AMD Ryzen 7 260 vs Intel Core 5 213PE Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 260 records an average benchmark score of 43717, placing it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 213PE records 35428, placing it in the 85th percentile.

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

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE wins the head-to-head single-thread tests. It scores 319 versus 276.5 in Cinebench R15 single-core (13.3% ahead), 3172 versus 1770.5 in Cinebench R23 single-core (44.2% ahead), and 4060 versus 3736 in PassMark single-thread (8% ahead).

Q: Which chip wins in multi-core workloads?

A: The results are split. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 wins Cinebench R15 multi-core with 2747.5 versus 2264 (21.4% ahead) and PassMark multi-thread with 28078 versus 26434 (6.2% ahead). The Intel Core 5 213PE wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 22468 versus 17211.5 (23.4% ahead).

Q: What are the memory support differences?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 260 supports only DDR5 memory with dual-channel bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel Core 5 213PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, dual-channel, with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, and it supports ECC memory while the AMD chip does not.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, slightly higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 260's 5.10 GHz. The base clocks differ more significantly: 2.70 GHz for Intel versus 3.80 GHz for AMD.

Q: How do the integrated graphics differ?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 260 uses the Radeon 780M integrated graphics. The Intel Core 5 213PE uses UHD Graphics 730. The AMD part is a mobile processor, while the Intel part is a desktop processor.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 7 260 and Intel Core 5 213PE take fundamentally different approaches to processor design. The AMD chip uses Zen 4 architecture on TSMC's 4 nm process node, with the Hawk Point codename. The die size measures 178 mm² and contains 25,000 million transistors. The Intel chip uses the Bartlett Lake codename on Intel's 10 nm process, though the database does not list a die size or transistor count for it.

Both processors have 8 cores and 16 threads, so the thread count parity is where architectural differences become interesting. The cache hierarchies diverge notably. AMD allocates 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 16 MB of shared L3. Intel allocates 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, with a larger 24 MB of shared L3. The larger Intel L3 cache likely contributes to its strong single-thread results.

The memory controllers also differ. AMD supports DDR5 only, with a dual-channel bus delivering 89.6 GB/s. Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, but the recorded bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s. Intel adds ECC memory support, which AMD does not offer.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The newer PCIe generation on Intel offers higher per-lane bandwidth, though AMD has more total lanes.

The market segments are completely different. AMD lists the Ryzen 7 260 as a mobile processor on Socket FP8. Intel lists the Core 5 213PE as a desktop processor on Socket 1700. This dictates the platform context: one is designed for portable systems, the other for stationary builds. The TDP reflects this: AMD draws 45 W, Intel draws 65 W. The AMD chip uses the Radeon 780M integrated GPU, while Intel uses the UHD Graphics 730.

The Verdict

The benchmark data suggests these processors serve different platform needs, not identical ones. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 is a mobile part with a 45 W TDP, and it wins 7 of the 15 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 5 213PE is a desktop part with a 65 W TDP, and it wins 8 tests.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the Intel part is the clear choice. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3172 is 44.2% higher than AMD's 1770.5. The PassMark single-thread result (4060 versus 3736) confirms the pattern. This translates to snappier day-to-day interaction and faster single-threaded application performance.

For data-heavy and encryption workloads, the AMD part is decisively stronger. It leads by 27.3% in data encryption, 35.7% in extended instructions, and 32.3% in random string sorting. The PassMark multi-thread score favors AMD by 6.2% as well.

The Intel chip wins in physics simulation (1624 versus 1218, a 25% lead) and floating-point math (68587 versus 59462, a 13.3% lead). It also wins prime number finding by 32.5%. These are compute-heavy tasks where Intel's larger cache and higher boost clock help.

The desktop buyer who needs ECC memory, DDR4 compatibility, or PCIe Gen 5 has only one option here. The mobile buyer who needs lower power draw and stronger data compression has the other. The data does not declare a universal winner; it declares two distinct profiles.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 260 | Intel Core 5 213PE |

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

| Base clock | 3.80 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.10 GHz | 5.20 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Not listed |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Bartlett Lake |

| Process node | 4 nm (TSMC) | 10 nm (Intel) |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | Not listed |

| Die size | 178 mm² | Not listed |

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

| L2 cache (per core) | 1 MB | 2 MB |

| L3 cache (shared) | 16 MB | 24 MB |

| Memory support | DDR5 only | DDR4 and DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Not supported | Supported |

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

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 780M | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | 2025-01-05 | 2026-03-08 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $221 |

| Part number | 100-000001724 | SA4QG |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single-test margin belongs to the Intel Core 5 213PE in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 3172 versus AMD's 1770.5, a 44.2% advantage. This is a massive gap and the clearest signal of Intel's single-thread dominance in this pairing. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test also favors Intel, but by a smaller 23.4% margin (22468 versus 17211.5).

The AMD Ryzen 7 260 takes the biggest win in extended instructions at 35.7% ahead (26544 versus 19565). Random string sorting follows at 32.3% (42383 versus 32027). Data encryption shows a 27.3% lead (20267 versus 15916). These are all substantial margins that indicate AMD's efficiency in specialized instruction paths.

Cinebench R15 multi-core gives AMD a 21.4% win (2747.5 versus 2264), which is notable because the newer Cinebench R23 multi-core test gives Intel the win. The two Cinebench versions disagree on multi-core leadership, suggesting the workloads stress different aspects of the chips.

PassMark integer math is close: AMD wins 96737 versus 92089, a 5% margin. PassMark multi-thread is also close: AMD wins 28078 versus 26434, a 6.2% margin. These narrow wins show AMD's strength in sustained multi-threaded throughput despite the Intel chip's higher boost clock.

The Intel wins in physics (1624 versus 1218, 25% ahead) and floating-point math (68587 versus 59462, 13.3% ahead) show where Intel's larger cache and higher clocks pay off. Prime number finding also goes to Intel by 32.5% (114 versus 77). Cinebench R15 single-core goes to Intel by 13.3% (319 versus 276.5), and PassMark single-thread goes to Intel by 8% (4060 versus 3736).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 260 wins in data handling and security-related tasks. Data compression scores 351517 versus 298804, a 17.6% lead. Data encryption scores 20267 versus 15916, a 27.3% lead. Random string sorting scores 42383 versus 32027, a 32.3% lead. Extended instructions score 26544 versus 19565, a 35.7% lead. These workloads benefit from AMD's Zen 4 efficiency and its 4 nm process.

The AMD chip also wins the PassMark multi-thread test (28078 versus 26434) and integer math (96737 versus 92089). Its lower 45 W TDP makes it suitable for mobile platforms where thermal headroom is limited. The Radeon 780M integrated graphics provide the graphical output for such systems.

The Intel Core 5 213PE wins in raw single-thread performance and compute-heavy numerical tasks. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 44.2% lead, and Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 13.3% lead. PassMark single-thread shows an 8% lead. Physics simulation shows a 25% lead, floating-point math shows a 13.3% lead, and prime number finding shows a 32.5% lead.

The Intel chip also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 23.4%, which is its second-largest margin. Its desktop positioning with 65 W TDP, ECC memory support, DDR4/DDR5 compatibility, and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity targets workstation-style builds. The UHD Graphics 730 handles display output, while the 24 MB L3 cache and 2 MB per-core L2 support the numerical workloads.

The data splits cleanly: AMD for mobile efficiency, data processing, and encryption; Intel for desktop compute, single-thread speed, and numerical simulation. The 7-to-8 win split in the head-to-head tests confirms that neither chip dominates the other across all categories.