Intel Core 5 213PE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between the Intel Core 5 213PE and the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H is sharply divided by workload type. The Core 5 213PE takes 7 wins, while the Core Ultra 7 255H takes 10. The Core 5 213PE dominates Cinebench rendering tests across all three versions, with particularly large margins in multi-core workloads. The Core Ultra 7 255H, by contrast, wins the majority of PassMark system-level tests, especially those involving encryption, prime number generation, floating-point math, and physics simulation.

For users running Cinebench-style rendering tasks, the Core 5 213PE is clearly the stronger choice. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22468 versus 9240 for the Core Ultra 7 255H represents a 143.2% advantage, the largest delta in the entire comparison. Single-core Cinebench R23 also favors the Core 5 213PE by 72.1%. The Core 5 213PE also wins integer math (92089 vs 77975, an 18.1% lead), which matters for general computation and productivity tasks that rely on integer operations.

The Core Ultra 7 255H, on the other hand, demonstrates superiority in several specialized and parallel workloads. Its PassMark data encryption score of 23395 beats the Core 5 213PE's 15916 by 32%. Floating-point math shows a 30.6% advantage (98796 vs 68587). Prime number finding is dramatically better at 303 versus 114, a 62.4% gap. Physics simulation also favors the Core Ultra 7 255H by 28% (2254 vs 1624). The Core Ultra 7 255H additionally wins PassMark multi-thread (30703 vs 26434), random string sorting, extended instructions, and single-thread tests, though the single-thread margin is modest at 6%.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and are built for different market segments. The Core 5 213PE is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700, using the Bartlett Lake codename with a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The Core Ultra 7 255H is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 2049, using the Arrow Lake-H codename with a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. This process difference is substantial: the Core Ultra 7 255H uses a much more advanced node, which helps explain its significantly lower TDP of 28 watts versus 65 watts for the Core 5 213PE.

Core and thread counts differ notably. The Core 5 213PE has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores but also 16 threads. This means the Core Ultra 7 255H does not use simultaneous multithreading; each of its 16 physical cores provides one thread. The Core 5 213PE uses hyperthreading to double its 8 physical cores into 16 threads. Despite having double the physical cores, the Core Ultra 7 255H produces lower multi-core Cinebench scores, indicating that its individual cores are less performant in those specific rendering workloads.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 5 213PE has 80 KB L1 per core and 2 MB L2 per core, while the Core Ultra 7 255H has 192 KB L1 per core and 3 MB L2 per core. Both share 24 MB L3. The Core Ultra 7 255H's larger per-core caches likely contribute to its wins in data encryption and floating-point math, where cache locality matters. The Core 5 213PE's boost clock reaches 5.20 GHz versus 5.10 GHz for the Core Ultra 7 255H, although base clocks are 2.70 GHz and 2.00 GHz respectively.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 5 213PE supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Core Ultra 7 255H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with dual-channel memory and a higher bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. The Core Ultra 7 255H also provides more PCIe lanes: 20 lanes of Gen 5 versus 16 lanes for the Core 5 213PE. Integrated graphics differ: UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 5 213PE versus Arc Graphics 140T on the Core Ultra 7 255H.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results heavily favor the Core 5 213PE. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 2264 against 1515, a 49.4% advantage. Single-core R15 shows a 27.1% lead (319 vs 251). Cinebench R20 multi-core yields 9436 versus 6381, a 47.9% delta, while single-core R20 shows a 48% gap (1332 vs 900). The most extreme result is Cinebench R23 multi-core: 22468 versus 9240, a 143.2% difference. Cinebench R23 single-core also strongly favors the Core 5 213PE at 3172 versus 1843, a 72.1% margin. These results indicate that the Core 5 213PE's architecture performs exceptionally well in rendering workloads, likely due to its higher boost clock and efficient core design for such tasks.

The PassMark results tell a different story. Data compression is essentially tied: 298804 for the Core 5 213PE versus 298850 for the Core Ultra 7 255H, with a delta of 0%. This is the closest result in the entire comparison. The Core Ultra 7 255H wins data encryption decisively at 23395 versus 15916, a 32% gap. Extended instructions favor the Core Ultra 7 255H by 17.6% (23755 vs 19565). Prime number finding shows the largest relative advantage for the Core Ultra 7 255H: 303 versus 114, a 62.4% difference. Floating-point math goes to the Core Ultra 7 255H at 98796 versus 68587, a 30.6% margin.

Integer math is a win for the Core 5 213PE at 92089 versus 77975, an 18.1% advantage. PassMark multi-thread favors the Core Ultra 7 255H at 30703 versus 26434, a 13.9% delta. Physics simulation goes to the Core Ultra 7 255H at 2254 versus 1624, a 28% lead. Random string sorting also favors the Core Ultra 7 255H at 36058 versus 32027, an 11.2% margin. Single-thread performance, recorded twice in the data, shows a 6% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 255H at 4317 versus 4060.

The overall average benchmark scores place the Core 5 213PE at 35428 with an 85th percentile ranking, while the Core Ultra 7 255H averages 33537 with an 83rd percentile ranking. The Core 5 213PE's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-13700T (0.1% ahead), Intel Core i7-12700KF (0.2% ahead), Intel Core i5-13600T (0.3% ahead), and Intel Core i7-12700K (0.4% ahead). The Core Ultra 7 255H's nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 5 240 (0% difference), AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS (0.4% higher), AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX (0.4% higher), and Intel Core i5-12600HX (0.5% lower).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE scores 22468, which is 143.2% higher than the Core Ultra 7 255H's 9240.

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

A: The Core Ultra 7 255H scores 4317, which is 6% higher than the Core 5 213PE's 4060.

Q: Which chip has the lower TDP?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has a TDP of 28 watts, compared to 65 watts for the Intel Core 5 213PE.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 5 213PE and the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H support ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Core Ultra 7 255H has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the Core 5 213PE has 76.8 GB/s.

Q: Which processor wins the PassMark data compression test?

A: The Core Ultra 7 255H scores 298850 versus 298804 for the Core 5 213PE, a delta of 0% and effectively a tie.

The Verdict

The data points to two distinct usage profiles. The Intel Core 5 213PE is the stronger processor for rendering and multi-core Cinebench workloads, offering massive advantages in R23 multi-core (143.2%) and R23 single-core (72.1%). It also leads in integer math, making it suitable for computation-heavy desktop tasks. Its 85th percentile ranking versus 83rd for the Core Ultra 7 255H, combined with a higher average benchmark score (35428 vs 33537), indicates that on aggregate it is the faster processor.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H, while trailing in aggregate, excels in specific areas that may matter for certain workloads. Its wins in data encryption (32% ahead), floating-point math (30.6% ahead), prime number finding (62.4% ahead), and physics simulation (28% ahead) suggest strengths in scientific computing, cryptography, and simulation tasks. Its higher memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s) and larger per-core caches (192 KB L1, 3 MB L2) support these results. Its dramatically lower TDP of 28 watts versus 65 watts makes it far more power-efficient, though it is a mobile part and cannot be directly substituted into a desktop socket.

For a desktop user prioritizing rendering performance and integer-heavy workloads, the Core 5 213PE is the clear choice based on the recorded benchmarks. For mobile applications or workloads dominated by floating-point math, encryption, and physics, the Core Ultra 7 255H demonstrates measurable advantages. The 16-core design of the Core Ultra 7 255H, despite matching thread counts with the 8-core Core 5 213PE, does not translate into multi-core Cinebench superiority, which indicates that core count alone does not determine rendering performance in this comparison.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 213PE | Intel Core Ultra 7 255H |

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

| Manufacturing process | 10 nm (Intel) | 3 nm (TSMC) |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2049 |

| Cores | 8 | 16 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Base clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.20 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 28 W |

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

| L2 cache | 2 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 24 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| PCIe lanes | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc Graphics 140T |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release date | 2026-03-08 | 2025-01-12 |

| Part number | SA4QG | SRQAN |