Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database shows a decisive overall advantage for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, which wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The Intel Core 5 211E takes a single victory, but the scale of the Ultra 9's wins across multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads is substantial.

The largest margin appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 519 against 43 for the Core 5 211E, a 91.7% advantage. This test exercises heavy integer arithmetic and repeated branching, and the data indicates the Ultra 9's core configuration and higher boost clock deliver exceptional throughput in this workload. The Core 5 211E's score of 43 is the lowest recorded result in the entire comparison, highlighting a significant performance gap in this specific calculation type.

The Cinebench R15 multicore test shows the Ultra 9 at 5981 points versus 2055 for the Core 5, a 65.6% difference. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the Ultra 9 scores 21198 against 8563, a 59.6% gap. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Ultra 9 reaches 39684 while the Core 5 achieves 20389, a 48.6% difference. These results indicate that the Ultra 9's additional cores and threads translate directly into substantially higher multi-threaded rendering performance across all three Cinebench versions.

PassMark floating point math shows the Ultra 9 at 201773 versus 66402 for the Core 5, a 67.1% advantage. The data encryption test records 50008 for the Ultra 9 and 17938 for the Core 5, a 64.1% gap. Extended instructions scoring places the Ultra 9 at 51290 against 21592, a 57.9% difference. Random string sorting gives the Ultra 9 80327 and the Core 5 34308, a 57.3% margin. Integer math shows a 46.5% advantage with scores of 164839 and 88117 respectively. The PassMark multithread score confirms the trend: 59439 for the Ultra 9 versus 23833 for the Core 5, a 59.9% gap.

The physics test delivers one of the largest margins. The Ultra 9 scores 3387 against 702 for the Core 5, a 79.3% difference. This test is highly sensitive to thread scheduling and core count, and the data suggests the Ultra 9's 24-core design with 24 threads provides a major advantage in physics simulation workloads.

Single-threaded performance tells a more nuanced story. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ultra 9 scores 340 versus 289 for the Core 5, a 15% advantage. Cinebench R20 single-core gives the Ultra 9 a 59.6% lead with 2992 against 1208. However, Cinebench R23 single-core is the one test the Core 5 wins: 2878 versus 2356, a 22.2% margin. This is the only recorded victory for the Core 5 211E in the entire comparison.

PassMark single-thread scoring puts the Ultra 9 at 4951 and the Core 5 at 4006, a 19.1% advantage. The data compression test shows the Ultra 9 at 658724 versus 346757, a 47.4% margin. This is notable because compression workloads often benefit from both high core counts and strong per-core performance, and the Ultra 9 delivers on both fronts.

The average benchmark score for the Ultra 9 is 79574, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 5 211E averages 37829, which corresponds to the 86th percentile. The Ultra 9's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-14900KF with an average score of 79371 (0.3% difference), the Intel Core i9-14900K at 79097 (0.6% difference), and the AMD EPYC 7413 at 80041 (0.6% lower). The Core 5's nearest rivals are clustered tightly: the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 at 37804 (0.1% difference), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 at 37762 (0.2% difference), the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 at 37904 (0.2% lower), and the Intel Core i9-14901E at 37911 (0.2% lower). This clustering indicates the Core 5 sits in a competitive mid-range band, while the Ultra 9 operates at a much higher absolute performance level.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins 16 of the 17 recorded comparisons. The Intel Core 5 211E wins only one, the Cinebench R23 single-core test.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The PassMark find prime numbers test shows the largest gap. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 519 versus 43 for the Core 5 211E, a 91.7% advantage.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-threaded rendering?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus leads substantially. In Cinebench R15 multicore it scores 5981 versus 2055 (65.6% higher), in R20 multicore it scores 21198 versus 8563 (59.6% higher), and in R23 multicore it scores 39684 versus 20389 (48.6% higher).

Q: Is the Core 5 211E competitive in any benchmark?

A: Yes, in Cinebench R23 single-core the Core 5 211E scores 2878 against 2356 for the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, a 22.2% advantage. This is the only test where the Core 5 outperforms the Ultra 9.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an average benchmark score of 79574, which places it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 211E averages 37829, placing it in the 86th percentile.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each processor?

A: For the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core i9-14900KF (average score 79371, 0.3% difference) and the Intel Core i9-14900K (average score 79097, 0.6% difference). For the Core 5 211E, the nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 (37804, 0.1% difference) and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 (37762, 0.2% difference).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design lineages within Intel's product stack. The Intel Core 5 211E belongs to the Bartlett Lake generation and uses the Core 5 branding. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus belongs to the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename and carries the Core Ultra Series 2 branding, with the generation listed as Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-HX).

The process technology differs substantially. The Core 5 211E is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses a 3 nm process manufactured by TSMC. The Ultra 9 also has a listed transistor count of 17,800 million, while the Core 5 has no recorded transistor count. Die sizes are similar, with the Core 5 at 257 mm² and the Ultra 9 at 243 mm².

Core and thread counts create a major architectural distinction. The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, indicating a hybrid design with some cores supporting simultaneous multithreading. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading; each core handles one thread. Despite having fewer threads per core, the Ultra 9's higher core count gives it 24 total threads versus 16 for the Core 5.

Cache hierarchies show significant differences. 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 Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9's larger per-core caches and higher total L3 capacity likely contribute to its strong performance in data-heavy workloads.

Memory support differs in an important way. The Core 5 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses. Memory bandwidth is higher on the Ultra 9: 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5. Both processors support ECC memory.

The integrated graphics differ. The Core 5 211E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Ultra 9's integrated graphics are designed for more demanding visual workloads.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Core 5 211E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra 9 290HX Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), offering additional lanes for expansion.

The sockets are not compatible. The Core 5 211E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Intel BGA 2114. The Core 5 targets the desktop market segment, while the Ultra 9 is designed for mobile platforms.

The multiplier is locked on the Core 5 211E, meaning the user cannot freely adjust the clock multiplier. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking within the platform's thermal and power limits.

Specification Differences

The base clock is identical at 2.70 GHz for both processors. The boost clock differs, with the Core 5 211E reaching 4.90 GHz and the Ultra 9 290HX Plus reaching 5.50 GHz. This 0.60 GHz boost clock advantage for the Ultra 9 contributes to its single-threaded performance lead in most tests.

Thermal design power differs, though the relationship is counterintuitive. The Core 5 211E has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a TDP of 55 watts. The Ultra 9 delivers substantially higher performance despite a lower power envelope, reflecting the efficiency gains from its 3 nm TSMC process.

Core count: 10 versus 24. Thread count: 16 versus 24. The Ultra 9 has 14 more cores and 8 more threads than the Core 5.

L1 cache: 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core. L2 cache: 2 MB per core versus 3 MB per core. L3 cache: 20 MB shared versus 36 MB shared. The Ultra 9 leads in every cache level.

Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. Memory support: DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR5 only. Both are dual-channel.

PCIe lanes: 16 versus 20, both Gen 5 and CPU only.

Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

Process node: 10 nm (Intel) versus 3 nm (TSMC). Transistor count: not recorded versus 17,800 million. Die size: 257 mm² versus 243 mm².

Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 2114. Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile.

Multiplier unlocked: No versus Yes.

Release date: 2025-01-12 versus 2026-03-16. The Core 5 211E launched earlier.

Launch MSRP: The Core 5 211E has a launch MSRP of $221. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus has no recorded launch MSRP.

Part numbers differ: SRQERQ65F for the Core 5 and SADSS for the Ultra 9.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the significantly faster processor in nearly every measured workload. Its 24 cores and 24 threads, combined with a 5.50 GHz boost clock, deliver average benchmark scores of 79574, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 211E averages 37829, placing it in the 86th percentile.

Users who require maximum multi-threaded throughput should choose the Ultra 9. It leads by margins ranging from 46.5% in integer math to 91.7% in find prime numbers. The physics test shows a 79.3% advantage, and Cinebench multicore results show consistent leads between 48.6% and 65.6% depending on the version. Data compression, encryption, extended instructions, and floating point math all show the Ultra 9 ahead by more than 46%.

Users who prioritize single-threaded performance in Cinebench R23 specifically should consider the Core 5 211E, which wins that test by 22.2%. However, the Ultra 9 wins the other single-threaded tests: Cinebench R15 single-core by 15%, Cinebench R20 single-core by 59.6%, and PassMark single-thread by 19.1%. The Core 5's single victory in R23 single-core appears isolated rather than indicative of general single-thread superiority.

The Ultra 9 also offers architectural advantages in cache capacity, memory bandwidth, and integrated graphics. Its 36 MB of shared L3 cache, 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics provide a more capable platform overall. The unlocked multiplier adds flexibility for users who wish to push clock speeds further.

The Core 5 211E does offer broader memory compatibility with DDR4 and DDR5 support, which may benefit users migrating from older platforms. Its 65 watt TDP and desktop socket (Intel Socket 1700) target conventional desktop builds. The Ultra 9's mobile socket (Intel BGA 2114) and 55 watt TDP target laptop and mobile workstation designs.

For multi-threaded rendering, data processing, physics simulation, and encryption tasks, the Ultra 9 is the clear choice based on recorded scores. For a desktop platform with DDR4 memory compatibility and a single Cinebench R23 single-core victory, the Core 5 211E serves a narrower set of requirements. The data shows the Ultra 9 as the higher-performing processor in 16 of 17 comparisons, with an average score more than double that of the Core 5.