Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX Comparison

Intel Core 5 211E and Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX are two processors that share a release date but target entirely different segments of the market. The Core 5 211E is a desktop part built for the Intel Socket 1700 platform, while the Core Ultra 9 285HX is a mobile flagship using the Intel BGA 2114 socket. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, with the Core Ultra 9 285HX winning 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests. However, the single win for the Core 5 211E is significant, as it occurs in a single-threaded workload where architectural differences between the two designs become apparent.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 285HX dominates nearly every workload category in the database. Its 24 cores and 24 threads provide a massive advantage in multi-threaded tasks, as evidenced by its victories in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests. The data shows wins in PassMark's integer math, floating point math, data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, physics, multithread, and random string sorting benchmarks. This processor is clearly designed for heavy parallel workloads, such as rendering, scientific computing, and complex data processing, where its core count allows it to pull far ahead of the 10-core Core 5 211E.

The Core 5 211E wins a single benchmark: Cinebench R23 single-core testing. Here, the Core 5 211E scores 2878 points against the Core Ultra 9 285HX's 2187.5 points, a 31.6 percent advantage. This result indicates that the Core 5 211E's architecture, based on Bartlett Lake, delivers higher per-core performance in this specific test. The Core Ultra 9 285HX, using the Arrow Lake-HX architecture, may prioritize efficiency and multi-thread scaling over raw single-thread speed. For workloads that rely on a single thread, such as certain legacy applications or lightly-threaded games, the Core 5 211E holds a clear edge.

The Core Ultra 9 285HX also wins the PassMark single-thread test, scoring 4618 versus 4006, a 13.3 percent margin. This creates a mixed picture in single-threaded performance, as the two processors trade wins depending on the specific benchmark. The Cinebench R23 result favors the Core 5 211E, while the PassMark test favors the Core Ultra 9 285HX. Overall, the Core Ultra 9 285HX is the stronger processor for nearly all applications, but the Core 5 211E has a narrow niche where its single-thread speed in Cinebench R23 is superior.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 9 285HX offers more physical cores, but the Core 5 211E supports hyper-threading, giving it 16 threads from 10 cores.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285HX scores 36429.5 points, which is 44 percent higher than the Core 5 211E's 20389 points. This large gap reflects the Core Ultra 9 285HX's advantage in multi-threaded rendering workloads.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285HX has an average benchmark score of 76155, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 211E has an average score of 37829, placing it in the 86th percentile.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 211E has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 285HX also has a slightly higher base clock at 2.80 GHz compared to 2.70 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support error-correcting code (ECC) memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 5 211E and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX support ECC memory. The Core 5 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 9 285HX supports DDR5 only.

Q: What is the difference in integrated graphics?

A: The Core 5 211E includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 9 285HX features Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Core Ultra 9 285HX's integrated graphics solution is more advanced.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multicore test shows the Core Ultra 9 285HX scoring 5656.5 points versus the Core 5 211E's 2055 points, a 63.7 percent deficit for the Core 5 211E. This is the largest relative gap in the multicore tests. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the Core Ultra 9 285HX scores 20236 against 8563, a 57.7 percent difference. The Cinebench R23 multicore result narrows the gap slightly, with the Core Ultra 9 285HX at 36429.5 and the Core 5 211E at 20389, a 44 percent margin. These results consistently show the Core Ultra 9 285HX delivering roughly two to three times the multi-threaded performance of the Core 5 211E.

In single-core Cinebench tests, the results are mixed. For Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 285HX wins with 323.5 points against 289, a 10.7 percent advantage. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a much larger win for the Core Ultra 9 285HX, scoring 2856 versus 1208, a 57.7 percent margin. However, the Cinebench R23 single-core test flips the result, with the Core 5 211E scoring 2878 against 2187.5, a 31.6 percent win for the Core 5 211E. This inconsistency suggests that the two processors respond differently to the specific instructions and memory patterns in each benchmark version.

PassMark results heavily favor the Core Ultra 9 285HX. In floating point math, the Core Ultra 9 285HX scores 194998 against 66402, a 65.9 percent advantage. Integer math shows a 43.2 percent lead for the Core Ultra 9 285HX, with scores of 155076 and 88117. Data compression favors the Core Ultra 9 285HX at 631885 versus 346757, a 45.1 percent margin. The largest single PassMark win is in find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 9 285HX scores 460 against 43, a 90.7 percent advantage. Physics testing shows the Core Ultra 9 285HX at 3476 versus 702, a 79.8 percent lead. The Core Ultra 9 285HX also wins data encryption (48567 vs 17938, 63.1 percent), extended instructions (49148 vs 21592, 56.1 percent), multithread (56902 vs 23833, 58.1 percent), and random string sorting (77196 vs 34308, 55.6 percent).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in core configuration, with the Core 5 211E offering 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285HX offers 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are close, at 2.70 GHz for the Core 5 211E and 2.80 GHz for the Core Ultra 9 285HX, but boost clocks differ more substantially, at 4.90 GHz and 5.50 GHz respectively. The thermal design power (TDP) is 65 watts for the Core 5 211E and 55 watts for the Core Ultra 9 285HX, meaning the mobile part is rated for lower power despite having more cores.

The memory support differs: the Core 5 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 285HX supports only DDR5. Both are dual-channel, but memory bandwidth is higher on the Core Ultra 9 285HX at 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s. The processors use different sockets: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 5 211E and Intel BGA 2114 for the Core Ultra 9 285HX. PCIe lane counts also differ, with the Core 5 211E providing Gen 5 with 16 lanes and the Core Ultra 9 285HX providing Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

The Core 5 211E has a launch MSRP of $221, while the Core Ultra 9 285HX has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The Core Ultra 9 285HX has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 5 211E does not. Part numbers are SRQERQ65F for the Core 5 211E and SRVFJ for the Core Ultra 9 285HX. The Core Ultra 9 285HX is part of the Core Ultra Series 2, while the Core 5 211E has no series designation.

Architecture Differences

The Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. Its die size is 257 mm². The Core Ultra 9 285HX uses the Arrow Lake-HX codename and is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. Its die size is 243 mm², and it uses 17,800 million transistors. The process node difference is significant, as the 3 nm node allows for a much higher transistor density and improved power efficiency.

Cache hierarchies are notably different. The Core 5 211E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 285HX has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger cache allocations on the Core Ultra 9 285HX, particularly the 36 MB L3 cache, help feed its 24 cores and support its higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

The integrated graphics solutions differ: the Core 5 211E includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 9 285HX features Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The market segment also differs, with the Core 5 211E classified as a desktop processor and the Core Ultra 9 285HX as a mobile processor. Both processors have a release date of 2025-01-12 and are currently marked as Active in production. Both support ECC memory. The Core Ultra 9 285HX's unlocked multiplier and higher boost clock indicate a design aimed at high-end mobile performance, while the Core 5 211E's fixed multiplier and 65 watt TDP suggest a more constrained desktop role.