Intel Core 5 213PE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear picture of performance disparity between the Intel Core 5 213PE and the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V. Out of 17 head-to-head comparisons, the Core 5 213PE secures 13 wins, while the Core Ultra 9 288V takes 4. The margins, however, tell a more nuanced story about workload characteristics.

The most decisive victory for the Core 5 213PE comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 22468 against the Ultra 9's 10178, a 120.8% advantage. This massive gap reflects the desktop processor's thread-count superiority and sustained power delivery. Similarly, PassMark integer math shows a 109.2% lead (92089 vs 44019), reinforcing that heavily parallel integer workloads heavily favor the Core 5 213PE.

Data compression results continue the trend. The Core 5 213PE delivers 298804 in PassMark data compression, which is 60.2% higher than the Ultra 9's 186521. Random string sorting also favors the desktop chip by 41.6% (32027 vs 22622). These workloads benefit directly from the Core 5's higher thread count and larger shared cache.

Single-core performance tells a different story in certain tests. The Core Ultra 9 288V wins PassMark single-thread with 4274 versus 4060, a 5% edge. This suggests the Lunar Lake architecture's efficiency cores and higher base clock (3.30 GHz vs 2.70 GHz) contribute to better lightly-threaded integer performance. The Ultra 9 also wins PassMark find prime numbers decisively: 195 vs 114, a 41.5% margin in favor of the mobile chip. Prime number finding often relies on specific instruction patterns and memory latency characteristics, where the Ultra 9's architecture appears stronger.

Physics simulation results are nearly identical, with the Ultra 9 edging out a 0.8% win (1637 vs 1624). This near-tie indicates that physics workloads in PassMark do not scale with thread count in a way that benefits the Core 5 213PE's 16 threads.

The Cinebench R20 single-core test shows a 33.6% lead for the Core 5 213PE (1332 vs 997), which contrasts sharply with the PassMark single-thread result. This discrepancy suggests Cinebench's rendering workload responds differently to the Core 5's higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz versus the Ultra 9's 5.10 GHz, combined with the desktop chip's larger L3 cache.

Data encryption favors the Core 5 213PE by 12.6% (15916 vs 14141). Extended instructions show a 25.3% advantage for the desktop part (19565 vs 15613). Floating-point math goes to the Core 5 213PE by 15.2% (68587 vs 59536).

Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 43% lead for the Core 5 213PE (2264 vs 1583), while R15 single-core is closer at 5.8% (319 vs 301.5). The R20 multi-core test shows a 33.5% gap (9436 vs 7069). PassMark multithread gives the Core 5 213PE a 33.4% advantage (26434 vs 19810).

Overall, the data indicates that the Core 5 213PE dominates in sustained multi-threaded rendering, compression, and integer workloads. The Core Ultra 9 288V counters with wins in specific single-threaded tasks and prime number calculations, plus a narrow physics margin. The average benchmark scores confirm the overall gap: the Core 5 213PE averages 35428, placing it at the 85th percentile, while the Ultra 9 averages 23219 at the 76th percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE has an average benchmark score of 35428, which is substantially higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V's 23219. The Core 5 213PE sits at the 85th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 9 ranks at the 76th percentile.

Q: How do the nearest rivals compare for each processor?

A: The Core 5 213PE's closest rival is the Intel Core i7-13700T with an average score of 35403, only 0.1% behind. The Core Ultra 9 288V's nearest competitor is the Intel Core i9-11900F at 23254, which is 0.2% ahead. Other nearby scores for the Ultra 9 include the AMD EPYC 4124P at 23167 and the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H at 23277.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core 5 213PE scores 22468 versus the Ultra 9's 10178, a 120.8% difference. The second-largest margin is in PassMark integer math at 109.2% (92089 vs 44019).

Q: Where does the Core Ultra 9 288V win?

A: The Ultra 9 wins PassMark single-thread (4274 vs 4060, 5% higher), PassMark find prime numbers (195 vs 114, 41.5% higher), and PassMark physics (1637 vs 1624, 0.8% higher). It also wins the duplicate PassMark single-thread test by the same 5% margin.

Q: What is the release timeline difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V was released on 2024-09-23, while the Intel Core 5 213PE has a release date of 2026-03-08. Both processors are currently marked as Active in production status.

Q: Do both processors have the same core count?

A: Yes, both have 8 cores. However, the Core 5 213PE supports 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 288V supports only 8 threads. This difference explains much of the multi-threaded benchmark gap.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 213PE wins in scenarios that demand high multi-threaded throughput. Cinebench R23 multi-core with a 120.8% lead, integer math with a 109.2% advantage, and data compression with a 60.2% margin all point to workloads like video rendering, software compilation, database operations, and scientific computing. The 16 threads paired with a 24 MB shared L3 cache provide substantial parallel headroom. The 5.20 GHz boost clock also gives it an edge in Cinebench single-core tests, where it leads by 62.7% in R23 and 33.6% in R20.

The Core Ultra 9 288V wins in specific single-threaded scenarios and specialized calculations. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4274 beats the Core 5 213PE by 5%, suggesting advantages in lightly-threaded applications like web browsing, office productivity, and certain legacy software. The find prime numbers result (195 vs 114, a 41.5% win) indicates strength in mathematical workloads that rely on efficient instruction execution rather than raw thread count. Physics simulation is essentially tied, with the Ultra 9 ahead by only 0.8%, meaning physics engines may run similarly on both.

For mobile use, the Ultra 9's 30 TDP versus the Core 5's 65 TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light systems where sustained multi-core performance is less critical. The Core 5 213PE targets desktop builds where power draw is less constrained and maximum throughput matters.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The Core 5 213PE uses 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ultra 9 288V uses 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks differ: the Core 5 runs at 2.70 GHz, the Ultra 9 at 3.30 GHz. Boost clocks are close, with the Core 5 reaching 5.20 GHz and the Ultra 9 hitting 5.10 GHz.

Thermal design power shows a significant split: the Core 5 213PE draws 65 W, while the Ultra 9 288V is rated at 30 W. This reflects their different market segments. The Core 5 uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2833, making the former a desktop socketed part and the latter a mobile soldered chip.

Cache configurations diverge considerably. 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 9 288V has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 12 MB of shared L3. The larger L3 cache on the Core 5 contributes to its strong multi-threaded performance.

Memory support differs: the Core 5 supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel configuration with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ultra 9 uses LPDDR5X with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9's higher memory bandwidth is notable, though it does not translate to benchmark wins in most tests. ECC memory is supported on the Core 5 but not on the Ultra 9.

PCIe lanes show a major difference: the Core 5 provides 16 CPU lanes of Gen 5, while the Ultra 9 offers only 4 CPU lanes of Gen 5. Integrated graphics also differ, with the Core 5 featuring UHD Graphics 730 and the Ultra 9 featuring Arc 140V.

The Core 5 213PE has a launch MSRP of $221. The Ultra 9 288V has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 213PE belongs to the Bartlett Lake generation and uses a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V comes from the Lunar Lake architecture, part of Core Ultra Series 2, and uses a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. This process node difference is substantial, with the Ultra 9's 3 nm node offering higher transistor density and efficiency.

The codenames reflect different design philosophies. Bartlett Lake is positioned as a desktop-focused architecture, while Lunar Lake targets mobile efficiency. The Core 5 213PE is built for the desktop market segment, whereas the Ultra 9 288V is a mobile processor. This is reflected in their sockets, TDP ratings, and PCIe lane counts.

Thread support differs at the architecture level. The Core 5 213PE enables simultaneous multithreading, allowing 16 threads from 8 cores. The Ultra 9 288V does not support this, limiting it to 8 threads. This architectural choice explains the massive multi-core benchmark differences.

Cache hierarchy design varies. The Ultra 9's larger L1 (192 KB per core) and L2 (2.5 MB per core) caches suggest an architecture optimized for single-thread efficiency and power savings. The Core 5's smaller per-core caches but larger shared L3 (24 MB vs 12 MB) indicate a design aimed at multi-threaded workloads where shared data access patterns benefit from a larger pool.

Memory controller differences show the Ultra 9 prioritizing bandwidth with LPDDR5X support at 136.5 GB/s, nearly double the Core 5's 76.8 GB/s. However, the Core 5's support for both DDR4 and DDR5 offers platform flexibility that the Ultra 9 lacks. ECC support on the Core 5 makes it suitable for reliability-focused applications, while the Ultra 9 forgoes this feature.

The integrated graphics differ significantly: UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 5 versus Arc 140V on the Ultra 9. While the database does not include graphics benchmarks, the Arc 140V branding suggests a more capable mobile iGPU.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows the Intel Core 5 213PE as the dominant performer across most benchmark categories. Its 13 wins versus 4 for the Ultra 9 288V, combined with a 52.5% higher average benchmark score (35428 vs 23219), make it the clear choice for multi-threaded desktop workloads. The 120.8% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 109.2% advantage in integer math indicate that rendering, compilation, and data processing tasks will complete substantially faster on the Core 5 213PE.

The Core Ultra 9 288V's wins in PassMark single-thread and find prime numbers, while narrower in overall impact, show that it holds an advantage in specific single-threaded tasks. Its 30 W TDP and mobile socket make it the appropriate selection for portable systems where battery life and thermal constraints take priority over raw multi-core performance. The 5% single-thread win and 41.5% prime-number advantage suggest that interactive applications and mathematical computations may feel slightly snappier on the Ultra 9.

For desktop users building systems around Socket 1700 with access to DDR4 or DDR5 memory and wanting maximum multi-threaded throughput, the Core 5 213PE is the data-supported pick. Its 24 MB L3 cache, 16 threads, and higher boost clock deliver consistent wins in Cinebench and PassMark multi-threaded suites. The 65 W TDP is manageable for standard desktop cooling.

For mobile users prioritizing battery life and efficiency, the Ultra 9 288V offers competitive single-thread performance with a 3 nm process and 30 W TDP. Its higher memory bandwidth (136.5 GB/s) and larger per-core caches suggest good performance-per-watt, even if raw multi-core scores lag behind. The 76th percentile ranking still places it above most CPUs in the database.

The decision ultimately rests on the workload. Multi-threaded rendering and heavy integer processing point decisively to the Core 5 213PE. Lightly-threaded interactive tasks and mobile operation favor the Ultra 9 288V. The benchmark data provides no ambiguity on this split.