Intel Core 5 213PE vs Intel Core 5 330 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two processors into very different roles. The Intel Core 5 213PE wins 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 5 330 wins only 2. That near-total sweep positions the 213PE as the clear compute leader, but the 330's two victories reveal a specific niche where it holds a narrow edge.

The 213PE dominates every multi-threaded workload in the database. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 22468 against the 330's 13150, a 70.9% advantage. The gap widens further in PassMark integer math, where the 213PE posts 92089 versus 33258, a 176.9% delta, the largest margin recorded in any test. Data compression shows a 105.7% lead, with the 213PE at 298804 and the 330 at 145287. These are not marginal differences; they indicate a processor built for sustained parallel throughput, likely from its 8 cores and 16 threads versus the 330's 6 cores and 6 threads.

The 330 wins only in PassMark single-thread and the duplicate singlethread test, scoring 4088 against the 213PE's 4060. That 0.7% margin is tiny, barely outside measurement noise, but it is consistent across both entries. The 330 also ties in PassMark find prime numbers, with both parts scoring 114. For single-threaded responsiveness, the data shows the 330 is effectively at parity with the 213PE, despite its much lower base clock of 1.50 GHz versus 2.70 GHz.

In practical terms, the 213PE is the choice for rendering, encoding, compilation, or any workload that scales across cores. The 330 holds its own for lightly threaded tasks, but its advantage is so small that it would not show up in real-world use. The 330's market segment is mobile, per the database, while the 213PE is a desktop part, which explains the divergent design goals. The 213PE targets raw throughput; the 330 targets efficiency with enough single-core speed for daily tasks.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split. The 213PE sits at the 85th percentile among all CPUs, while the 330 sits at the 72nd. The average benchmark scores tell the same story: 35428 for the 213PE and 18345 for the 330. The 213PE's nearest rivals all score within 0.4% of it, including the Core i7-13700T at 35403, the Core i7-12700KF at 35365, the Core i5-13600T at 35305, and the Core i7-12700K at 35287. The 330's nearest rivals are clustered similarly, with the Core i3-14100 at 18318, the Core 7 360 at 18374, the Core i3-13100 at 18380, and the Core 3 305 at 18302.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families and use different design philosophies. The 213PE is built on the Bartlett Lake architecture, manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform and belongs to the desktop segment. The 330 is built on the Wildcat Lake architecture, using a 3 nm process, also at Intel's foundry, but it uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket and is classified as a mobile part.

Core counts diverge significantly. The 213PE has 8 cores and 16 threads, enabling simultaneous multi-threading. The 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyper-threading support. This alone explains most of the multi-threaded benchmark gap. The 213PE's cache hierarchy is also larger: 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The 330 has 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2 total, and only 6 MB of shared L3. The 213PE's L3 cache is four times larger, a substantial advantage for workloads that repeatedly access a large working set.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The 213PE has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The 330 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The 213PE boosts 600 MHz higher, but the 330's single-thread score is slightly better, suggesting that the 3 nm process and Wildcat Lake architecture deliver higher instructions per clock despite the lower frequency ceiling.

Memory support also differs. The 213PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but only in single-channel mode, with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The 213PE also supports ECC memory, while the 330 does not. PCIe connectivity favors the 213PE as well: Gen 5 with 16 lanes versus Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the 330.

Integrated graphics are notably different. The 213PE uses UHD Graphics 730, a modest iGPU intended for basic display output. The 330 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, a newer architecture that likely offers better media and light graphics performance, though the database does not provide graphics benchmarks to confirm this.

Power and thermal envelopes are the biggest architectural differentiator. The 213PE has a TDP of 65 watts, while the 330 has a TDP of 15 watts. That 50-watt gap reflects the 330's mobile design intent, prioritizing battery life and thermals over peak performance. The 213PE's higher TDP enables its higher sustained clock speeds and larger core count.

Release timing is close. The 213PE has a release date of March 2026, and the 330 follows in April 2026. Both parts are listed as Active in production status. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not officially supported for either.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core 5 213PE is substantially faster in nearly every recorded benchmark, with its largest wins in integer math (176.9% ahead), data compression (105.7% ahead), and random string sorting (80.2% ahead). It also wins all six Cinebench tests, both multi-core and single-core, with deltas ranging from 70.8% to 71.5%. For any user prioritizing compute throughput, the 213PE is the only choice from this pair.

The Intel Core 5 330 wins only the PassMark single-thread test by 0.7%, a negligible margin. Its 15-watt TDP, however, positions it for a completely different use case. The database classifies it as a mobile part, and its single-channel memory, 6 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, and 3 nm process all point to a low-power design for thin laptops or compact systems. The 213PE, with its 65-watt TDP, Socket 1700, and dual-channel memory, is a desktop part meant for mainstream builds.

The percentile data supports this split. The 213PE ranks at the 85th percentile across all CPUs, while the 330 ranks at the 72nd. The 213PE's average benchmark score of 35428 is nearly double the 330's 18345. The 330's nearest rivals are all Core i3 parts or lower-tier Core 5 parts, while the 213PE sits alongside Core i7 desktop chips.

For a desktop user building a workstation or a high-performance gaming rig, the 213PE delivers the required compute headroom. The 330, by contrast, is a mobile efficiency part. Its single-thread parity with the 213PE means everyday responsiveness is comparable, but its multi-thread performance is roughly 40% lower in Cinebench R23 and even worse in integer-heavy workloads. The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward: the 213PE wins on performance, the 330 wins on power efficiency, and they are not directly competing for the same socket or chassis.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The 213PE leads by 70.9% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (22468 vs 13150) and by 176.9% in PassMark integer math (92089 vs 33258).

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 330 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins PassMark single-thread by 0.7% (4088 vs 4060) and ties in PassMark find prime numbers, where both score 114.

Q: What are the TDP differences between the two?

A: The 213PE has a TDP of 65 watts. The 330 has a TDP of 15 watts.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 330 does not.

Q: What memory types does each support?

A: The 213PE supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode. The 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in single-channel mode.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive result is PassMark integer math. The 213PE scores 92089, while the 330 scores 33258, a 176.9% delta. This is the largest single-test margin in the entire comparison and indicates that the 213PE's extra cores and threads translate directly into raw integer throughput. The 330's 6 threads cannot match the 213PE's 16 threads in a workload that scales almost linearly with core count.

Data compression shows the second-largest gap. The 213PE posts 298804, more than double the 330's 145287, a 105.7% advantage. Compression algorithms are heavily parallel and cache-sensitive, which plays to the 213PE's 24 MB of L3 versus the 330's 6 MB. The 213PE also leads random string sorting by 80.2%, scoring 32027 against 17771, another memory-bandwidth and cache-dependent test.

In Cinebench, the 213PE wins every test by nearly identical margins. R15 multi-core is 2264 versus 1325, a 70.9% lead. R15 single-core is 319 versus 186, a 71.5% lead. R20 multi-core is 9436 versus 5523, a 70.8% lead. R20 single-core is 1332 versus 779, a 71% lead. R23 multi-core is 22468 versus 13150, a 70.9% lead. R23 single-core is 3172 versus 1856, a 70.9% lead. The consistency of these deltas suggests the 213PE's per-core performance advantage is uniform across Cinebench's rendering workloads.

Floating-point math shows a 56.3% lead for the 213PE, with scores of 68587 versus 43885. Extended instructions are 52.8% ahead, at 19565 versus 12808. Data encryption is 43.7% ahead, at 15916 versus 11076. Physics simulation is 35.2% ahead, at 1624 versus 1201. These results confirm that the 213PE's advantage is not limited to integer-heavy code but extends across SIMD, cryptographic, and physics workloads.

The PassMark multithread test is 70.9% in favor of the 213PE, at 26434 versus 15471, matching the Cinebench multi-core deltas almost exactly. The only test where the 330 leads is PassMark single-thread, where it scores 4088 against 4060, a 0.7% edge. The find prime numbers test results in a tie at 114 for both processors.

Overall, the head-to-head data shows a processor that is roughly 70% faster in most multi-threaded tests, with even larger margins in integer-heavy and memory-intensive workloads. The 330's single-thread win is statistically minor and does not offset the 213PE's dominance elsewhere. The 213PE's 85th percentile ranking versus the 330's 72nd percentile, along with its 35428 average score versus 18345, confirms the performance hierarchy established by the individual benchmarks.