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

The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T is the clear performance leader in this comparison. The recorded data shows it wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with no wins for the Intel Core 5 213PE. The Core Ultra 9 285T sits at the 91st percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 213PE sits at the 85th percentile. Its average benchmark score of 51310 places it 44.8% above the Core 5 213PE's average of 35428.

The Core Ultra 9 285T is for users who need maximum throughput in threaded workloads, data encryption, and physics simulations. Its 24 cores and higher boost clock deliver decisive advantages across every measured test. The Core 5 213PE, with its 8 cores and 16 threads, remains a competent desktop processor for single-threaded tasks where its 5.20 GHz boost clock keeps it competitive, but the data shows it cannot match the Ultra 9 in any category.

The Core 5 213PE finds its place in systems where the smaller core count and lower platform requirements matter. It uses the older Intel Socket 1700 platform, supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, and carries a launch MSRP of $221. The Core Ultra 9 285T uses Intel Socket 1851, supports only DDR5, and carries a launch MSRP of $549. The performance gap is substantial, but the platform cost difference is also substantial. Buyers on the older socket get a functional processor; buyers on the newer socket get a dominant one.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design generations and manufacturing processes. The Core 5 213PE uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm Intel process node, with the generation listed as Core 5 (Bartlett Lake). The Core Ultra 9 285T uses the Arrow Lake-S codename on a 3 nm TSMC process node, with the generation listed as Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake).

The transistor counts differ enormously. The database records 17,800 million transistors for the Core Ultra 9 285T on a 243 mm² die, while no transistor count or die size is listed for the Core 5 213PE. The Core Ultra 9 285T also belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 family, a distinction the Core 5 213PE does not carry.

Core and thread configurations diverge sharply. The Core 5 213PE has 8 cores and 16 threads, indicating hyper-threading support. The Core Ultra 9 285T has 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning it does not use simultaneous multithreading; each core provides one thread. The base clock of the Core 5 213PE is 2.70 GHz versus 1.40 GHz for the Core Ultra 9 285T, but the boost clock favors the Ultra 9 at 5.40 GHz versus 5.20 GHz.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 5 213PE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 285T has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core caches and bigger shared pool give the Ultra 9 an advantage in data-heavy workloads.

Memory support separates the platforms. The Core 5 213PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 285T supports only DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the recorded bandwidth differs: 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 213PE versus 102.4 GB/s for the Core Ultra 9 285T. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs, with the Core 5 213PE providing Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes and the Core Ultra 9 285T providing Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 213PE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 9 285T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Both are desktop-market parts, both are actively in production, and both have locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data records no wins for the Core 5 213PE across any of the 17 tests. The Core Ultra 9 285T wins every single comparison. However, the magnitude of the wins varies considerably by workload type, which informs where each processor is most usable.

The Core Ultra 9 285T shows its largest advantages in passmark_find_prime_numbers, where it scores 345 versus 114, a delta of 67%. This workload is heavily dependent on raw core count and integer throughput. Data encryption shows a 50.4% advantage (32061 versus 15916), and floating-point math shows a 50.3% advantage (137923 versus 68587). These are all highly parallel workloads where the 24-core configuration dominates.

The smallest advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285T appears in passmark_single_thread, where it scores 4576 versus 4060, a delta of 11.3%. This shows that in purely single-threaded execution, the Core 5 213PE is relatively close, thanks to its high 5.20 GHz boost clock. The Core 5 213PE is less disadvantaged in single-threaded scenarios than in multi-threaded ones, even though it still loses.

For the Core 5 213PE, the practical use case is legacy platform integration. It supports DDR4 memory, which the Ultra 9 does not, so builders with existing DDR4 kits can use this processor on Intel Socket 1700 without a memory upgrade. Its 65 W TDP is higher than the Ultra 9's 35 W, but it also uses a more established socket with broader motherboard availability. The data does not show any benchmark where the Core 5 213PE wins, but its lower platform entry cost and DDR4 support are structural advantages not captured in raw scores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 5 213PE has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the single-threaded performance difference?

A: In passmark_single_thread, the Core Ultra 9 285T scores 4576 versus 4060 for the Core 5 213PE, a delta of 11.3%. In cinebench_r23_singlecore, the Ultra 9 scores 4739 versus 3172, a delta of 33.1%.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

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

Q: Which processor supports DDR4?

A: Only the Core 5 213PE supports DDR4. The Core Ultra 9 285T supports DDR5 exclusively.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds?

A: The Core 5 213PE has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 285T has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285T has an average benchmark score of 51310, while the Core 5 213PE has an average of 35428. The Ultra 9 sits at the 91st percentile of all CPUs, the Core 5 at the 85th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 9 285T dominates every recorded benchmark, but the margins tell a detailed story. In cinebench_r23_multicore, the Ultra 9 scores 33573 against 22468 for the Core 5, a 33.1% advantage. This is the largest Cinebench delta and reflects the 3x core count difference. The single-core Cinebench tests show the same 33.1% delta: cinebench_r23_singlecore records 4739 versus 3172, cinebench_r20_singlecore records 1990 versus 1332, and cinebench_r15_singlecore records 477 versus 319. These consistent 33.1% deltas across all six Cinebench tests indicate a uniform per-core performance gap, not just a core-count advantage.

The Passmark suite shows a wider range of outcomes. The largest gap is in passmark_find_prime_numbers, where the Ultra 9 scores 345 versus 114, a 67% delta. Data encryption shows 32061 versus 15916, a 50.4% delta, and floating-point math shows 137923 versus 68587, a 50.3% delta. Physics tests record 2842 versus 1624, a 42.9% delta. Integer math delivers 132433 versus 92089, a 30.5% delta. Extended instructions score 27477 versus 19565, a 28.8% delta. Random string sorting records 47695 versus 32027, a 32.9% delta. Data compression shows 384140 versus 298804, a 22.2% delta. Multithread scores 39931 versus 26434, a 33.8% delta.

The smallest gap in the entire dataset is passmark_single_thread, where the Ultra 9 scores 4576 versus 4060, an 11.3% delta. This confirms that the Core 5 213PE's high boost clock keeps it relatively competitive when only one core is active. But even there, the newer architecture and higher boost clock of the Ultra 9 prevail.

The overall picture is unambiguous. The Core Ultra 9 285T leads by roughly one-third in most CPU-centric workloads, by half or more in encryption and floating-point math, and by two-thirds in prime-number finding. The Core 5 213PE never gets closer than 11.3% in any test.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification field. The Core 5 213PE has 8 cores and 16 threads; the Core Ultra 9 285T has 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 2.70 GHz versus 1.40 GHz, while boost clocks are 5.20 GHz versus 5.40 GHz. TDP ratings are 65 W for the Core 5 and 35 W for the Ultra 9.

Sockets differ completely: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 5 213PE, Intel Socket 1851 for the Core Ultra 9 285T. The manufacturing process is 10 nm at Intel for the Core 5, versus 3 nm at TSMC for the Ultra 9. The Ultra 9 has a recorded transistor count of 17,800 million on a 243 mm² die; no transistor count or die size is recorded for the Core 5.

Cache configurations differ at every level. L1 cache is 80 KB per core for the Core 5 and 192 KB per core for the Ultra 9. L2 cache is 2 MB per core versus 3 MB per core. Shared L3 cache is 24 MB versus 36 MB.

Memory support is a major split: the Core 5 supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 9 supports only DDR5. Both use dual-channel buses, but memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 and 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 9. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs: 16 CPU lanes at Gen 5 for the Core 5, 20 CPU lanes at Gen 5 for the Ultra 9.

Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 for the Core 5 and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU for the Ultra 9. The production status for both is Active, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 5 213PE released on 2026-03-08 with a launch MSRP of $221 and part number SA4QG. The Core Ultra 9 285T released on 2025-01-06 with a launch MSRP of $549 and part number SRQD3. The release dates place the Ultra 9 on the market over a year earlier, yet it remains the substantially faster part across all recorded measurements.