Intel Core 5 213PE vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H records an average benchmark score of 40,967, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 213PE records 35,428, placing it in the 85th percentile.

Q: How do the two compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Core 5 213PE sits within 0.4% of the Intel Core i7-12700K (35,287), 0.3% of the Intel Core i5-13600T (35,305), 0.2% of the Intel Core i7-12700KF (35,365), and 0.1% of the Intel Core i7-13700T (35,403). The Core Ultra X7 358H trails the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 by 0.6% (41,208) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H by 0.6% (41,215), while leading the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G by 0.6% (40,718).

Q: Which chip wins the majority of head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins 13 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The Intel Core 5 213PE wins 4.

Q: What is the single largest winning margin in either direction?

A: The Core 5 213PE leads by 52.5% in Cinebench R23 single-core (3,172 vs 2,080). The Core Ultra X7 358H leads by 66.2% in Passmark find prime numbers (337 vs 114).

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core 5 213PE supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H does not.

Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE boosts to 5.20 GHz, exceeding the 4.80 GHz boost of the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families and target different market segments. The Intel Core 5 213PE is a desktop part built on the Bartlett Lake architecture, produced on Intel's 10 nm process node. It uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is a mobile part from the Panther Lake family (Panther Lake-H), built on a 3 nm process node, and uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket. The production status for both is Active.

Core and thread counts differ notably. The Core 5 213PE provides 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra X7 358H provides 16 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra part doubles the core count but keeps the same thread count, indicating different threading behavior across its cores.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 5 213PE has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra X7 358H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The desktop chip therefore carries more L3 overall, while the mobile chip has larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations.

Memory support separates the two clearly. The Core 5 213PE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra X7 358H supports LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth, exactly double the desktop part's figure. The Core 5 213PE additionally supports ECC memory, which the Ultra part does not.

PCIe connectivity differs. The Core 5 213PE provides 16 CPU-only PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The Core Ultra X7 358H provides 4 CPU-only PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The desktop chip is equipped with the UHD Graphics 730 integrated GPU, while the mobile chip carries the Arc B390.

Clock behavior shows a different trade-off. The Core 5 213PE has a 2.70 GHz base clock and a 5.20 GHz boost clock. The Core Ultra X7 358H has a 1.90 GHz base clock and a 4.80 GHz boost clock. The desktop chip runs at higher clocks at both ends, but the mobile chip compensates with a much lower 25 W TDP versus 65 W.

Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 5 213PE carries a launch MSRP of $221. The Core Ultra X7 358H does not have a recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by workload type. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is the stronger overall performer in the database, with an average benchmark score of 40,967 versus 35,428 for the Intel Core 5 213PE, a gap of roughly 15.6%. It also holds a higher percentile rank (87th vs 85th) and wins 13 of 17 head-to-head comparisons.

The Core Ultra X7 358H should be the choice for multi-threaded and memory-sensitive tasks. It wins Cinebench R15 multicore by 25.2%, Cinebench R20 multicore by 21.4%, Passmark multithread by 21.8%, Passmark physics by 46.2%, and Passmark floating point math by 34%. Its memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s is double that of the Core 5 213PE, which aligns with its dominance in data-heavy Passmark workloads.

The Intel Core 5 213PE is the pick for single-threaded desktop workloads. It wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 5.8% and Cinebench R23 single-core by 52.5%. It also wins Cinebench R23 multicore by 19.8% and Passmark integer math by 10.8%. Its higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz and larger 24 MB L3 cache support these results. It is a desktop part with ECC support and a 65 W TDP, suited to systems where those features matter.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 213PE | Intel Core Ultra X7 358H |

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

| Cores | 8 | 16 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Base clock | 2.70 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.20 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | 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) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 24 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 4 Lanes |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc B390 |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra X7 358H dominates the multi-threaded and math-heavy tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 3,027 against 2,264 for the Core 5 213PE, a 25.2% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multicore, it scores 12,011 against 9,436, a 21.4% lead. Passmark multithread shows 33,802 versus 26,434, again a 21.8% margin. The largest multi-thread win comes in Passmark physics, where the Ultra part scores 3,021 against 1,624, a 46.2% gap.

The Ultra part also wins in Cinebench R20 single-core, scoring 1,695 versus 1,332, a 21.4% margin. This is notable because the desktop chip holds the higher boost clock, but the mobile chip still takes this test. In Passmark single-thread, the Ultra part leads by a narrow 1.6% margin, scoring 4,124 versus 4,060.

Math and encryption workloads favor the Ultra part heavily. Passmark floating point math shows 103,842 versus 68,587, a 34% lead. Passmark data encryption shows 26,046 versus 15,916, a 38.9% lead. Passmark extended instructions shows 27,274 versus 19,565, a 28.3% lead. Passmark find prime numbers shows the biggest single gap of the entire comparison: 337 versus 114, a 66.2% advantage. Passmark data compression and random string sorting also go to the Ultra part, with margins of 10.1% (332,508 vs 298,804) and 20.6% (40,357 vs 32,027) respectively.

The Core 5 213PE takes four wins, all in tests where its higher clocks and larger L3 cache matter. Cinebench R23 single-core is its best result: 3,172 versus 2,080, a 52.5% lead. Cinebench R23 multicore goes to the desktop chip at 22,468 versus 18,747, a 19.8% margin. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 319 versus 301.5, a 5.8% win. Passmark integer math shows 92,089 versus 83,147, a 10.8% win.

The overall win count of 13 to 4 favors the Ultra part, and its average score advantage of 5,539 points confirms that it is the faster processor across the recorded benchmark suite. The Core 5 213PE remains competitive in single-core Cinebench tests and integer math, but the Ultra part's advantages in physics, floating point, encryption, and multi-threaded rendering make it the stronger all-around performer in the database.