AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT vs Intel Core 5 213PE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive pattern across every benchmark shared between these two processors. The Intel Core 5 213PE wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons, with the AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT trailing in each one. The margin varies considerably depending on the workload, which makes the comparison more interesting than a simple sweep.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the Intel part consistently leads by roughly 23% across both single-core and multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel Core 5 213PE scores 2264 against the AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT’s 1740, a delta of -23.1%. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 319 versus 245, also -23.2%. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core scores are 9436 for Intel and 7254 for AMD, again -23.1%. The R20 single-core test shows 1332 against 1023, a -23.2% difference. Cinebench R23 repeats this nearly identical margin: 22468 versus 17272 in multi-core (-23.1%) and 3172 versus 2438 in single-core (-23.1%). The consistency of this 23% gap across all three Cinebench versions suggests a fundamental performance difference rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The Passmark suite reveals larger disparities in certain workloads. The most dramatic gap appears in the prime number test, where the Intel Core 5 213PE scores 114 and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT scores 57. That is a -50% delta, meaning the AMD part delivers only half the performance of the Intel chip in this specific test. Floating point math shows a similarly large divide: 68587 for Intel versus 39817 for AMD, a -41.9% difference. The physics test also favors Intel heavily: 1624 versus 875, a -46.1% margin.

Other Passmark tests show more moderate advantages for Intel. Integer math scores 92089 versus 69566, a -24.5% delta. Multi-thread performance lands at 26434 versus 20325, a -23.1% gap that mirrors the Cinebench results. Random string sorting favors Intel by -18.2% (32027 versus 26188), while extended instructions show a -7.8% difference (19565 versus 18041). Data compression is closer at -13.4% (298804 versus 258882), and data encryption is nearly identical: 15916 versus 15873, just -0.3% apart.

Single-thread Passmark results give Intel a -17.5% edge (4060 versus 3348), which is smaller than the Cinebench single-core margins but still a clear win. The AMD processor’s best relative showing is in data encryption, where it nearly matches Intel, and extended instructions, where the gap narrows to under 8%.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Core 5 213PE outperforms the AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT in every measured workload. The Intel chip sits at the 85th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the AMD part ranks at the 74th percentile. The average benchmark score for Intel is 35428, compared to 20733 for AMD, which represents a substantial overall performance advantage.

The Intel Core 5 213PE’s nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core i7-13700T (0.1% ahead), the Intel Core i7-12700KF (0.2% ahead), the Intel Core i5-13600T (0.3% ahead), and the Intel Core i7-12700K (0.4% ahead). The AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT’s closest competitors are the Intel Core i5-12490F (-0.3% behind), the Intel Xeon 6325P (-0.4% behind), the Intel Core Ultra 5 125U (-0.4% behind), and the AMD EPYC 7J13 (-0.5% behind). This placement confirms that the Intel part competes in a higher performance tier, while the AMD chip sits slightly below several Intel desktop and mobile processors.

For workloads that depend on raw compute throughput, such as rendering, physics calculations, or prime number processing, the Intel Core 5 213PE is the clear choice based on the recorded data. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT retains relevance in scenarios where its integrated graphics, the Radeon Vega 7, might be preferable to Intel’s UHD Graphics 730, though the benchmark data does not include graphics comparisons. The Intel chip also supports ECC memory, which the AMD part does not, making it more suitable for error-sensitive computing environments.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT boosts to 4.60 GHz.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core 5 213PE has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor supports DDR5 memory?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT supports only DDR4.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE offers 76.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, while the AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT offers 51.2 GB/s.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT does not.

Q: What PCIe generation does each processor use?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT uses PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The Intel Core 5 213PE uses PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification category. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT is built on a 7 nm process by TSMC, while the Intel Core 5 213PE uses a 10 nm process from Intel’s own foundry. The AMD chip has 6 cores and 12 threads, whereas the Intel chip has 8 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ substantially: the AMD part runs at 3.60 GHz, while the Intel part runs at 2.70 GHz. Boost clocks reverse the order, with Intel reaching 5.20 GHz versus AMD’s 4.60 GHz.

Cache configurations are notably different. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of L3 cache. The Intel Core 5 213PE has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The transistor count and die size are recorded only for the AMD part: 10,700 million transistors on a 180 mm² die. No corresponding figures exist for the Intel chip in the database.

Memory support separates the two clearly. AMD supports DDR4 only, while Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth favors Intel at 76.8 GB/s versus AMD’s 51.2 GB/s. ECC memory is available only on the Intel part. PCIe capabilities also differ: AMD uses Gen 3 with 16 lanes, while Intel uses Gen 5 with 16 lanes.

The integrated graphics differ as well. AMD includes a Radeon Vega 7, while Intel includes UHD Graphics 730. The socket types are incompatible: AMD uses Socket AM4, Intel uses Socket 1700. The multiplier is unlocked on the AMD part but locked on the Intel part. The AMD processor was released on 2024-01-07, and the Intel processor was released on 2026-03-08. The part numbers are 100-000001488 for AMD and SA4QG for Intel.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT belongs to the 5000 series and uses the Zen 3 architecture under the codename Cezanne, produced on a 7 nm node by TSMC. The Intel Core 5 213PE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is produced on a 10 nm node by Intel. The database does not list a formal architecture name for the Intel part, only the codename and generation label "Core 5 (Bartlett Lake)."

The core designs differ fundamentally. AMD’s Zen 3 architecture uses 6 cores with 12 threads, each core having 64 KB of L1 cache and 512 KB of L2 cache. Intel’s Bartlett Lake design uses 8 cores with 16 threads, each core having 80 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache. The L3 cache is 16 MB on AMD and 24 MB shared on Intel, giving the Intel part a larger pool of last-level cache for the additional cores to draw from.

The process node difference is significant: TSMC’s 7 nm process for AMD versus Intel’s 10 nm process for Intel. Despite the smaller process node, the AMD part has fewer cores and a lower boost clock, which helps explain the performance gap in multi-threaded workloads. The Intel part compensates for its larger process node with more cores, a much higher boost clock, and a larger cache hierarchy.

Memory architecture also reflects different design priorities. AMD’s dual-channel DDR4 interface delivers 51.2 GB/s, while Intel’s dual-channel interface handles both DDR4 and DDR5, reaching 76.8 GB/s. The PCIe implementation on Intel is two generations ahead, supporting Gen 5 connectivity compared to AMD’s Gen 3. ECC support on Intel further indicates a design aimed at workstation or server-adjacent use cases.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 213PE wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, so the use-case split is not about one chip beating the other in specific tests. Instead, the data shows where the Intel part’s advantages are largest and where the AMD part comes closest.

The Intel chip’s biggest wins are in prime number finding (-50%), physics (-46.1%), and floating point math (-41.9%). These are compute-intensive workloads that scale with core count and clock speed, and the Intel part’s 8 cores, 16 threads, and 5.20 GHz boost clock provide a clear edge. For scientific computing, simulation, or any workload that stresses arithmetic throughput, the Intel Core 5 213PE is the stronger option based on the recorded scores.

The narrowest margins appear in data encryption (-0.3%) and extended instructions (-7.8%). These tests show that the AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT can come close to Intel in specific cryptographic or instruction-heavy tasks, despite its overall deficit. Data compression (-13.4%) and random string sorting (-18.2%) also show smaller gaps, suggesting that memory-bound or I/O-related workloads narrow the difference somewhat.

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT does have advantages outside the benchmark scores. It uses a smaller 7 nm process, which typically indicates better power efficiency per transistor, though the database does not provide power efficiency measurements. Its Radeon Vega 7 integrated graphics may be more capable than Intel’s UHD Graphics 730 for basic display tasks, though no graphics benchmarks are recorded. The unlocked multiplier on the AMD part allows overclocking, while the Intel part is locked.

The Cinebench results, which are nearly identical in margin across all versions (-23.1% or -23.2%), suggest that the Intel part’s advantage is consistent and predictable in rendering workloads. The Passmark results show more variance, which means the choice between these two could depend on the specific application mix. For a system that runs encryption, compression, or moderate math workloads, the AMD part narrows the gap. For anything that involves heavy floating point, physics simulation, or prime number calculations, the Intel part dominates by a wide margin.