Intel Core 5 213PE vs Intel Core 5 213PTE Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core and thread counts of the Intel Core 5 213PE and Intel Core 5 213PTE?

A: Both processors use 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE scores 22468, while the Intel Core 5 213PTE scores 21751. The 213PE leads by 3.3%.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: Both processors share the same maximum boost clock of 5.20 GHz.

Q: Do the two processors support the same memory types?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel buses and 76.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth.

Q: What is the PassMark single-thread score difference?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE scores 4060, and the Intel Core 5 213PTE scores 3718, a 9.2% advantage for the 213PE.

Q: Are there any workloads where the 213PTE wins?

A: Yes, the 213PTE wins in PassMark physics, find prime numbers, floating point math, and integer math tests.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 213PE and Intel Core 5 213PTE share the same fundamental architecture. Both are built on the Bartlett Lake codename, part of the Core 5 generation, and manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process node. The foundry is Intel for both chips. They use the Intel Socket 1700 platform.

Cache hierarchies are identical. Each core has 80 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache. The shared L3 cache is 24 MB across both processors. No 3D V-Cache is present on either model.

The integrated graphics solution is the same: UHD Graphics 730. Both processors support ECC memory, which is notable for reliability-focused desktop builds. PCIe connectivity is also identical at Gen 5 with 16 lanes available from the CPU.

The key architectural difference is the base clock and thermal design power. The 213PE runs a 2.70 GHz base clock with a 65 W TDP. The 213PTE runs a 2.10 GHz base clock with a 45 W TDP. Both reach the same 5.20 GHz boost clock. This means the 213PTE achieves the same maximum frequency but starts from a lower baseline, which directly impacts sustained all-core workloads.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported on either part. The production status for both is Active, and both were released on the same date.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a consistent pattern. The Intel Core 5 213PE wins 13 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 5 213PTE wins 4 tests. The margins vary widely by workload type.

In Cinebench tests, the 213PE holds a uniform 3.3% lead across every single-core and multi-core iteration. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 2264 versus 2192. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 319 versus 309. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 9436 versus 9135, and single-core shows 1332 versus 1289. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 22468 versus 21751, with single-core at 3172 versus 3070. The consistency of the 3.3% delta across all six Cinebench tests indicates the higher base clock of the 213PE translates directly into proportional performance gains in this rendering workload.

PassMark multi-thread and single-thread tests show similar outcomes. In PassMark multithread, the 213PE scores 26434 against 25590, another 3.3% win. In PassMark single-thread, the margin is larger at 9.2%, with scores of 4060 versus 3718. The single-thread advantage is more than double the Cinebench single-core margin, suggesting the 213PE benefits from a stronger frequency response in burst workloads.

The largest wins for the 213PE come in specialized PassMark subtests. Data compression shows 298804 versus 261083, a 14.4% advantage. Data encryption shows 15916 versus 14413, a 10.4% win. Extended instructions show 19565 versus 16146, the biggest margin at 21.2%. Random string sorting is closer at 32027 versus 30106, a 6.4% win.

The 213PTE takes four tests, and they are not all minor. PassMark physics shows 2199 versus 1624, a 26.1% advantage for the 213PTE. Find prime numbers shows 157 versus 114, a 27.4% win. Floating point math shows 71722 versus 68587, a 4.4% win. Integer math shows 93109 versus 92089, a 1.1% win. The physics and prime number results are substantial reversals of the overall trend. The fact that the lower-base-clock chip wins these specific tests suggests the 213PTE's power characteristics interact differently with these instruction patterns, possibly allowing sustained operation under test-specific conditions.

The average benchmark score reflects the overall split. The 213PE averages 35428, while the 213PTE averages 32924. That is roughly a 7.6% gap in the average across all recorded benchmarks. The percentile rankings place the 213PE at the 85th percentile of all CPUs, while the 213PTE sits at the 83rd percentile.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in only a few specification fields. Base clock is the primary differentiator: 2.70 GHz on the 213PE versus 2.10 GHz on the 213PTE. TDP follows at 65 W for the 213PE and 45 W for the 213PTE.

The boost clock is identical at 5.20 GHz. Core count, thread count, L1 cache, L2 cache, L3 cache, memory support, memory bus, memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe configuration, integrated graphics, process node, foundry, socket, market segment, production status, release date, launch MSRP, and multiplier lock status are all the same. The launch MSRP is $221 for both parts. The part numbers differ: SA4QG for the 213PE and SA4QM for the 213PTE.

The average benchmark score difference is significant. The 213PE records an average of 35428, while the 213PTE records 32924. The percentile ranking difference is 2 points, 85 versus 83.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 213PE wins in rendering workloads, compression, encryption, extended instruction sets, string sorting, multithreaded general performance, and single-thread performance. The Cinebench suite is entirely in its favor with a flat 3.3% margin across all tests. The PassMark multithread test matches that 3.3% margin. The single-thread PassMark test gives it a stronger 9.2% win.

The 213PE is the better choice for workloads that depend on frequency-driven responsiveness. The data compression and encryption results show a clear preference for the higher base clock. The extended instructions test, with its 21.2% margin, is the single biggest gap in the entire comparison. Any application that uses AES-NI or similar instruction extensions will likely follow this pattern.

The Intel Core 5 213PTE wins in physics simulation, prime number finding, floating point math, and integer math. The physics result is striking: 2199 versus 1624, a 26.1% margin. Prime number finding is similarly large at 27.4%. These are not small differences. The 213PTE is the stronger part for numerically intensive workloads that stress the FPU and ALU in sustained loops.

The floating point math and integer math wins are narrower at 4.4% and 1.1% respectively, but they still indicate that the 213PTE handles these workloads better despite the lower base clock. The lower TDP of 45 W may allow the 213PTE to maintain its boost state differently under certain load profiles, which could explain these reversals.

The Verdict

The benchmark data draws a clear line between two distinct usage profiles. The Intel Core 5 213PE is the all-around performer. It wins the majority of tests, holds a 3.3% lead across all Cinebench versions, and secures substantial margins in data compression, encryption, extended instructions, and single-thread PassMark tests. Its average benchmark score of 35428 places it at the 85th percentile, and it sits within 0.4% of the Intel Core i7-12700K in the nearest rival data.

The Intel Core 5 213PTE is the specialized alternative. It wins physics, prime number, floating point, and integer math tests, with the physics and prime number margins being the largest wins in either direction across the entire comparison. Its average score of 32924 places it at the 83rd percentile, and it sits within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D in the nearest rival data.

For general desktop use, rendering, content creation, compression tasks, and single-thread-sensitive applications, the 213PE delivers better results across the board. The 3.3% Cinebench advantage and 9.2% single-thread PassMark advantage are directly relevant to those workloads. The 45 W TDP of the 213PTE is the only specification that favors it, and that matters most for systems where power constraints are the primary design factor.

For physics simulation, mathematical workloads, and floating-point-heavy computations, the 213PTE shows a measurable edge. The 26.1% physics win and 27.4% prime number win are not marginal. A system built around those specific tasks should favor the 213PTE.

Both processors share the same boost clock, cache configuration, memory support, PCIe lanes, integrated graphics, and launch MSRP. The decision rests on whether the workload leans toward the 213PE's frequency-driven wins or the 213PTE's specialized math and physics strengths. The recorded data supports the 213PE for most users and the 213PTE for users whose workloads match its four winning tests.