Intel Core 5 213PE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 228V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a decisive overall result: the Intel Core 5 213PE wins 16 of the 17 recorded benchmarks, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V takes a single win. The magnitude of the victory varies dramatically by workload, ranging from a narrow 5.6% margin to a 132.1% blowout.

The largest single margin comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core 5 213PE scores 22468 against 9932 for the Core Ultra 5 228V. That is a 126.2% advantage, more than doubling the mobile chip's output. PassMark integer math tells a similar story: 92089 versus 39679, a 132.1% lead. These are the two most extreme gaps in the comparison, and both point to the Core 5 213PE's strength in heavily parallel integer workloads.

The Core 5 213PE also holds a commanding lead in Cinebench R20 single-core, scoring 1332 versus 916, a 45.4% advantage. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3172 beats the Ultra 5 228V's 1758 by 80.4%. The R15 single-core gap is smaller but still substantial at 19.5% (319 versus 267). PassMark single-thread results narrow the picture further: 4060 versus 3836, only a 5.8% difference. This suggests the single-core gap shrinks as the test becomes more representative of everyday short bursts.

Multi-core Cinebench results are consistently lopsided. R15 multi-core shows 2264 versus 1502.5, a 50.7% lead. R20 multi-core shows 9436 versus 6491, a 45.4% lead. The R23 multi-core gap, however, balloons to 126.2%, indicating the Core 5 213PE scales better as the render workload extends over a longer period. PassMark multi-thread scores confirm the trend: 26434 versus 18227, a 45% advantage.

Memory-sensitive workloads follow the same pattern. PassMark data compression shows 298804 versus 173924, a 71.8% lead for the Core 5 213PE. Random string sorting, another memory-heavy test, shows 32027 versus 21254, a 50.7% margin. Data encryption favors the Core 5 213PE by 22.1% (15916 versus 13032), and extended instructions by 32.2% (19565 versus 14801). Floating point math shows a 28.7% gap (68587 versus 53310).

The single win for the Core Ultra 5 228V comes in PassMark find prime numbers. It scores 168 versus 114, a 32.1% advantage. This is a notable outlier because it is the only benchmark where the mobile chip's architecture produces a faster result, and it is a pure computational test rather than a memory or cache-dependent one. The physics test is the closest overall contest, with the Core 5 213PE winning 1624 versus 1538, just 5.6% ahead.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 213PE dominates across nearly every category, but the size of its wins varies. Its largest advantages appear in multi-core rendering and integer math, where its 16 threads provide a clear scaling benefit over the 8 threads of the Core Ultra 5 228V. The 126.2% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and the 132.1% lead in PassMark integer math are the standout results. These workloads reward sustained parallel execution, and the Core 5 213PE's thread count and higher boost clock deliver that.

The Core 5 213PE also shows strong results in data compression and string sorting, with margins of 71.8% and 50.7% respectively. These tests often depend on cache capacity and memory bandwidth, and the Core 5 213PE's larger L3 cache (24 MB shared versus 8 MB shared) likely contributes. Its memory bandwidth rating of 76.8 GB/s, recorded in the database, further supports its advantage in data-intensive tasks.

The Core Ultra 5 228V wins only the prime number test, and it does so by a meaningful 32.1%. This test involves repeated modular arithmetic and typically benefits from efficient integer pipelines and low latency. The Lunar Lake architecture's per-core L1 cache of 192 KB, compared to 80 KB per core on the Core 5 213PE, may help in this specific workload. The Core Ultra 5 228V also comes closer in single-thread tests, with a 5.8% gap in PassMark single-thread and a 5.6% gap in physics, suggesting its individual cores are competitive when the workload does not scale across threads.

The practical split is clear: for rendering, compression, encryption, and general multi-threaded computation, the Core 5 213PE is the stronger part by margins that often exceed 50%. For a narrow set of integer-loop tasks and lightly threaded operations, the Core Ultra 5 228V holds its ground, but it does not overtake the Core 5 213PE outside that single test.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge sharply in their underlying designs. The Core 5 213PE uses Bartlett Lake on a 10 nm process from Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 228V uses Lunar Lake on a 3 nm process from TSMC. This process difference explains some of the power and efficiency characteristics, though the benchmark data focuses on performance rather than power draw.

Core and thread counts differ fundamentally. The Core 5 213PE has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 228V has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Core 5 213PE thus offers simultaneous multithreading, which directly contributes to its large multi-core margins. The Core Ultra 5 228V lacks this feature, and its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 9932 is less than half of the Core 5 213PE's 22468.

Clock speeds also favor the Core 5 213PE. Its base clock is 2.70 GHz and boost clock is 5.20 GHz, compared to 2.10 GHz and 4.50 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 228V. The higher boost clock gives the Core 5 213PE an edge in single-thread performance, although the measured single-thread gap is smaller than the clock difference might suggest, likely due to architectural efficiency in the Lunar Lake design.

Cache hierarchies are substantially different. The Core 5 213PE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 228V has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 8 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 228V's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches help its prime number test performance, while the Core 5 213PE's larger L3 helps in compression and sorting workloads that benefit from a bigger shared pool.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 5 213PE supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a recorded bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 228V's memory support is listed as motherboard-dependent, with no bandwidth figure recorded. The Core 5 213PE also supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 5 228V does not. PCIe lanes differ: the Core 5 213PE provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 228V provides Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ in naming and likely capability. The Core 5 213PE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 228V uses Arc 130V. The database records no direct graphics benchmarks, so performance conclusions cannot be drawn from the recorded data. The socket and market segment also differ: the Core 5 213PE uses Intel Socket 1700 and targets the desktop segment, while the Core Ultra 5 228V uses Intel BGA 2833 and targets mobile. The Core 5 213PE has a TDP of 65, while the Core Ultra 5 228V has a TDP of 17, reflecting their different intended platforms.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE scores 22468 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V scores 9932. The Core 5 213PE leads by 126.2% in this test.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins PassMark find prime numbers with a score of 168 versus 114 for the Core 5 213PE, a 32.1% advantage. This is the only benchmark win for the Ultra 5 228V out of 17 recorded tests.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-thread performance?

A: The Core 5 213PE leads in all recorded single-thread tests. PassMark single-thread shows 4060 versus 3836, a 5.8% gap. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 3172 versus 1758, an 80.4% gap.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Core 5 213PE has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 5 228V also has 8 cores but only 8 threads, lacking simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The Core 5 213PE uses a 10 nm process from Intel. The Core Ultra 5 228V uses a 3 nm process from TSMC.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core 5 213PE wins 16 of 17 benchmarks, with an average benchmark score of 35428 versus 21440 for the Core Ultra 5 228V. The Core 5 213PE's percentile rank among all CPUs is 85, compared to 75 for the Core Ultra 5 228V. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-13700T with an average score of 35403, a 0.1% delta, and the Intel Core i7-12700KF at 35365, a 0.2% delta. The Core Ultra 5 228V, by contrast, sits near the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 at 21484, a 0.2% delta, and the Intel Core i9-11900H at 21367, a 0.3% delta.

For desktop workloads involving rendering, compression, encryption, or heavy multi-threaded computation, the Core 5 213PE is the stronger part. Its 16 threads, higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz, 24 MB of shared L3 cache, and 76.8 GB/s memory bandwidth all support this conclusion. The Core Ultra 5 228V targets a different use case: mobile platforms with a TDP of 17, fewer PCIe lanes, and a smaller L3 cache. Its single win in prime number testing and competitive single-thread scores (within 5.8% in PassMark) show that its Lunar Lake architecture has efficiency advantages, but those do not translate into broader benchmark victories.

The choice depends on the platform and workload. The Core 5 213PE is a desktop part on Socket 1700 with DDR4/DDR5 support and ECC capability. The Core Ultra 5 228V is a mobile part on BGA 2833 with motherboard-dependent memory and no ECC. For users building a desktop system, the data favors the Core 5 213PE. For a mobile system where the integrated Arc 130V graphics might matter, the Core Ultra 5 228V is the only option in this comparison, but the benchmark data cannot evaluate graphics performance. The processing advantage, based on all recorded CPU tests, belongs to the Core 5 213PE.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 213PE | Intel Core Ultra 5 228V |

|----------------|--------------------|-------------------------|

| Cores | 8 | 8 |

| Threads | 16 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.20 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| TDP | 65 | 17 |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2833 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Lunar Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | Motherboard-dependent |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | Not recorded |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc 130V |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2026-03-08 | 2024-09-23 |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | Not recorded |

| Part Number | SA4QG | SRPMVSRPMU |

The average benchmark scores reinforce the performance split: 35428 for the Core 5 213PE versus 21440 for the Core Ultra 5 228V. The Core 5 213PE is also unlocked in the sense of having a higher percentile rank (85 versus 75) and sits closer to its nearest rivals in average score, all within 0.4% delta. The Core Ultra 5 228V's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9454 at a 1% delta, showing a wider competitive spread at its lower performance level.