Intel Core 5 213PE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Intel Core 5 213PE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285: the data shows a decisive performance gap, with the Core Ultra 9 winning all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The Core 5 213PE is a capable 8-core desktop part, but the Core Ultra 9 285 operates in a different class, delivering roughly double the multi-threaded throughput and significantly higher single-thread scores. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, architectural differences, and practical use cases based solely on the recorded measurements.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every single comparison, with deltas ranging from -16.8% to -75.2% relative to the Core 5 213PE. The smallest gap appears in single-thread tests, while the largest gaps appear in specific compute workloads.

In Cinebench R23, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945 in multi-core versus 22,468 for the Core 5 213PE, a delta of -54.1%. The single-core R23 result shows 6,909 against 3,172, also -54.1%. This pattern repeats across all Cinebench versions: R15 multi-core (4,933 vs 2,264), R15 single-core (696 vs 319), R20 multi-core (20,556 vs 9,436), and R20 single-core (2,901 vs 1,332). Every Cinebench delta sits at -54.1% or -54.2%, indicating a consistent scaling advantage for the Core Ultra 9.

PassMark results show more variation. The largest deficit for the Core 5 213PE appears in the find prime numbers test: 114 versus 459, a delta of -75.2%. Data encryption shows a -66.1% gap (15,916 vs 46,949), and floating point math shows -64.8% (68,587 vs 194,988). Integer math has the smallest multi-threaded gap at -44.1% (92,089 vs 164,869). Data compression is close behind at -50.4% (298,804 vs 602,121).

The single-thread PassMark score is the closest overall result: 4,060 versus 4,881, a delta of -16.8%. This suggests that while the Core Ultra 9 has a substantial lead in raw single-core performance, the gap is much narrower than in multi-threaded or specialized workloads. Extended instructions (-56.9%), random string sorting (-56.5%), physics (-54.9%), and multithread (-53.3%) all fall in the -50% to -60% range.

The average benchmark score reinforces the hierarchy: the Core Ultra 9 285 averages 75,488, while the Core 5 213PE averages 35,428. The Core Ultra 9 sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 sits at the 85th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 5 213PE are the Intel Core i7-13700T (35,403, +0.1%), Intel Core i7-12700KF (35,365, +0.2%), Intel Core i5-13600T (35,305, +0.3%), and Intel Core i7-12700K (35,287, +0.4%). The Core Ultra 9 285 sits alongside AMD EPYC 8224P (75,582, -0.1%), AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D (75,716, -0.3%), and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 (75,738, -0.3%).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families and use fundamentally different silicon. The Core 5 213PE is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry, using the Bartlett Lake codename. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses a 3 nm process fabricated by TSMC, under the Arrow Lake-S codename and Arrow Lake architecture. This process difference is a major factor in the performance gap.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 5 213PE has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Core Ultra 9 does not use hyperthreading, so its thread count equals its core count. The Core 5 relies on simultaneous multithreading to reach 16 threads from 8 cores.

Cache hierarchies are also different. The Core 5 213PE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The larger L3 cache on the Core Ultra 9 is shared across more cores, which supports its higher multi-threaded throughput.

The transistor count and die size differ as well. The Core Ultra 9 285 contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 5 213PE has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database, indicating it may use a smaller or less complex die.

Memory support also differs. The Core 5 213PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 285 supports only DDR5. Both have dual-channel memory buses, but the Core Ultra 9 delivers 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe lanes differ: the Core 5 213PE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 9 285 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 5 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 9 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

The socket changes between the two. The Core 5 213PE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851. This means they are not interchangeable in a motherboard.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows no wins for the Core 5 213PE in any recorded benchmark. The Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 tests. However, the magnitude of the win varies by workload, which gives some insight into where the Core 5 is relatively stronger.

The Core 5 213PE comes closest in single-threaded PassMark performance, with a -16.8% delta. This indicates that for lightly threaded tasks, the Core 5 is competitive, though still behind. The Core Ultra 9's advantage grows substantially in multi-threaded and specialized workloads.

The largest gaps are in prime number finding (-75.2%), data encryption (-66.1%), and floating point math (-64.8%). These are compute-heavy workloads that benefit from the Core Ultra 9's higher core count and newer architecture. The Core 5 213PE is at its relative best in integer math (-44.1%) and single-thread tests.

For users running single-threaded applications, the Core 5 213PE is not far off, but the Core Ultra 9 still holds a clear lead. For multi-threaded rendering, compression, encryption, or physics simulations, the Core Ultra 9 is the stronger choice by a wide margin. The Core 5 213PE remains a viable desktop processor for everyday tasks, but it does not match the Core Ultra 9 in any measured category.

Specification Differences

The core specifications differ in several key areas:

• Cores: 8 (Core 5 213PE) vs 24 (Core Ultra 9 285)
• Threads: 16 vs 24
• Base clock: 2.70 GHz vs 2.50 GHz
• Boost clock: 5.20 GHz vs 5.60 GHz
• TDP: Both are 65 W
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 vs Intel Socket 1851
• Process node: 10 nm (Intel) vs 3 nm (TSMC)
• Codename: Bartlett Lake vs Arrow Lake-S
• Transistors: Not recorded vs 17,800 million
• Die size: Not recorded vs 243 mm²
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core vs 192 KB per core
• L2 cache: 2 MB per core vs 3 MB per core
• L3 cache: 24 MB shared vs 36 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 vs DDR5 only
• Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s vs 102.4 GB/s
• PCIe: Gen 5, 16 lanes vs Gen 5, 20 lanes
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 vs Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU
• Multiplier unlocked: Both are locked
• Market segment: Both are desktop
• Production status: Both are active
• Release date: 2026-03-08 vs 2024-12-31
• Launch MSRP: $221 vs $579

Both parts have the same TDP of 65 W, which is notable given the large performance difference. The Core 5 213PE has a higher base clock (2.70 GHz vs 2.50 GHz), but the Core Ultra 9 has a higher boost clock (5.60 GHz vs 5.20 GHz). Both support ECC memory and have locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores, while the Intel Core 5 213PE has 8 cores. The Core Ultra 9 also has 24 threads, while the Core 5 has 16 threads.

Q: What is the largest benchmark gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in the PassMark find prime numbers test. The Core Ultra 9 scores 459 versus 114 for the Core 5, a delta of -75.2%.

Q: Are the two processors socket-compatible?

A: No. The Core 5 213PE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Core 5 213PE and the Core Ultra 9 285 support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 has 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, compared to 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 213PE. The Core Ultra 9 also supports only DDR5, while the Core 5 supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: In the PassMark single-thread test, the Core Ultra 9 scores 4,881 versus 4,060 for the Core 5, a delta of -16.8%. This is the closest benchmark result between the two.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 for any workload that benefits from multiple cores or high compute throughput. It wins all 17 head-to-head benchmarks, with an average score of 75,488 versus 35,428 for the Core 5 213PE. The Core Ultra 9 sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 is at the 85th percentile. For multi-threaded rendering, compression, encryption, or physics workloads, the Core Ultra 9 delivers roughly double the performance or better.

The Core 5 213PE is not without merit. It has a higher base clock (2.70 GHz versus 2.50 GHz) and a lower launch MSRP ($221 versus $579). It also supports DDR4 memory, which could matter for builders reusing older memory kits. In single-threaded PassMark tests, the gap narrows to -16.8%, meaning the Core 5 is within striking distance for lightly threaded tasks.

However, the Core Ultra 9 285 uses a more advanced 3 nm TSMC process, has 24 cores versus 8, a larger L3 cache (36 MB versus 24 MB), and higher memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s). Its boost clock is also higher at 5.60 GHz versus 5.20 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 is the stronger processor in every recorded benchmark.

For users who need maximum compute performance in a desktop platform, the Core Ultra 9 285 is the clear choice. For users who prioritize lower platform cost, DDR4 compatibility, or a simpler 8-core layout, the Core 5 213PE remains a functional option, but it will not match the Core Ultra 9 in any measured workload. The data does not support a scenario where the Core 5 outperforms the Core Ultra 9.