Intel Core 5 210H vs Intel Core 5 213PTE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive picture: the Intel Core 5 213PTE wins every single head-to-head comparison, with 17 wins out of 17 recorded tests. The most dramatic advantage appears in multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 213PTE scores 21,751 against the 210H's 11,830, a delta of -45.6% from the perspective of the 210H, meaning the 213PTE is roughly 84% faster in this test. Similarly, in Cinebench R20 multi-core, the 213PTE records 9,135 versus 6,504, a -28.8% delta, and in Cinebench R15 multi-core, it posts 2,192 against 1,757, a -19.8% delta.

Single-core results follow the same pattern, though the margins are smaller. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 213PTE scores 3,070 against the 210H's 1,771, a -42.3% delta. The Cinebench R20 single-core test shows 1,289 versus 918, a -28.8% delta. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows 309 versus 247, a -20.1% delta. The closest contest is in PassMark single-thread performance, where the 213PTE scores 3,718 against 3,539, a modest -4.8% delta.

The PassMark suite shows the 213PTE leading across all measured categories. The largest relative gap is in the prime number search test, where the 213PTE scores 157 against the 210H's 53, a -66.2% delta. Physics simulation shows the 213PTE at 2,199 versus 1,040, a -52.7% delta. Floating point math favors the 213PTE at 71,722 against 45,057, a -37.2% delta. Integer math shows 93,109 versus 61,503, a -33.9% delta. Multithreaded performance in PassMark records 25,590 for the 213PTE against 18,252, a -28.7% delta. Data compression, encryption, extended instructions, and random string sorting all favor the 213PTE with deltas ranging from -15.4% to -22.1%.

The overall average benchmark score confirms the separation: the 213PTE averages 32,924 across all recorded tests, while the 210H averages 24,872. This places the 213PTE in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, compared to the 77th percentile for the 210H.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher peak boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PTE boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 210H boosts to 4.80 GHz.

Q: Do both processors have the same core count?

A: Yes, both have 8 cores. However, the 213PTE supports 16 threads, while the 210H supports 12 threads.

Q: How does the L3 cache compare between the two?

A: The 213PTE has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 210H has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth support?

A: The 213PTE has a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The 210H does not have a memory bandwidth figure recorded in the database.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The 213PTE supports ECC memory. The 210H does not support ECC memory.

Q: What are the integrated graphics solutions?

A: The 210H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 48 execution units. The 213PTE uses UHD Graphics 730.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows no benchmark category where the 210H takes the lead. Every recorded test, from Cinebench rendering workloads to PassMark's math, encryption, compression, and sorting routines, favors the 213PTE. The 210H's best relative performance is in single-threaded PassMark, where it trails by only 4.8%, but it still loses that test.

For users prioritizing multi-core throughput, the 213PTE is the clear choice. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21,751 versus 11,830 represents a large gap that will matter in rendering, video encoding, and other parallel workloads. The PassMark physics test, which often correlates with simulation and gaming-related CPU physics, also heavily favors the 213PTE at 2,199 versus 1,040.

The 210H remains viable only in scenarios where its platform attributes, such as the mobile BGA 1744 socket and integrated Iris Xe graphics, are required. Its performance profile is consistently lower, but it does offer a mobile form factor with a 45 W TDP, matching the 213PTE's TDP.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads, while the 213PTE has 8 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are close, with the 210H at 2.20 GHz and the 213PTE at 2.10 GHz, but boost clocks diverge significantly: 4.80 GHz for the 210H versus 5.20 GHz for the 213PTE.

The socket types are entirely different. The 210H uses Intel BGA 1744, a mobile socket, while the 213PTE uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket. The PCIe configurations also differ: the 210H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the 213PTE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

Memory support is identical in type, both supporting DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel buses. However, the 213PTE has a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the 210H lacks a recorded bandwidth figure. ECC memory support is exclusive to the 213PTE.

The integrated graphics differ, with the 210H featuring Iris Xe Graphics 48EU and the 213PTE featuring UHD Graphics 730. The L3 cache is 12 MB on the 210H versus 24 MB on the 213PTE. The L1 and L2 cache sizes are identical at 80 KB per core and 2 MB per core, respectively.

The launch MSRP for the 213PTE is $221, and for the 210H it is $342. The 210H was released in December 2024, while the 213PTE was released in March 2026.

Architecture Differences

The architecture details show distinct designs. The 210H is built on Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-H codename, belonging to the Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. The 213PTE uses Bartlett Lake architecture with the Bartlett Lake codename, belonging to the Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) generation.

Both are manufactured on a 10 nm process node by Intel, and neither has recorded transistor counts or die sizes. The core and thread differences stem from the architectural implementations: the 210H has 12 threads across 8 cores, while the 213PTE has 16 threads across 8 cores, indicating a difference in simultaneous multithreading support.

The L3 cache difference of 12 MB versus 24 MB reflects a larger shared cache pool on the 213PTE. The 210H's integrated graphics, Iris Xe with 48 execution units, is a more capable GPU solution compared to the 213PTE's UHD Graphics 730, which is typically a basic display adapter. This suggests the 210H is designed for mobile systems where discrete graphics may not always be present, while the 213PTE targets desktop systems that likely pair with discrete GPUs.

The 213PTE's support for ECC memory further indicates a workstation or server-oriented design, while the 210H's lack of ECC and mobile socket points toward consumer laptops and compact mobile workstations.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows the Intel Core 5 213PTE as the dominant performer in every benchmark category. Its 83rd percentile ranking versus the 210H's 77th percentile, combined with a 32,924 average score against 24,872, confirms a substantial overall advantage. The 213PTE's higher thread count, larger L3 cache, higher boost clock, and wider PCIe lanes all contribute to its wins.

Users requiring maximum CPU throughput in a desktop context should choose the 213PTE. Its nearest rivals in the database, including the Intel Core i7-12700 and AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D, show average scores within 0.5% of its own, indicating it competes at a high level. The 213PTE also supports ECC memory and a higher memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, making it suitable for error-sensitive workloads.

The 210H, despite its lower scores, holds value in mobile systems. Its socket, Intel BGA 1744, and integrated Iris Xe Graphics 48EU make it a functional choice for laptops. Its nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i7-13620H and AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX, have average scores within 0.4% of its own, showing it is competitive within its mobile segment. The 210H's lower launch MSRP of $342 relative to the 213PTE's $221 should not be interpreted as a value indicator, as the performance gap is decisive.

For workloads like Cinebench R23 multi-core rendering, where the 213PTE is 84% faster, the choice is clear. For single-threaded tasks, the 213PTE still leads by 4.8% in PassMark. No recorded test favors the 210H. The data supports the 213PTE as the superior processor for any performance-oriented use case.