Intel Core 5 213PE vs Intel Core 9 273PQE Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core 5 213PE compare to the Intel Core 9 273PQE in overall benchmark averages?

A: The Core 5 213PE has an average benchmark score of 35428, while the Core 9 273PQE averages 66099. The Core 9 sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Core 5 sits in the 85th percentile.

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded performance?

A: The Core 9 273PQE wins in the PassMark single-thread test with a score of 4573 versus 4060 for the Core 5 213PE, a delta of -11.2% from the Core 5's perspective. The gap widens in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core 9 scores 5532 against 3172.

Q: Are there any benchmark categories where the Core 5 213PE comes out ahead?

A: No. Across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons recorded in the database, the Core 9 273PQE wins every single test. The smallest margin is in PassMark single-thread tests at -11.2%, and the largest is in PassMark extended instructions at -49.5%.

Q: How do the two processors compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Core 5 213PE supports dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Core 9 273PQE also uses dual-channel memory but reaches 89.6 GB/s, a notable increase of 12.8 GB/s.

Q: What process node and socket do both processors share?

A: Both are built on Intel's 10 nm process and use the Intel Socket 1700. Both carry the Bartlett Lake codename and are produced by Intel's own foundry.

Q: Do these processors have integrated graphics?

A: Yes. The Core 5 213PE includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Core 9 273PQE steps up to UHD Graphics 770. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory, and both support ECC memory.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 213PE and Intel Core 9 273PQE share the same fundamental design lineage, both built on the Bartlett Lake codename and Intel's 10 nm process. They use the same Intel Socket 1700 and are both active production parts. The underlying core architecture is identical per core: each has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core. The difference lies in how many of those cores are present and how the shared cache scales.

The Core 5 213PE provides 8 cores and 16 threads, whereas the Core 9 273PQE provides 12 cores and 24 threads. That is a 50% increase in both core count and thread count for the higher-tier part. The shared L3 cache scales accordingly: the Core 5 has 24 MB shared, while the Core 9 has 36 MB shared, a 12 MB advantage. This larger cache pool benefits workloads that repeatedly access a sizeable working set.

Clock speeds also differ meaningfully. The Core 5 has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Core 9 raises both figures, with a base of 3.40 GHz and a boost of 5.90 GHz. Higher clocks on a part with more cores indicate a more robust power delivery and thermal solution, reflected in the TDP figures: 65 W for the Core 5 versus 125 W for the Core 9.

Memory support is broadly similar, with both supporting DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration and both supporting ECC memory. The Core 9 has a higher memory bandwidth rating at 89.6 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s. PCIe connectivity is identical: Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics differ by one tier, with UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 5 and UHD Graphics 770 on the Core 9. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a differentiator.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core 9 273PQE across every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. The Core 5 213PE does not register a single win in any of the 17 tests. The margins, however, are not uniform, and the pattern reveals where the Core 9's extra cores and higher clocks matter most.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core 9 scores 3950 against 2264 for the Core 5, a delta of -42.7%. The single-core R15 test shows the same -42.7% delta, with scores of 557 versus 319. This exact same percentage appears across Cinebench R20 multicore (16459 vs 9436), R20 single-core (2323 vs 1332), R23 multicore (39190 vs 22468), and R23 single-core (5532 vs 3172). The consistency of that -42.7% figure across the entire Cinebench suite suggests the Core 9's advantage scales proportionally in both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering workloads.

PassMark results show a wider spread of deltas. Data compression heavily favors the Core 9, which scores 585752 versus 298804, a -49% delta. Extended instructions show the largest gap at -49.5%, with scores of 38743 versus 19565. Floating point math delivers 125546 against 68587, a -45.4% delta. Integer math follows at -44.1%, with 164629 versus 92089. Data encryption shows -46.3%, with 29636 versus 15916.

The smallest margin in the PassMark suite is single-thread performance, where the Core 9 scores 4573 versus 4060, a -11.2% delta. This is also the smallest margin across all 17 tests. The modest gap in single-thread tests indicates that the Core 5's 5.20 GHz boost clock keeps it reasonably close to the Core 9's 5.90 GHz boost in lightly threaded workloads, even though the Core 9 still holds an edge.

Other PassMark tests fall in between. Find prime numbers shows 198 versus 114, a -42.4% delta. Multithread scores 46107 versus 26434, a -42.7% delta. Physics delivers 2754 versus 1624, a -41% delta. Random string sorting shows 53167 versus 32027, a -39.8% delta, the second-smallest margin after single-thread. The Core 9's advantages in encryption, compression, and extended instructions all exceed 46%, indicating that its larger core count and higher clocks translate into outsized gains for data-heavy workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. Core count differs: 8 cores for the Core 5 213PE versus 12 cores for the Core 9 273PQE. Thread count follows: 16 versus 24. Base clock differs, with the Core 5 at 2.70 GHz and the Core 9 at 3.40 GHz. Boost clock differs, with 5.20 GHz versus 5.90 GHz. TDP is notably different: 65 W for the Core 5 versus 125 W for the Core 9.

Shared L3 cache differs, with 24 MB on the Core 5 and 36 MB on the Core 9. Per-core L1 and L2 cache are identical at 80 KB and 2 MB per core, respectively. Memory bandwidth differs: 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 versus 89.6 GB/s for the Core 9. Integrated graphics differ, with UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 5 and UHD Graphics 770 on the Core 9.

Both processors share the same socket, process node, foundry, codename, memory support (DDR4 and DDR5), memory bus (dual-channel), ECC support, PCIe configuration (Gen 5, 16 lanes), production status, and release date. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 213PE is $221, and the launch MSRP for the Core 9 273PQE is $589.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core 9 273PQE is the stronger processor by a wide margin in almost every measurable category. Its 12 cores and 24 threads, combined with a 5.90 GHz boost clock and 36 MB of L3 cache, deliver benchmark results that place it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 213PE, with 8 cores, 16 threads, and 24 MB of L3 cache, sits in the 85th percentile. The Core 9's average benchmark score of 66099 is nearly double the Core 5's 35428.

The Core 9 273PQE's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, which scores 66159 with a delta of -0.1%, and the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, which scores 65914 with a delta of 0.3%. The Core 5 213PE's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-13700T, which scores 35403 with a delta of 0.1%, and the Intel Core i7-12700KF, which scores 35365 with a delta of 0.2%. Both processors compete within their respective tiers, but the gap between the two tiers is substantial.

For workloads that rely on multi-threaded performance, the Core 9 273PQE is the clear choice. Its lead in Cinebench R23 multicore, data compression, encryption, and extended instructions ranges from 42.7% to 49.5%. For single-threaded tasks, the Core 9 still leads, but the margin narrows to 11.2% in PassMark single-thread, suggesting that the Core 5 213PE can hold its own in lightly threaded scenarios.

The Core 5 213PE, however, has its own position in the market. Its 65 W TDP indicates a substantially lower power envelope, and its smaller core count and lower clocks make it a more restrained option for systems where thermals and power draw are primary concerns. The Core 9 273PQE's 125 W TDP reflects its higher performance ceiling but also its greater power appetite.

Buyers choosing between these two should weigh the Core 9's dominant benchmark results against the Core 5's lower power characteristics. The data does not show any scenario where the Core 5 outperforms the Core 9, so the decision rests on whether the performance gap justifies the higher TDP and the higher launch MSRP of $589 for the Core 9 versus $221 for the Core 5. For maximum throughput in CPU-intensive tasks, the Core 9 273PQE is the only choice supported by the recorded measurements. For a more power-conscious build where the absolute top-end performance is not required, the Core 5 213PE remains a viable part with a respectable 85th-percentile standing.