Intel Core 5 213PE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner: the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H takes 14 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core 5 213PE wins only 3. The most lopsided results come from the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 7 366H scores 326 against 114 for the Core 5 213PE, a 65% advantage. The physics test shows a similar gap, with the Ultra 7 366H at 2880 versus 1624, a 43.6% lead.

Across the Cinebench suite, the Ultra 7 366H consistently delivers roughly 21% higher scores. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it posts 28477 against 22468, and in single-core it reaches 4020 versus 3172. The pattern holds for R20 multicore (11960 vs 9436), R20 single-core (1688 vs 1332), R15 multicore (2870 vs 2264), and R15 single-core (405 vs 319). Every one of these six results shows a delta of approximately 21.1% in favor of the Ultra 7 366H.

The Ultra 7 366H also dominates in data encryption, scoring 25845 against 15916, a 38.4% margin. Floating point math goes to the Ultra 7 366H by 33.8%, with scores of 103615 and 68587. Extended instructions favor the Ultra 7 366H by 27.3%, and multithread performance shows a 20.9% gap in its favor. Random string sorting is 19.6% faster on the Ultra 7 366H, and data compression is 8.7% ahead.

The Intel Core 5 213PE has two clear wins. PassMark integer math shows it at 92089 versus 83695, a 10% advantage. The single-thread PassMark results are nearly identical, with the Core 5 213PE at 4060 and the Ultra 7 366H at 4043, a 0.4% edge. That single-thread result appears twice in the data (as passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread), so it counts as one meaningful win.

Interpreting the average benchmark scores, the Ultra 7 366H sits at 41263 with an 87th percentile ranking among all CPUs. The Core 5 213PE averages 35428, placing it in the 85th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 5 213PE are the Intel Core i7-13700T (avg 35403, delta 0.1%), Intel Core i7-12700KF (avg 35365, delta 0.2%), Intel Core i5-13600T (avg 35305, delta 0.3%), and Intel Core i7-12700K (avg 35287, delta 0.4%). For the Ultra 7 366H, the closest competitors include the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (avg 41215, delta 0.1%), AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (avg 41208, delta 0.1%), AMD Ryzen 9 5900X (avg 41376, delta -0.3%), and Intel Core Ultra X7 358H (avg 40967, delta 0.7%). The data places the Ultra 7 366H in a slightly higher performance tier, roughly 16.5% above the Core 5 213PE on average.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families with fundamentally different designs. The Intel Core 5 213PE is a desktop part codenamed Bartlett Lake, built on a 10 nm process. It uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform and belongs to the Core 5 generation. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is a mobile processor from the Panther Lake architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm node. It uses Intel BGA 2540 and carries the Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H) designation within the Core Ultra Series 3.

Core counts differ sharply. The Core 5 213PE has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ultra 7 366H packs 16 cores but also 16 threads. This indicates the Ultra 7 366H likely uses efficiency cores without hyperthreading, whereas the Core 5 213PE relies on a smaller number of cores with two threads each. Clock speeds tell a different story: the Core 5 213PE has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the Ultra 7 366H starts lower at 2.00 GHz and boosts to 4.80 GHz. Despite the lower clocks, the Ultra 7 366H still wins nearly every benchmark.

Cache organization also differs. The Core 5 213PE provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 366H has larger per-core caches at 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2, but a smaller 18 MB shared L3. The power envelope is a major differentiator: the Core 5 213PE has a 65 W TDP, while the Ultra 7 366H draws only 25 W. That threefold efficiency gap explains the mobile versus desktop positioning.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 5 213PE supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel configuration with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory. The Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with higher bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s and no ECC. PCIe connectivity differs slightly: the Core 5 213PE offers Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 7 366H provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are the UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 5 213PE versus Intel Xe3 Graphics on the Ultra 7 366H.

Release timing places the Ultra 7 366H earlier, with a release date in January 2026, while the Core 5 213PE arrived in March 2026. The Core 5 213PE carries a launch MSRP of $221; the Ultra 7 366H has no listed launch MSRP. Both processors are active production parts with locked multipliers.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H as the stronger performer across nearly all workloads. It wins 14 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, holds a higher average score (41263 vs 35428), and ranks in the 87th percentile versus the 85th for the Core 5 213PE. The margins are substantial in several tests: 65% in prime number finding, 43.6% in physics, 38.4% in encryption, and 33.8% in floating point math.

The Core 5 213PE does not lack merit. It wins integer math by 10% and edges out the Ultra 7 366H in single-thread PassMark by 0.4%. Its higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz versus 4.80 GHz likely contributes to that single-thread result. For builders targeting the Intel Socket 1700 platform with DDR4 or DDR5 memory and ECC support, the Core 5 213PE offers a desktop-oriented feature set.

The Ultra 7 366H, however, delivers superior results while consuming 25 W against 65 W, making it the sensible choice for mobile systems. Its 16 cores, larger per-core caches, 3 nm process, and higher memory bandwidth all support its benchmark dominance. The data does not show any workload category where the Core 5 213PE wins by a large margin; its two meaningful wins are modest or narrow.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 213PE | Intel Core Ultra 7 366H |

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

| Cores | 8 | 16 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Base clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.20 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Bartlett Lake | Panther Lake |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| 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) | 18 MB (shared) |

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

| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe lanes | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 12 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release date | 2026-03-08 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | None listed |

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores, double the 8 cores of the Intel Core 5 213PE. Both have 16 threads.

Q: Is the Intel Core 5 213PE better at any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins PassMark integer math with 92089 versus 83695, a 10% advantage, and it edges out the Ultra 7 366H in PassMark single-thread at 4060 versus 4043, a 0.4% lead.

Q: Why does the Ultra 7 366H win despite a lower boost clock?

A: The Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores, larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, a 3 nm process, and higher memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s. These factors compensate for its 4.80 GHz boost clock versus the 5.20 GHz on the Core 5 213PE.

Q: Can the Core 5 213PE use ECC memory?

A: Yes, ECC memory support is listed for the Core 5 213PE. The Ultra 7 366H does not support ECC.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Ultra 7 366H provides 115.2 GB/s, while the Core 5 213PE provides 76.8 GB/s. The Ultra 7 366H also supports LPDDR5X in addition to DDR5.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Ultra 7 366H averages 41263 across all benchmark tests, compared to 35428 for the Core 5 213PE. The Ultra 7 366H ranks in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, the Core 5 213PE in the 85th.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins in every multi-threaded content creation scenario represented by the Cinebench suite. Its R23 multicore score of 28477 versus 22468, and R20 multicore of 11960 versus 9436, indicate strong rendering and video encoding performance. The physics test result, 2880 versus 1624, points to better simulation and game physics workloads. Data compression (327455 vs 298804) and encryption (25845 vs 15916) also favor the Ultra 7 366H, making it the stronger choice for file archiving and secure data handling.

The Ultra 7 366H also leads in floating point math (103615 vs 68587), which matters for scientific computing, 3D rendering, and audio processing. Extended instructions (26901 vs 19565) and random string sorting (39814 vs 32027) round out its dominance. For any workload that scales across many cores or benefits from the 3 nm process and larger per-core caches, the Ultra 7 366H is the clear pick.

The Intel Core 5 213PE wins in integer math, a category that includes general arithmetic, logic operations, and some database and scripting workloads. Its 92089 score versus 83695 gives it a 10% edge. The single-thread PassMark result, 4060 versus 4043, is so close that it offers no practical advantage, but it does indicate the Core 5 213PE can match the Ultra 7 366H in lightly threaded tasks despite older architecture.

Desktop builders who need ECC memory support, DDR4 compatibility, or the Intel Socket 1700 platform will find the Core 5 213PE useful. Its 65 W TDP and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes suit a conventional desktop build. The Ultra 7 366H, with its 25 W TDP and mobile BGA 2540 socket, belongs in laptops and compact mobile workstations where power efficiency matters as much as raw performance. The benchmark data shows the Ultra 7 366H delivers higher performance across the board while using less than half the power budget.