Intel Core 5 213PE vs Intel Core 7 160UL Comparison

The Intel Core 5 213PE and Intel Core 7 160UL share a socket and a 5.20 GHz boost clock, but the recorded benchmark data shows they are in completely different performance classes. The Core 5 213PE wins all 17 head-to-head tests, often by very large margins. The Core 7 160UL, despite having more physical cores, is positioned as a low-power part that trails heavily in every measured workload. The database places the Core 5 213PE at the 85th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 160UL sits at the 69th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The gap between the two parts is consistent across both Cinebench and PassMark tests. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core 5 213PE scores 22468 against 9386 for the Core 7 160UL, a 139.4% advantage. The single-core R23 result tells a similar story: 3172 versus 1325, also a 139.4% delta. The R20 suite shows nearly identical relative gaps, with the Core 5 213PE leading by 139.6% in single-core (1332 vs 556) and 139.4% in multicore (9436 vs 3942). Older R15 numbers confirm the pattern: 2264 vs 946 multicore and 319 vs 133 single-core, deltas of 139.3% and 139.8% respectively.

PassMark tests show even wider divergence in specific workloads. The largest single delta is in extended instructions, where the Core 5 213PE scores 19565 versus 5832, a 235.5% lead. Data compression shows a 174.3% gap (298804 vs 108953), while random string sorting comes in at 170.4% (32027 vs 11843). Floating point math favors the Core 5 213PE by 167.2% (68587 vs 25670). The smaller deltas still heavily favor the Core 5 213PE: integer math shows a 93.8% lead (92089 vs 47515), physics a 98.3% lead (1624 vs 819), and prime number finding a 128% lead (114 vs 50). Data encryption favors the Core 5 213PE by 122.7% (15916 vs 7146).

The closest result in the entire suite is PassMark single-thread performance, where the Core 5 213PE scores 4060 versus 3391, a 19.7% advantage. That is still a decisive win, but it highlights that the Core 7 160UL is comparatively less disadvantaged in lightly threaded work than in heavily parallel or vectorized loads. The overall PassMark multithread score shows the Core 5 213PE at 26434 versus 11043, a 139.4% difference, matching the Cinebench multicore deltas almost exactly.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use different underlying designs. The Core 5 213PE is built on the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) generation, while the Core 7 160UL uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename. Both are fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel, so the performance gap does not come from a node advantage.

Core counts differ in an interesting way. The Core 7 160UL has 10 cores but only 12 threads, which indicates a hybrid arrangement with fewer hyper-threaded cores. The Core 5 213PE has 8 cores and 16 threads, meaning all of its cores support simultaneous multithreading. That thread count advantage is a major factor in the multicore results. The Core 5 213PE also runs at a 2.70 GHz base clock versus 1.80 GHz for the Core 7 160UL, and both parts reach the same 5.20 GHz boost clock.

Cache configurations also favor the Core 5 213PE. It has 2 MB of L2 per core and 24 MB of shared L3, while the Core 7 160UL has 1.25 MB of L2 per core and 12 MB of shared L3. Both use 80 KB of L1 per core. Memory support is similar on paper, with both supporting DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, but the Core 5 213PE lists a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s while the Core 7 160UL does not have a recorded bandwidth figure. The Core 5 213PE also supports ECC memory; the Core 7 160UL does not.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Core 5 213PE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 7 160UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are also different: the Core 5 213PE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core 7 160UL uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. The Core 5 213PE has a launch MSRP of $221; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Core 7 160UL. Both parts use the Intel Socket 1700, both are desktop market segments, both are active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL has 10 cores compared to 8 for the Intel Core 5 213PE, but the Core 5 213PE has 16 threads versus 12 for the Core 7 160UL.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Core 5 213PE scores 22468 multicore and 3172 single-core in R23, while the Core 7 160UL scores 9386 and 1325 respectively. That is a 139.4% advantage for the Core 5 213PE in both tests.

Q: Do both processors have the same boost clock?

A: Yes, both list a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The base clocks differ, with the Core 5 213PE at 2.70 GHz and the Core 7 160UL at 1.80 GHz.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 7 160UL does not.

Q: What is the difference in PCIe support?

A: The Core 5 213PE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 7 160UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only).

Q: Which processor has better integrated graphics?

A: The database shows different iGPUs: the Core 5 213PE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core 7 160UL uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. No graphics benchmark scores are recorded for either part.

Specification Differences

The Core 5 213PE and Core 7 160UL differ across many specifications. The Core 5 213PE has 8 cores and 16 threads; the Core 7 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are 2.70 GHz versus 1.80 GHz, while boost clocks match at 5.20 GHz. The Core 5 213PE has a TDP of 65, the Core 7 160UL has a TDP of 15. Both use the same 10 nm process and Intel Socket 1700.

Cache layouts differ: the Core 5 213PE has 2 MB L2 per core and 24 MB shared L3, while the Core 7 160UL has 1.25 MB L2 per core and 12 MB shared L3. L1 remains 80 KB per core on both. The Core 5 213PE lists a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s; the Core 7 160UL has no recorded memory bandwidth. ECC support is present on the Core 5 213PE but absent on the Core 7 160UL. PCIe support is Gen 5 with 16 lanes on the Core 5 213PE versus Gen 4 with 8 lanes on the Core 7 160UL.

The integrated graphics differ: UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 5 213PE versus Iris Xe Graphics 96EU on the Core 7 160UL. Release dates differ, with the Core 5 213PE released in 2026-03-08 and the Core 7 160UL released in 2024-04-07. The Core 5 213PE has a launch MSRP of $221; the Core 7 160UL has no launch MSRP. Both are active desktop parts with locked multipliers.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Core 5 213PE is the stronger processor by a wide margin in every recorded test, with deltas ranging from 19.7% in PassMark single-thread to 235.5% in extended instructions. Its average benchmark score of 35428 places it at the 85th percentile of all CPUs, and its nearest rivals are the Core i7-13700T (avg score 35403, 0.1% delta), Core i7-12700KF (35365, 0.2%), Core i5-13600T (35305, 0.3%), and Core i7-12700K (35287, 0.4%). The Core 7 160UL, by contrast, has an average score of 14232 and sits at the 69th percentile, with nearest rivals being the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14277, -0.3%), Core i5-10400F (14185, 0.3%), Xeon 6756E (14163, 0.5%), and AMD Ryzen 5 3501U (14320, -0.6%).

The Core 7 160UL is not competitive with the Core 5 213PE in raw compute. Its lower base clock, fewer threads, smaller L3 cache, and 15 TDP rating all contribute to its much lower scores. The only advantages the Core 7 160UL shows in the recorded specifications are a higher physical core count (10 versus 8) and the Iris Xe Graphics 96EU iGPU. The Core 5 213PE wins every benchmark, offers ECC support, provides more PCIe lanes at a newer generation, and has a higher memory bandwidth figure.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 213PE wins every workload category recorded in the database. It leads by roughly 139% in all Cinebench tests, whether multicore or single-core. In PassMark tests, its largest wins are in extended instructions (235.5%), data compression (174.3%), and random string sorting (170.4%). It also leads in floating point math (167.2%), multithread (139.4%), prime number finding (128%), encryption (122.7%), physics (98.3%), and integer math (93.8%). Its smallest win is in single-thread performance at 19.7%.

The Core 7 160UL does not have a single benchmark win. Its role in the database is as a low-power part, with a 15 TDP versus 65 for the Core 5 213PE. For workloads that prioritize power draw over performance, the Core 7 160UL is the only one of the two with a dramatically lower TDP, but the recorded data shows no performance scenario where it comes out ahead. Its higher core count of 10 does not translate into any measured advantage because it has fewer threads (12 versus 16). The Core 5 213PE is the choice for compute-heavy tasks, while the Core 7 160UL is the choice only for power-constrained systems that can accept roughly half the multicore performance or less.