Intel Core 5 213PE vs Intel Core i5-14500 Comparison
Intel Core 5 213PE
Core i5-14500
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 5 213PE vs Intel Core i5-14500
FAQ
Q: Which processor delivers the higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Core i5-14500 records an average benchmark score of 38531, placing it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 213PE records an average score of 35428, which places it in the 85th percentile.
Q: How do the core and thread counts compare between the two processors?
A: The Intel Core i5-14500 has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core 5 213PE has 8 cores and 16 threads. Both processors have a 65 W TDP and use the Intel Socket 1700.
Q: What are the boost clock speeds for each CPU?
A: The Intel Core 5 213PE boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-14500 boosts to 5.00 GHz. The base clocks are 2.70 GHz for the Core 5 213PE and 2.60 GHz for the Core i5-14500.
Q: Which CPU shows a larger advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?
A: The Intel Core 5 213PE leads in Cinebench R23 multi-core with a score of 22468, which is 49.7% ahead of the Core i5-14500's score of 15012.
Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?
A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration. The Core 5 213PE lists a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the Core i5-14500 does not have a listed memory bandwidth figure.
Q: Which CPU has the higher PassMark single-thread score?
A: The Intel Core 5 213PE scores 4060 in PassMark single-thread, which is 2.7% higher than the Core i5-14500's score of 3952.
Where Each One Wins
The benchmark split is clear: the Intel Core i5-14500 wins 11 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core 5 213PE wins 6. The distribution of wins reveals a functional separation. The Core i5-14500 dominates in multi-threaded workloads and memory-heavy operations. It wins Cinebench R15 multi-core (2435 vs 2264), Cinebench R20 multi-core (10985 vs 9436), and PassMark multithread (30777 vs 26434). In data compression, encryption, integer math, floating point math, extended instructions, physics, and random string sorting, the Core i5-14500 also takes the lead.
The Intel Core 5 213PE, however, wins the newer Cinebench R23 tests, both multi-core and single-core, by substantial margins. It also wins Cinebench R15 single-core (319 vs 273), PassMark single-thread (4060 vs 3952), and PassMark find prime numbers (114 vs 106). This pattern suggests the Core 5 213PE has an advantage in workloads that scale with per-core efficiency and newer instruction paths, while the Core i5-14500 leverages its higher core and thread count for throughput-oriented tasks.
Architecture Differences
The two processors share the same Intel foundry and 10 nm process node, but their internal designs differ. The Intel Core i5-14500 uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R codename, and belongs to the Core 14th Gen series. The Intel Core 5 213PE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is part of the Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) generation. The Core 5 213PE has a die size that is not recorded, while the Core i5-14500 has a die size of 215 mm².
Cache organization differs between the two. Both have an L1 cache of 80 KB per core and a shared L3 cache of 24 MB. The L2 cache, however, is 2 MB per core on the Core 5 213PE, while the Core i5-14500 has 1.25 MB per core. This gives the Core 5 213PE a larger per-core L2 allocation, which may contribute to its single-thread performance advantage.
Integrated graphics also differ. The Core 5 213PE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core i5-14500 uses UHD Graphics 770. Both processors support ECC memory, use dual-channel memory, have PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), and are locked multipliers. The release dates differ: the Core i5-14500 launched in January 2024, while the Core 5 213PE launched in March 2026.
Specification Differences
The core and thread counts are the most significant specification gap. The Core i5-14500 provides 14 cores and 20 threads, compared to 8 cores and 16 threads on the Core 5 213PE. Boost clock favors the Core 5 213PE at 5.20 GHz versus 5.00 GHz, and base clock also favors it at 2.70 GHz versus 2.60 GHz. The L2 cache per core is 2 MB on the Core 5 213PE and 1.25 MB on the Core i5-14500. The integrated graphics differ as noted. The die size is only recorded for the Core i5-14500 at 215 mm². Memory bandwidth is listed only for the Core 5 213PE at 76.8 GB/s. The launch MSRP is $221 for the Core 5 213PE and $232 for the Core i5-14500. Both use the same socket, TDP, memory support, PCIe configuration, and ECC capability.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The largest single win for the Intel Core 5 213PE comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 3172 against the Core i5-14500's 1917, a delta of 65.5%. That is a commanding lead in a test that often reflects per-core performance and boost behavior. The Core 5 213PE also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 49.7% (22468 vs 15012), which is notable because the Core i5-14500 has more cores. This suggests the Core 5 213PE's higher boost clock and larger L2 cache provide a substantial efficiency advantage in this specific workload.
In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core 5 213PE wins by 16.8% (319 vs 273). In PassMark single-thread, the margin narrows to 2.7% (4060 vs 3952). The Core 5 213PE also wins PassMark find prime numbers by 7.5% (114 vs 106).
The Intel Core i5-14500 counters with wins across a broader set of tests. Its largest margin is in PassMark data encryption, where it scores 21457 against 15916, a 25.8% lead. PassMark random string sorting shows a 21.8% lead (40980 vs 32027). Data compression follows at 19.5% (371294 vs 298804). Integer math shows a 14.8% lead (108124 vs 92089). Floating point math is 13.8% ahead (79576 vs 68587). Extended instructions are 12.9% ahead (22473 vs 19565). PassMark multithread, Cinebench R20 multi-core, and Cinebench R20 single-core each show a 14.1% lead for the Core i5-14500. Cinebench R15 multi-core and PassMark physics are both 7% ahead for the Core i5-14500.
The Cinebench R20 single-core result is the only single-threaded test where the Core i5-14500 wins, scoring 1550 against 1332. That result contrasts with the other single-thread tests, where the Core 5 213PE leads. The data shows a split depending on the benchmark version and methodology.
The Verdict
The data indicates two distinct usage profiles. The Intel Core i5-14500 is the stronger choice for throughput-oriented tasks. It wins the majority of head-to-head comparisons, including data compression, encryption, integer math, floating point math, physics, and multithread workloads. Its 14 cores and 20 threads provide a measurable advantage in parallel processing, as shown by its 25.8% lead in data encryption and 19.5% lead in data compression. For users running heavily threaded applications, the Core i5-14500's benchmark results are consistently higher.
The Intel Core 5 213PE is the stronger choice for per-core performance and newer Cinebench workloads. Its 65.5% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 49.7% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core are the largest margins in either direction across the entire comparison. Its higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz and larger L2 cache per core likely contribute to these results. It also wins PassMark single-thread and Cinebench R15 single-core.
The average benchmark score favors the Core i5-14500 (38531 vs 35428), and it sits in the 86th percentile versus the 85th percentile for the Core 5 213PE. The Core i5-14500's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T with a delta of -0.1%, while the Core 5 213PE's nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-13700T with a delta of 0.1%. These percentile and rival comparisons confirm that the Core i5-14500 has a slightly higher overall standing in the database.
For users prioritizing single-thread responsiveness, newer benchmark performance, and a higher boost clock, the Intel Core 5 213PE is the data-backed pick. For users prioritizing multi-threaded throughput, encryption, compression, and math-heavy workloads, the Intel Core i5-14500 is the data-backed pick. Both are active production parts on the same socket, so platform compatibility does not differentiate them.