Intel Core 5 213PE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor delivers the higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX dominates multi-core workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 40,642 versus the Core 5 213PE's 22,468, a 44.7% advantage. Its PassMark multithread score of 47,985 is 44.9% higher than the 213PE's 26,434.

Q: How big is the single-core gap between these two CPUs?

A: The Ultra 7 265HX leads in single-core tests by 9.8% in PassMark single thread (4,500 vs 4,060) and by 44.7% in Cinebench R23 single-core (5,737 vs 3,172). The Cinebench gap is much larger than the PassMark gap.

Q: Are there any workloads where the Core 5 213PE wins?

A: No. Across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the Ultra 7 265HX wins every single test. The Core 5 213PE records zero wins, while the Ultra 7 265HX secures all 17.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two processors?

A: The Ultra 7 265HX supports 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the Core 5 213PE supports 76.8 GB/s. This represents a 33% higher theoretical bandwidth for the Ultra 7.

Q: How do the two CPUs differ in core and thread counts?

A: The Core 5 213PE has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ultra 7 265HX has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Ultra 7 has 2.5 times the core count but fewer threads per core (1 thread per core versus 2).

Q: What is the difference in their average benchmark scores and overall percentile rankings?

A: The Ultra 7 265HX has an average benchmark score of 63,173 and sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 213PE averages 35,428 and ranks in the 85th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different Intel architectures. The Core 5 213PE uses the Bartlett Lake design, built on Intel's 10 nm process node and manufactured by Intel's own foundry. The Ultra 7 265HX uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-HX variant, built on a 3 nm process node and manufactured by TSMC. This process node difference is substantial: 3 nm versus 10 nm represents a major generational leap in transistor density.

The Ultra 7 265HX carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 5 213PE's transistor count and die size are not specified in the database. The Ultra 7's cache hierarchy is also larger at every level: 192 KB L1 per core versus 80 KB, 3 MB L2 per core versus 2 MB, and 30 MB shared L3 versus 24 MB shared L3.

The Ultra 7 265HX belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 family, while the Core 5 213PE has no series designation. Their market segments differ as well: the Core 5 213PE is a desktop part, while the Ultra 7 265HX is a mobile processor. This explains the socket difference: the Core 5 uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 7 uses Intel BGA 2114.

Memory support differs significantly. The Core 5 213PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 7 265HX supports DDR5 only. The Ultra 7 also features ECC memory support is absent, while the Core 5 does support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Core 5 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Ultra 7 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

The integrated graphics solutions are different tiers. The Core 5 213PE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 7 265HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, a more capable integrated GPU. The Ultra 7 265HX has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 5 213PE does not.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a complete sweep. The Ultra 7 265HX wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, making any "each one wins" split impossible to construct from the data. The Core 5 213PE does not win a single benchmark category.

For workloads where the Ultra 7 265HX shows its largest advantages, the list includes encryption, prime number finding, and floating point math. The data encryption score of 39,472 is 59.7% higher than the Core 5's 15,916. Find prime numbers shows a 71.9% gap (406 vs 114). Floating point math delivers a 57.6% advantage (161,605 vs 68,587).

The smallest advantage for the Ultra 7 appears in single-threaded PassMark testing, where it leads by only 9.8% (4,500 vs 4,060). This means the Core 5 213PE is comparatively closest to the Ultra 7 in lightly threaded integer work, though still behind.

The Ultra 7's leadership in Cinebench multi-core tests is consistent, with every Cinebench multi-core test showing a 44.7% gap. This suggests the core count and architecture advantages translate directly into sustained multi-threaded rendering performance.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 213PE | Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX |

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

| Cores | 8 | 20 |

| Threads | 16 | 20 |

| Base clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.60 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.20 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 55 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2114 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-HX |

| 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) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 24 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

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

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

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

| Launch MSRP | $221 | Not specified |

The base clocks are nearly identical (2.70 GHz vs 2.60 GHz), and boost clocks are close (5.20 GHz vs 5.30 GHz). The Ultra 7 has a lower TDP of 55 W compared to the Core 5's 65 W, despite having 20 cores versus 8. This efficiency gap likely stems from the 3 nm process node advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the database is the consistency of the Ultra 7 265HX's dominance. Every single one of the 17 benchmark comparisons shows the Ultra 7 winning, with deltas ranging from 9.8% to 71.9%.

In Cinebench R15, the Ultra 7 scores 4,096 multi-core versus 2,264 for the Core 5, a 44.7% gap. Single-core shows 578 versus 319, a 44.8% gap. Cinebench R20 repeats the pattern: 17,069 versus 9,436 multi-core and 2,409 versus 1,332 single-core, both at 44.7% gaps. Cinebench R23 multi-core delivers 40,642 versus 22,468, again a 44.7% gap, with single-core at 5,737 versus 3,172.

The PassMark suite reveals where the architectural differences matter most. Data encryption shows the second-largest gap at 59.7% (39,472 vs 15,916). Floating point math is 57.6% ahead (161,605 vs 68,587). Extended instructions run 52% ahead (40,741 vs 19,565). Random string sorting is 48.7% ahead (62,458 vs 32,027). Physics tests show 45.5% (2,978 vs 1,624), and multithread is 44.9% ahead (47,985 vs 26,434).

The largest single gap is in find prime numbers, where the Ultra 7 scores 406 versus the Core 5's 114, a 71.9% difference. This workload appears to benefit enormously from the Ultra 7's core count and architecture.

The smallest gap is PassMark single thread at 9.8% (4,500 vs 4,060). Integer math shows a 27.5% gap (126,954 vs 92,089), and data compression shows 41.6% (511,817 vs 298,804). These closer results suggest the Core 5 213PE remains competitive in integer-heavy single-threaded tasks, even though it still loses.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX is the superior processor in every measured benchmark category. It wins all 17 head-to-head tests, achieves a 93rd percentile ranking versus the Core 5's 85th, and averages 63,173 in benchmark scores compared to 35,428.

For builders choosing between these two, the decision hinges on platform requirements. The Core 5 213PE is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700 with a launch MSRP of $221. It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, includes ECC support, and offers a capable integrated GPU in the UHD Graphics 730. The Ultra 7 265HX is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 2114, uses DDR5 only, lacks ECC support, and provides the more capable Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

The Ultra 7 265HX also offers an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking, while the Core 5 213PE is locked. The Ultra 7 uses less power (55 W TDP versus 65 W) while delivering dramatically higher performance, a result of the 3 nm process node versus 10 nm.

The Core 5 213PE released later (2026-03-08 versus 2025-01-12), but the earlier release of the Ultra 7 does not diminish its benchmark leadership. The database shows no scenario where the Core 5 wins, so any selection of the Core 5 must be justified by platform constraints rather than performance expectations.

The nearest rival data reinforces the positioning. The Core 5 213PE sits within 0.4% of the Intel Core i7-12700K and similar desktop parts, placing it in established mid-range desktop territory. The Ultra 7 265HX sits within 0.7% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX and other high-end mobile parts, placing it in the upper tier of mobile computing.

For desktop builders needing a Socket 1700 part with DDR4 compatibility and ECC support, the Core 5 213PE fits that specific niche. For anyone prioritizing raw performance in multi-threaded workloads, encryption, floating point math, or rendering, the Ultra 7 265HX is the clear choice from the recorded data. The 44.7% multi-core Cinebench advantage and 71.9% prime number advantage leave no ambiguity about which processor delivers more compute capability.