. Cache hierarchies reflect this. The Core 5 211E has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The per-core cache is much larger on the Ultra part, and the shared L3 pool is 50% larger.

Memory architecture also diverges. The Core 5 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports DDR5 only. Both use a dual-channel memory bus. The recorded memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 211E and 115.2 GB/s for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, a 50% increase. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core 5 211E provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

The Core 5 211E includes integrated graphics in the form of UHD Graphics 730. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A. The "KF" designation in the newer part's name reflects that: no graphics unit, and an unlocked multiplier. The Core 5 211E has a locked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ on nearly every specification field in the database. Core count: 10 versus 18. Thread count: 16 versus 18. Base clock: 2.70 GHz versus 4.20 GHz. Boost clock: 4.90 GHz versus 5.30 GHz. TDP: 65 W versus 125 W. Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel Socket 1851. Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm. Foundry: Intel versus TSMC.

Cache specifications differ across all three levels. L1 per core is 80 KB versus 192 KB. L2 per core is 2 MB versus 3 MB. L3 shared is 20 MB versus 30 MB. Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR5 only. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. PCIe is Gen 5 with 16 lanes versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics is UHD Graphics 730 versus N/A. Multiplier is locked versus unlocked.

Release dates are far apart. The Core 5 211E launched on 2025-01-12. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus launched on 2026-03-10. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 211E is $221. The launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is $184. Part numbers are SRQERQ65F for the Core 5 211E and SA4V3 for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. Both are listed as Active in production and both target the Desktop market segment.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear split. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the dominant performer in every benchmark category measured. It holds a 52.3% lead across all Cinebench tests, a 52.5% lead in PassMark multithread, and a 14.7% lead in PassMark single-thread. Its average benchmark score of 66159 places it in the 93rd percentile, and its nearest rivals are the Intel Core 9 273PQE, AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, and AMD EPYC 4465P. It also launches at a lower MSRP of $184, has an unlocked multiplier, and delivers more PCIe lanes and higher memory bandwidth.

The Intel Core 5 211E does not win a single benchmark. Its average score of 37829 places it in the 86th percentile, and its nearest rivals are all within 0.2% of its average score. Its advantages are structural rather than performance-based. It uses a 65 W TDP, supports DDR4 as well as DDR5, includes integrated graphics, and fits the Intel Socket 1700 platform. Those traits matter for systems where power draw, legacy memory, or an iGPU is a requirement.

The database shows that the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the correct choice for workloads that prioritize throughput, rendering, encryption, compression, or math-heavy tasks. The Core 5 211E is the choice for systems that need integrated graphics or DDR4 compatibility and can accept a large multi-threaded performance deficit. There is no benchmark in the record where the Core 5 211E closes the gap.