AMD Ryzen 7 160 vs Intel Core 5 213PE Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core 5 213PE is the stronger performer across every single recorded test. It wins all 11 head-to-head comparisons, with the closest margin being a 2.5% lead in data encryption and the largest being a 90.3% lead in floating point math. Neither processor offers meaningful competition to the other in this dataset.

The AMD Ryzen 7 160 is the mobile-oriented option. It uses a 28 W TDP, an AMD Socket FP7, and integrates a Radeon 680M GPU. The Intel Core 5 213PE is a desktop part with a 65 W TDP, Intel Socket 1700, and UHD Graphics 730. The choice between them is less about raw performance, where Intel dominates, and more about platform and power constraints.

For anyone building or specifying a desktop system where performance is the priority, the Core 5 213PE is the only defensible pick. For a mobile or low-power design where the AMD Socket FP7 and 28 W TDP fit the requirement, the Ryzen 7 160 is the appropriate part, but the data shows it will trail the Intel chip substantially in every workload measured.

The Intel part also has the higher boost clock at 5.20 GHz compared to 4.75 GHz for the AMD, and its average benchmark score of 35428 places it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, the same percentile as the AMD part. The AMD chip's average score of 37117 is actually higher than the Intel's, but that figure is skewed by the PassMark suite where the AMD has more results recorded. The head-to-head scores, which use identical tests for both, tell the real story.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different foundries and process nodes. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 uses TSMC's 6 nm process with a Zen 3+ architecture under the Rembrandt-R codename. The Intel Core 5 213PE uses Intel's own 10 nm process with the Bartlett Lake codename. The AMD die measures 210 mm², while the Intel die size is not recorded in the database.

Cache organization differs significantly. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Intel chip carries 25% more L1 per core, 4 times the L2 per core, and 50% more L3 overall.

Memory support also diverges. The AMD chip supports DDR5 only, while the Intel chip supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Both are dual-channel and both have the same memory bandwidth figure of 76.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs in both generation and lane count. The AMD part provides Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes. The Intel part provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. That gives the AMD chip more lanes but an older generation, while the Intel chip has fewer lanes at a newer generation.

Integrated graphics are not comparable. The AMD part uses a Radeon 680M, a more capable integrated GPU for gaming and media workloads. The Intel part uses UHD Graphics 730, which is a basic display adapter. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported on either.

The release dates are notable. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 was released on September 30, 2025. The Intel Core 5 213PE was released on March 8, 2026. The Intel part is the newer product by roughly five months.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The PassMark multithread test shows the biggest overall gap. The Intel Core 5 213PE scores 26434 against 12237 for the AMD Ryzen 7 160, a 53.7% advantage. That is the largest margin in the entire suite except for the specialized math tests.

Floating point math is the most lopsided result. The Intel part scores 68587 while the AMD part scores 6673, meaning the Intel chip is 90.3% ahead. This is an enormous gap and indicates a major difference in how the two architectures handle floating point workloads. The find prime numbers test shows a 62.3% lead for Intel, with scores of 114 versus 43.

The physics test favors Intel by 51.2%, with scores of 1624 versus 793. Data compression shows an 18.8% Intel lead, 298804 versus 242634. Random string sorting gives Intel an 18.9% lead, 32027 versus 25981. Extended instructions show a 17.4% Intel lead, 19565 versus 16170.

Integer math is closer but still firmly in Intel's favor. The Intel part scores 92089 against 81370, an 11.6% lead. Data encryption is the tightest race, with Intel winning by only 2.5%, 15916 versus 15520.

Single-thread performance favors Intel by 15.4%. The Intel part scores 4060 in both the passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread tests, while the AMD part scores 3435 in both. This single-thread advantage aligns with the boost clock difference: 5.20 GHz for Intel versus 4.75 GHz for AMD.

The Cinebench results are recorded only for the Intel part in this database. The Core 5 213PE scores 2264 in Cinebench R15 multicore, 319 in R15 single-core, 9436 in R20 multicore, 1332 in R20 single-core, 22468 in R23 multicore, and 3172 in R23 single-core. No Cinebench data exists for the AMD part, so cross-comparison is not possible from this dataset.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 160 | Intel Core 5 213PE |

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

| Base clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.75 GHz | 5.20 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP7 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Process node | 6 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die size | 210 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 cache | 64 KB per core | 80 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 512 KB per core | 2 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 16 MB shared | 24 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 lanes | Gen 5, 16 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 680M | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | 2025-09-30 | 2026-03-08 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $221 |

Both parts have 8 cores and 16 threads. Both have a 2.70 GHz base clock. Both are dual-channel with 76.8 GB/s memory bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel part has a 65 W TDP, which is more than double the AMD's 28 W, reflecting its desktop orientation and higher boost clock.

The Intel part is the only one with a recorded launch MSRP of $221. The AMD part has no launch MSRP in the database. The Intel part is also the only one with Cinebench results recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE wins the PassMark multithread test by 53.7%, scoring 26434 versus 12237 for the AMD Ryzen 7 160.

Q: How do the two compare in single-thread performance?

A: The Intel part leads by 15.4% in the PassMark single-thread test, scoring 4060 versus 3435 for the AMD part.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 7 160 competitive in any benchmark?

A: The data shows zero head-to-head wins for the AMD part. Its closest result is data encryption, where it trails by only 2.5%, but it still loses that test.

Q: What are the power requirements for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 has a 28 W TDP. The Intel Core 5 213PE has a 65 W TDP, which is more than double the AMD part.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 supports DDR5 only.

Q: What integrated graphics does each processor use?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 integrates a Radeon 680M. The Intel Core 5 213PE integrates UHD Graphics 730.

Q: How does the Intel part compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE has an average benchmark score of 35428, placing it 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-13700T, 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i7-12700KF, 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i5-13600T, and 0.4% ahead of the Intel Core i7-12700K.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 213PE wins every workload category in the head-to-head dataset. It is the correct choice for desktop builds where CPU throughput matters most. Its 5.20 GHz boost clock and larger cache hierarchy, 2 MB L2 per core and 24 MB L3, give it clear advantages in compression, sorting, encryption, and math-heavy tasks. The physics test result, 1624 versus 793, indicates it handles simulation and game physics workloads far better. The floating point margin, 90.3%, is so large that any workload dominated by FPU operations should go to the Intel part without hesitation.

The AMD Ryzen 7 160 does not win any benchmark. Its only realistic justification is the mobile segment. The 28 W TDP and AMD Socket FP7 are designed for laptops and compact systems where power draw and thermals are constrained. The Radeon 680M integrated GPU is also a more capable graphics solution than the Intel UHD Graphics 730, which matters for systems without a discrete GPU. The AMD part also provides 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes versus 16 Gen 5 lanes, which may suit certain I/O configurations.

The average benchmark score of 37117 for the AMD part is higher than the Intel's 35428, but that figure reflects the different test suites recorded for each chip. The head-to-head PassMark tests, which are identical for both, show Intel winning every time. The AMD part sits at the 85th percentile of all CPUs, with its nearest rivals being the Intel Core i9-12900T, Intel Core i7-13700, AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450, and AMD Ryzen 7 7735H, all within 0.1% of its average score. The Intel part also sits at the 85th percentile, with its nearest rivals being the Intel Core i7-13700T, Intel Core i7-12700KF, Intel Core i5-13600T, and Intel Core i7-12700K, all within 0.4%.

The data supports a simple split: desktop performance users should choose the Intel Core 5 213PE, while mobile or low-power designs should consider the AMD Ryzen 7 160 despite its performance deficit. The Intel part is the newer release, coming out on March 8, 2026, versus September 30, 2025 for the AMD part. It also has a recorded launch MSRP of $221. The AMD part's launch price is not recorded in the database.