Intel Core 5 213PE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

Intel Core 5 213PE and Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus occupy very different positions in the database, with the latter delivering a commanding performance profile. The benchmark data shows a clear hierarchy, but the single-core result for the Core 5 213PE provides one notable counterpoint that deserves attention.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, and in most cases the margin is substantial. The largest gap appears in the passmark_find_prime_numbers test, where the Ultra 9 scores 519 against the Core 5's 114, a difference of 78%. This workload is highly sensitive to core count and memory bandwidth, both of which favor the larger processor.

Multithreaded performance shows a consistent pattern of dominance. In cinebench_r15_multicore, the Ultra 9 scores 5981 compared to 2264 for the Core 5, a 62.1% advantage. The r20 multicore test repeats the same margin at 55.5%, with scores of 21198 and 9436 respectively. The r23 multicore result narrows slightly to a 43.4% lead, with the Ultra 9 at 39684 and the Core 5 at 22468. This suggests that longer rendering workloads compress the gap somewhat, but the Ultra 9 remains decisively ahead.

PassMark workloads reinforce the pattern. Data compression shows the Ultra 9 at 658724 versus 298804, a 54.6% lead. Data encryption produces a 68.2% gap, with 50008 against 15916. Extended instructions deliver 51290 versus 19565, a 61.9% difference. Floating point math shows a 66% gap, with 201773 against 68587. Integer math is closer at 44.1%, with 164839 versus 92089. Random string sorting shows a 60.1% gap, with 80327 against 32027. The multithread PassMark score is 59439 versus 26434, again a 55.5% difference. Physics tests show 3387 against 1624, a 52.1% lead for the Ultra 9.

The single-thread results are closer but still favor the Ultra 9. In passmark_single_thread, the Ultra 9 scores 4951 against 4060, an 18% lead. In cinebench_r15_singlecore, the margin narrows to 6.2%, with 340 against 319. The r20 singlecore test shows a surprising 55.5% gap, with 2992 against 1332, which is larger than the r15 gap and suggests the test methodology or frequency behavior differs significantly between the two.

One benchmark breaks the pattern. In cinebench_r23_singlecore, the Core 5 213PE wins with 3172 against 2356 for the Ultra 9, a 34.6% advantage. This is the sole victory for the Core 5 in the entire head-to-head set. The r23 singlecore test appears to reward the Core 5's boost architecture, which reaches 5.20 GHz, while the Ultra 9's 5.50 GHz boost does not translate into a win here. This anomaly indicates that the two processors respond very differently to this specific workload, likely due to thermal or power management behavior in the mobile Ultra 9.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from separate design lineages. The Core 5 213PE uses the Bartlett Lake codename, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Arrow Lake-HX Refresh, fabricated on a 3 nm node at TSMC. The process node difference is substantial, with the Ultra 9 using a significantly more advanced manufacturing technology.

Core and thread counts differ sharply. The Core 5 213PE has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Ultra 9 does not use hyperthreading, so its thread count equals its core count. The Core 5 uses hyperthreading, doubling its threads to 16. Despite having fewer cores, the Core 5's hyperthreading gives it a higher thread-to-core ratio, but the raw core advantage for the Ultra 9 is overwhelming.

Cache hierarchies differ in both per-core and shared capacities. 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 290HX Plus has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9's larger per-core caches and larger shared L3 contribute to its strong data compression and encryption results.

Memory support differs significantly. The Core 5 213PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports only DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the bandwidth figures differ: 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 and 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 9. The Ultra 9's higher memory bandwidth aligns with its superior performance in memory-intensive PassMark tests.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 213PE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Both processors support ECC memory. PCIe lanes differ, with the Core 5 offering Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only) and the Ultra 9 offering Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra 9 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 5 does not.

The transistor count and die size are recorded only for the Ultra 9, which has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 5 213PE has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database. The Core 5 uses the Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2114, reflecting the former's desktop orientation and the latter's mobile design.

The market segments confirm the positioning: the Core 5 213PE is a desktop processor, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus is a mobile processor. The TDP figures differ, with the Core 5 rated at 65 and the Ultra 9 at 55. The Ultra 9's lower TDP despite higher core count reflects the efficiency of the 3 nm process.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an average benchmark score of 79574, while the Intel Core 5 213PE has 35428. The Ultra 9 sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 sits at the 85th percentile.

Q: Does the Core 5 213PE win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Core 5 213PE wins cinebench_r23_singlecore with a score of 3172 against 2356 for the Ultra 9, a 34.6% advantage. This is the only head-to-head benchmark the Core 5 wins out of the 17 recorded.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Core 5 213PE has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 9 has three times the cores, but the Core 5 uses hyperthreading to achieve a 2:1 thread-to-core ratio.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Core 5 213PE uses a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses a 3 nm process at TSMC. The Ultra 9 also has a recorded transistor count of 17,800 million on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 5 has no recorded transistor count.

Q: Which processor has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the Core 5 213PE has 76.8 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the Ultra 9 supports only DDR5, while the Core 5 supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

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

A: The Core 5 213PE's nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-13700T, which has an average score of 35403, a 0.1% difference. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus's nearest rival is the Intel Core i9-14900KF, with an average score of 79371, a 0.3% difference. The Ultra 9 also sits near the AMD EPYC 7413, which scores 80041, a 0.6% difference in the EPYC's favor.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every recorded specification. The Core 5 213PE has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are identical at 2.70 GHz for both, but boost clocks differ: 5.20 GHz for the Core 5 and 5.50 GHz for the Ultra 9. TDP differs, with the Core 5 at 65 and the Ultra 9 at 55.

Sockets differ: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 5 and Intel BGA 2114 for the Ultra 9. Codenames differ: Bartlett Lake for the Core 5 and Arrow Lake-HX Refresh for the Ultra 9. Process nodes differ: 10 nm for the Core 5 and 3 nm for the Ultra 9. The foundry differs: Intel for the Core 5 and TSMC for the Ultra 9.

Cache configurations differ across all levels. The Core 5 has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. The Ultra 9 has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. Memory support differs: DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 5, DDR5 only for the Ultra 9. Memory bandwidth differs: 76.8 GB/s against 102.4 GB/s.

PCIe lanes differ: 16 lanes for the Core 5 and 20 lanes for the Ultra 9, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics differ: UHD Graphics 730 for the Core 5 and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU for the Ultra 9. Market segments differ: Desktop for the Core 5 and Mobile for the Ultra 9. The multiplier is locked on the Core 5 and unlocked on the Ultra 9.

The launch MSRP is $221 for the Core 5 213PE; the Ultra 9 290HX Plus has no recorded launch MSRP. The release dates differ by eight days, with the Core 5 released on 2026-03-08 and the Ultra 9 on 2026-03-16. Both are Active in production status and both support ECC memory.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins in every multithreaded workload recorded. Cinebench r15, r20, and r23 multicore tests all show the Ultra 9 ahead by margins between 43.4% and 62.1%. PassMark multithread, physics, data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, floating point math, integer math, random string sorting, and find prime numbers all favor the Ultra 9 by margins from 44.1% to 78%. The Ultra 9 also wins single-thread tests in PassMark and cinebench r15 and r20, with leads from 6.2% to 55.5%.

The Core 5 213PE wins only in cinebench_r23_singlecore, with a 34.6% advantage. This indicates that for a specific single-threaded rendering workload, the Core 5's architecture outperforms the Ultra 9 despite the latter's higher boost clock. The Core 5 also benefits from its desktop socket, which may allow sustained boost behavior that the mobile BGA socket cannot match under the same test conditions.

For workloads that rely heavily on per-core cache and single-thread execution, the Core 5 213PE demonstrates competitive capability in at least one test. For all other workloads, particularly those that scale with core count, memory bandwidth, or parallel execution, the Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the clear choice. The Ultra 9's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-14900KF and the AMD EPYC 7413, indicating it competes at a level far above the Core 5, whose nearest rivals are the Intel Core i7-13700T and Intel Core i7-12700KF.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the superior processor for nearly all measured workloads. Its 24 cores and 24 threads, combined with 36 MB of shared L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, produce average scores of 79574, which places it at the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 213PE, with an average score of 35428 at the 85th percentile, operates in a different performance class.

The Ultra 9's nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-14900KF, sits just 0.3% behind in average score, while the Core 5's nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-13700T, sits 0.1% behind. This proximity to different rival groups confirms that the two processors target different market tiers. The Ultra 9's 78% lead in find prime numbers and 68.2% lead in data encryption demonstrate its advantage in compute-heavy tasks.

The Core 5 213PE's single win in cinebench_r23_singlecore, with a 34.6% margin, shows that its 5.20 GHz boost clock and Bartlett Lake architecture can outperform the Ultra 9 in that specific test. However, this single result does not offset the Ultra 9's dominance across the other 16 benchmarks. For users prioritizing single-threaded r23 rendering, the Core 5 has a measurable advantage. For all other recorded workloads, the Ultra 9 290HX Plus delivers substantially higher performance, with the data showing leads from 18% in single-thread PassMark to 78% in prime number computation. The choice depends on whether the workload matches the Core 5's solitary strength or the Ultra 9's broad superiority.