Intel Core 5 213PE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 268V Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two processors into clearly different roles. The Intel Core 5 213PE wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, including every Cinebench test, all major PassMark workloads except one, and both single-thread measurements. Its dominance is especially pronounced in multi-core rendering and integer math, where it doubles or nearly doubles the Ultra 7 268V's results. The Intel Core Ultra 7 268V wins exactly one comparison, the PassMark find prime numbers test, with a score of 192 versus 114. That single victory points to a specific strength in prime-number generation workloads, but it stands alone against an otherwise comprehensive sweep.

The use-case split follows the market segments listed in the database. The Core 5 213PE is a desktop part with 16 threads, a 65 W TDP, and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Ultra 7 268V is a mobile part with 8 threads, a 17 W TDP, and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The data suggests the desktop chip is designed for sustained multi-threaded throughput, while the mobile chip targets efficiency and lighter workloads. The Core 5 213PE's 85th percentile ranking among all CPUs, compared to the Ultra 7 268V's 74th percentile, reinforces that the desktop part occupies a higher overall performance tier.

The average benchmark scores tell the same story. The Core 5 213PE averages 35428 across all recorded tests, while the Ultra 7 268V averages 20897. That is a gap of roughly 69.5% in the desktop part's favor. The nearest rivals for the Core 5 213PE are all desktop processors, including the Intel Core i7-13700T with an average score of 35403 and the Intel Core i7-12700K at 35287, each within 0.4% of the 213PE. The Ultra 7 268V's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE and the Intel Core Ultra 5 125U, showing it belongs to a different performance class entirely.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different foundries and nodes. The Core 5 213PE uses Intel's 10 nm process and is built by Intel, while the Ultra 7 268V uses a 3 nm process fabricated by TSMC. The codenames differ as well: Bartlett Lake for the desktop part, Lunar Lake for the mobile part. The Core 5 213PE belongs to the "Core 5 (Bartlett Lake)" generation, while the Ultra 7 268V is part of "Ultra 7 (Lunar Lake)" within the Core Ultra Series 2.

Core counts match at 8 cores each, but threading diverges. The Core 5 213PE supports 16 threads, indicating simultaneous multithreading, while the Ultra 7 268V supports only 8 threads, one per core. This explains much of the multi-core benchmark gap. The cache hierarchy also differs substantially. The Core 5 213PE has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 7 268V has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The desktop part carries twice the L3 capacity, which helps in workloads with large working sets.

Memory support and PCIe lanes separate the platforms further. The Core 5 213PE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth, plus ECC memory support. The Ultra 7 268V lists memory support as dependent on the motherboard, also dual-channel, but with no recorded bandwidth figure and no ECC support. PCIe connectivity favors the desktop chip with 16 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the mobile chip offers only 4 Gen 5 lanes. Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 5 213PE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 7 268V uses Arc 140V.

The socket and form factor reflect their intended systems. The Core 5 213PE uses Intel Socket 1700 and targets the desktop market. The Ultra 7 268V uses Intel BGA 2833, a soldered mobile package. The release dates place the Core 5 213PE later, listed as 2026-03-08, versus 2024-09-23 for the Ultra 7 268V. The Core 5 213PE has a launch MSRP of $221; the Ultra 7 268V has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the Core 5 213PE comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 22468 against 10653, a delta of 110.9%. That is more than double the mobile chip's output. The PassMark integer math test shows a similar magnitude, with 92089 versus 42669, a 115.8% advantage. These two results define the desktop part's character: heavily threaded integer work is its strongest territory.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 37% lead, with 9436 versus 6887. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 2264 versus 1616, a 40.1% lead. The pattern holds across PassMark's multi-thread test, where 26434 beats 19297 by 37%. Random string sorting favors the Core 5 213PE by 42.9%, with 32027 versus 22416. Data compression shows a 64.7% lead, 298804 versus 181443. Floating point math favors the desktop part by 19%, 68587 versus 57628. Extended instructions show a 27.7% lead, 19565 versus 15323.

Single-core results are closer but still favor the desktop chip. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 3172 versus 1921, a 65.1% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1332 versus 972, a 37% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 319 versus 293, an 8.9% lead. PassMark single-thread scores are nearly identical: 4060 versus 4051, a 0.2% lead. The PassMark physics test is the tightest margin of all, 1624 versus 1617, a 0.4% lead for the Core 5 213PE.

The Ultra 7 268V's only win is the PassMark find prime numbers test, scoring 192 versus 114. The delta of -40.6% indicates the Core 5 213PE trails by that margin. This is a notable inversion: despite losing nearly every other workload, the mobile chip demonstrates a clear advantage in prime-number generation. The result suggests architectural differences, possibly related to the larger per-core L1 cache of 192 KB, affect this specific algorithmic pattern. The Ultra 7 268V also has a lower base clock of 2.20 GHz versus 2.70 GHz, yet still wins this test, so clock speed alone does not explain the outcome.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: both have 8 cores, but the Core 5 213PE has 16 threads while the Ultra 7 268V has 8. Base clocks are 2.70 GHz versus 2.20 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.20 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. TDP differs sharply: 65 W for the desktop part versus 17 W for the mobile part. The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 2833.

Process and foundry differ: 10 nm Intel versus 3 nm TSMC. Cache sizes differ at every level: L1 is 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core, L2 is 2 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core, and L3 is 24 MB shared versus 12 MB shared. Memory support differs: DDR4 and DDR5 with ECC on the desktop part, motherboard-dependent memory without ECC on the mobile part. Memory bandwidth is recorded at 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 213PE, with no figure for the Ultra 7 268V. PCIe lanes differ: 16 Gen 5 lanes versus 4 Gen 5 lanes. Integrated graphics differ: UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc 140V. Market segment differs: desktop versus mobile. Release dates differ: 2026-03-08 versus 2024-09-23. The launch MSRP of $221 applies only to the Core 5 213PE.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE wins every multi-core benchmark in the database. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 22468 versus 10653, a 110.9% lead, and its PassMark multi-thread score is 26434 versus 19297, a 37% lead.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 7 268V win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins the PassMark find prime numbers test with a score of 192 versus 114, a 40.6% advantage over the Core 5 213PE.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: Both processors have 8 cores. The Core 5 213PE has 16 threads, while the Ultra 7 268V has 8 threads.

Q: What are the cache differences?

A: The Core 5 213PE has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 268V has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3.

Q: How do the power draws compare?

A: The Core 5 213PE has a TDP of 65 W, while the Ultra 7 268V has a TDP of 17 W.

Q: Which processor has the higher overall benchmark ranking?

A: The Core 5 213PE ranks in the 85th percentile among all CPUs, while the Ultra 7 268V ranks in the 74th percentile.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: The PassMark single-thread scores are nearly equal: 4060 for the Core 5 213PE versus 4051 for the Ultra 7 268V, a 0.2% lead. Cinebench single-core tests show larger gaps, with the Core 5 213PE leading by 8.9% in R15, 37% in R20, and 65.1% in R23.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core 5 213PE for anyone prioritizing raw compute throughput. It wins 16 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, holds the 85th percentile ranking, and delivers more than double the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of its rival. The 16 threads, 24 MB of L3 cache, and 5.20 GHz boost clock support sustained multi-threaded performance. Its nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Core i7-13700T, Intel Core i7-12700KF, Intel Core i5-13600T, and Intel Core i7-12700K, all within 0.4% of its average score, placing it in established desktop performance territory.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 268V serves a different purpose. Its 17 W TDP and mobile BGA package make it suited to power-constrained systems. It loses most benchmarks by wide margins, but its win in prime-number generation shows it is not universally slower. The larger per-core L1 cache of 192 KB and the 3 nm TSMC process give it architectural advantages that surface in specific workloads. Its nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE and the Intel Core Ultra 5 125U, confirm it competes in a lower performance tier despite its newer manufacturing node.

The choice depends on the workload. The Core 5 213PE is the stronger processor for rendering, integer math, data compression, and multi-threaded applications. The Ultra 7 268V offers efficiency and a single specialized win in prime-number generation, but the recorded data does not show any other area where it outperforms the desktop part. For desktop users with full-power cooling and a Socket 1700 platform, the Core 5 213PE is the clear performer. For mobile systems where 17 W power draw and a soldered BGA package are requirements, the Ultra 7 268V is the only one of the two that fits that physical and thermal envelope.