Intel Core 5 213PE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Core 5 213PE and the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H shows a clear split across workloads, with the Core Ultra 7 356H taking 13 of the 17 measured tests. The Core 5 213PE wins 4 tests, but the margins in its victories are substantial, particularly in single-core performance.

The most dramatic difference appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core 5 213PE scores 3172 against 2040 for the Core Ultra 7 356H, a 55.5% advantage. This is the largest delta in either direction across the entire benchmark suite. The Core 5 213PE also leads in Cinebench R23 multi-core with 22468 versus 18395, a 22.1% margin. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core 5 213PE wins by a narrower 5.3% (319 vs 303). PassMark integer math also favors the Core 5 213PE at 92089 against 83111, a 10.8% lead.

The Core Ultra 7 356H counters with strong multi-threaded results. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 3055 versus 2264, a 25.9% advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 12153 against 9436, a 22.4% lead, and Cinebench R20 single-core goes to the Core Ultra 7 356H at 1715 versus 1332, a 22.3% margin. PassMark multi-thread delivers 33978 for the Core Ultra 7 356H against 26434, a 22.2% difference.

The largest Core Ultra 7 356H win comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 327 versus 114, a 65.1% advantage. PassMark data encryption shows 26345 against 15916, a 39.6% lead. PassMark physics favors the Core Ultra 7 356H at 2895 versus 1624, a 43.9% margin. Floating point math goes to the Core Ultra 7 356H at 103128 versus 68587, a 33.5% lead. Extended instructions score 27898 against 19565, a 29.9% difference. Data compression shows 336177 versus 298804, an 11.1% lead, and random string sorting favors the Core Ultra 7 356H at 40990 versus 32027, a 21.9% margin.

PassMark single-thread is essentially a tie: 4072 for the Core Ultra 7 356H against 4060 for the Core 5 213PE, a 0.3% difference that falls within measurement noise. The average benchmark score tells a similar story: the Core Ultra 7 356H averages 41215, while the Core 5 213PE averages 35428. The percentile rankings place the Core Ultra 7 356H at the 87th percentile of all CPUs, with the Core 5 213PE at the 85th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Core 5 213PE uses the Bartlett Lake codename on the Intel Socket 1700 platform, built on a 10 nm process node. The Core Ultra 7 356H uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically the Panther Lake-H variant, on Intel BGA 2540, fabricated on a 3 nm process. The Core Ultra 7 356H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 family, while the Core 5 213PE has no series designation in the database.

Core counts differ significantly. The Core 5 213PE has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads. This means the Core Ultra 7 356H has twice the physical cores but the same thread count, indicating the Core 5 213PE uses hyper-threading while the Core Ultra 7 356H does not.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 5 213PE provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 356H provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 356H has more L1 and L2 per core, but less total L3.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 5 213PE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel access and a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Core Ultra 7 356H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the Core 5 213PE but not on the Core Ultra 7 356H.

PCIe configurations differ: the Core 5 213PE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Core Ultra 7 356H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes. Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 5 213PE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 7 356H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The Core 5 213PE is a desktop part, and the Core Ultra 7 356H is a mobile part.

Clock speeds show a notable trade-off. The Core 5 213PE has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 356H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The Core 5 213PE runs higher clocks at both ends, which helps explain its single-core dominance. TDP ratings reflect their different segments: the Core 5 213PE is rated at 65 W, while the Core Ultra 7 356H is rated at 25 W.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 213PE wins in scenarios that favor high single-thread performance. Its 55.5% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 5.3% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core indicate strength in lightly threaded applications. The 22.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core is notable, but it shares the multi-core picture with the Core Ultra 7 356H, which wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 25.9% and Cinebench R20 multi-core by 22.4%. The PassMark integer math win of 10.8% suggests an advantage in integer-heavy workloads.

The Core Ultra 7 356H wins across most other measured categories. Its 65.1% lead in prime number finding shows strong performance in scalar integer loops that benefit from more physical cores. The 43.9% lead in physics and 33.5% lead in floating point math point to advantages in simulation and scientific workloads. Data encryption at 39.6% ahead and extended instructions at 29.9% ahead indicate strengths in security and vectorized code. Data compression at 11.1% ahead and random string sorting at 21.9% ahead round out a broad set of wins.

The single-thread PassMark results are effectively tied at 4060 versus 4072, so users should not expect a meaningful difference in basic single-threaded responsiveness. The Core Ultra 7 356H holds a 16.0% advantage in average benchmark score (41215 versus 35428) and sits two percentile points higher (87th versus 85th).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. Core count: 8 for the Core 5 213PE, 16 for the Core Ultra 7 356H. Threads are equal at 16 each. Base clock: 2.70 GHz versus 1.90 GHz. Boost clock: 5.20 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. TDP: 65 W versus 25 W. Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 2540.

Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm. Codename: Bartlett Lake versus Panther Lake. Generation: Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) versus Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H). L1 cache per core: 80 KB versus 192 KB. L2 cache per core: 2 MB versus 2.5 MB. L3 cache shared: 24 MB versus 18 MB.

Memory support: DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. ECC memory: supported versus not supported. PCIe: Gen 5 with 16 lanes versus Gen 5 with 12 lanes. Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 versus Intel Xe3 Graphics. Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile. Release date: 2026-03-08 versus 2026-01-04. The Core 5 213PE has a launch MSRP of $221; the Core Ultra 7 356H has no launch MSRP recorded. Both parts have locked multipliers and both are active production parts.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, compared to 4.70 GHz for the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE scores 22468, which is 22.1% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H score of 18395.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 7 356H support ECC memory?

A: No. ECC memory is supported on the Intel Core 5 213PE but not on the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the Intel Core 5 213PE has 76.8 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores, while the Intel Core 5 213PE has 8 cores. Both have 16 threads.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE scores 3172 in Cinebench R23 single-core, a 55.5% lead over the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H score of 2040.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two processors with opposite strengths. The Intel Core 5 213PE delivers exceptional single-core performance, with a 55.5% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and a 22.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core. Its higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz and desktop-class 65 W TDP support this profile. Users running lightly threaded applications or workloads that depend on high clock speeds would see the largest benefit from this part.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H wins the broader set of benchmarks, taking 13 of 17 tests. Its 16 physical cores, 3 nm process, and higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s drive advantages in physics, floating point math, encryption, and data compression. The 65.1% lead in prime number finding and 43.9% lead in physics indicate strong multi-threaded throughput. The mobile segment designation and 25 W TDP make it suitable for systems where power efficiency matters.

The average benchmark score favors the Core Ultra 7 356H at 41215 versus 35428, and its 87th percentile ranking exceeds the 85th percentile of the Core 5 213PE. The Core 5 213PE nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-13700T at 0.1% delta, the Intel Core i7-12700KF at 0.2%, the Intel Core i5-13600T at 0.3%, and the Intel Core i7-12700K at 0.4%. The Core Ultra 7 356H sits near the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 at 0% delta, the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H at -0.1%, the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X at -0.4%, and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H at 0.6%.

Choose the Intel Core 5 213PE for single-core speed and high boost clocks. Choose the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H for multi-core throughput and a wider overall benchmark advantage. The data does not support one universal winner; the choice depends entirely on workload priorities.