Intel Core 5 213PTE vs Intel Core 7 150UL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for these two processors. The Intel Core 5 213PTE has a substantial set of measurements across Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and Passmark tests, while the Intel Core 7 150UL has an empty benchmark array. This absence of comparative scores means a direct numerical comparison cannot be constructed from the database. The Core 5 213PTE's average benchmark score is 32924, placing it at the 83rd percentile of all CPUs tracked. Its nearest rivals, the Intel Core i7-12700, AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H, AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D, and AMD Ryzen 7 8700G, all sit within a narrow band around this figure, with delta percentages ranging from -0.5 to +0.3. The Core 7 150UL, by contrast, holds a 50th percentile ranking with an average benchmark score of zero, indicating that no performance data has been recorded for it in the database.

The Core 5 213PTE's Cinebench scores provide the only concrete performance figures available. Its R23 multicore score of 21751 and single-core score of 3070 show a strong balance between threaded and single-threaded workloads. In Passmark testing, the processor delivers 93109 in integer math, 71722 in floating point math, and 16146 in extended instructions. Data compression reaches 261083, while encryption scores 14413. The random string sorting test returns 30106, and the find prime numbers test produces 157. The multithread score stands at 25590, with physics at 2199 and single-thread at 3718. These numbers indicate a processor that performs competitively with its closest rivals, as the delta percentages against the i7-12700, Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H, Ryzen 7 7800X3D, and Ryzen 7 8700G are all within a single percentage point. The data suggests the Core 5 213PTE is neither a clear winner nor loser against these peers, but rather sits in a tightly contested performance cluster.

Since the Core 7 150UL has no recorded benchmarks, the head-to-head section cannot report any wins, losses, or percentage differences between the two processors. The database shows zero wins for either item in direct comparison. Readers seeking a performance ranking between these two specific SKUs will not find it in the available measurements. The only conclusion the data supports is that the Core 5 213PTE has been thoroughly tested and performs at a level comparable to its named rivals, while the Core 7 150UL lacks any recorded performance data.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share several architectural traits but diverge on key points. Both use Intel as the manufacturer and are built on a 10 nm process node. Both use the Intel Socket 1700 platform and support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. Both have 80 KB of L1 cache per core, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The differences begin with core and thread counts. The Core 5 213PTE has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Core 7 150UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. This means the Core 5 uses hyperthreading across all cores, while the Core 7 has more physical cores but fewer threads, suggesting a hybrid arrangement where not all cores support simultaneous multithreading. The Core 5 belongs to the Bartlett Lake codename and is listed under the Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) generation. The Core 7 uses the Raptor Lake architecture, with the codename Raptor Lake-PS and generation Core 7 (Raptor Lake-PS). The Core 5's release date is recorded as 2026-03-08, while the Core 7's release date is 2024-04-07, making the Core 5 the newer design by nearly two years.

Cache allocations differ substantially. The Core 5 has 2 MB of L2 cache per core and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 has 1.25 MB of L2 per core and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 5 therefore has both a larger per-core L2 and double the total L3 capacity. Clock speeds also favor the Core 5, with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and boost clock of 5.20 GHz, compared to the Core 7's 1.70 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. Thermal design power differs significantly: the Core 5 is rated at 45 W, while the Core 7 is rated at 15 W. This indicates the Core 7 is designed for lower power envelopes, likely suited to compact or passively cooled systems.

Memory bandwidth figures are recorded for the Core 5 at 76.8 GB/s, while the Core 7's bandwidth is not listed. The Core 5 supports ECC memory, while the Core 7 does not. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Core 5 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 7 provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are different as well: the Core 5 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core 7 uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. The Core 5 has a launch MSRP of $221, while the Core 7 has no recorded launch MSRP. Both processors are listed as Active in production status, and both have the same socket, memory type, and memory bus width.

Where Each One Wins

The data supports only one clear set of use-case conclusions, and those belong to the Core 5 213PTE. With recorded benchmarks across multiple test suites, the Core 5 demonstrates strengths in both single-threaded and multi-threaded applications. Its R23 single-core score of 3070 and Passmark single-thread score of 3718 indicate strong responsiveness in lightly threaded workloads such as everyday desktop tasks, web browsing, and office productivity. The Passmark single-thread score appears twice in the database, once as "single_thread" and once as "singlethread", both with the same value of 3718, confirming consistency in that metric.

For multi-threaded workloads, the Core 5's R23 multicore score of 21751 and R20 multicore score of 9135 point to solid performance in rendering, video encoding, and compilation tasks. The Cinebench R15 multicore score of 2192 and Passmark multithread score of 25590 reinforce this picture. The data compression score of 261083 suggests the Core 5 handles archiving and file compression efficiently. The floating point math score of 71722 indicates capability in scientific and simulation workloads, while the integer math score of 93109 covers general computation. The extended instructions score of 16146 shows support for advanced instruction sets, which benefits cryptography and specialized software.

The Core 7 150UL, lacking any benchmark data, cannot be assigned wins in any category. The database records zero wins for it. Its architectural traits, however, provide qualitative context. The 15 W TDP and 10-core, 12-thread configuration suggest a design aimed at low-power embedded or small-form-factor systems where energy consumption matters more than peak performance. The Iris Xe Graphics 96EU integrated GPU is a more capable graphics solution than the UHD Graphics 730 found in the Core 5, which could make the Core 7 preferable in scenarios where discrete graphics are absent and media playback or light GPU acceleration is required. The absence of ECC support and the Gen 4, 8-lane PCIe interface further position the Core 7 as a value-oriented or efficiency-focused part rather than a high-throughput workstation component.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 150UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core 5 213PTE has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Core 5 has fewer physical cores but more threads, indicating hyperthreading on all cores, while the Core 7 has more physical cores but fewer threads.

Q: What is the difference in cache sizes?

A: The Core 5 213PTE has 2 MB of L2 cache per core and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 150UL has 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 5 has both a larger per-core L2 and double the total L3 capacity.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core 5 213PTE supports ECC memory, while the Core 7 150UL does not.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each processor?

A: The Core 5 213PTE has a TDP of 45 W, while the Core 7 150UL has a TDP of 15 W. The Core 7 is designed for a much lower power envelope.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core 5 213PTE has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, while the Core 7 150UL has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Core 5 also has a higher base clock at 2.10 GHz versus 1.70 GHz.

Q: What integrated graphics do the two processors use?

A: The Core 5 213PTE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core 7 150UL uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. The Iris Xe unit has more execution units and is generally a more capable integrated GPU.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors according to the recorded data:

• Cores: 8 (Core 5 213PTE) versus 10 (Core 7 150UL)
• Threads: 16 (Core 5 213PTE) versus 12 (Core 7 150UL)
• Base clock: 2.10 GHz (Core 5 213PTE) versus 1.70 GHz (Core 7 150UL)
• Boost clock: 5.20 GHz (Core 5 213PTE) versus 5.00 GHz (Core 7 150UL)
• TDP: 45 W (Core 5 213PTE) versus 15 W (Core 7 150UL)
• Codename: Bartlett Lake (Core 5 213PTE) versus Raptor Lake-PS (Core 7 150UL)
• Generation: Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) versus Core 7 (Raptor Lake-PS)
• Architecture: not listed for Core 5 213PTE, Raptor Lake for Core 7 150UL
• L2 cache: 2 MB per core (Core 5 213PTE) versus 1.25 MB per core (Core 7 150UL)
• L3 cache: 24 MB shared (Core 5 213PTE) versus 12 MB shared (Core 7 150UL)
• Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s (Core 5 213PTE) versus not listed (Core 7 150UL)
• ECC memory: true (Core 5 213PTE) versus false (Core 7 150UL)
• PCIe: Gen 5, 16 lanes (Core 5 213PTE) versus Gen 4, 8 lanes (Core 7 150UL)
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 (Core 5 213PTE) versus Iris Xe Graphics 96EU (Core 7 150UL)
• Release date: 2026-03-08 (Core 5 213PTE) versus 2024-04-07 (Core 7 150UL)
• Launch MSRP: $221 (Core 5 213PTE) versus not listed (Core 7 150UL)
• Part number: SA4QM (Core 5 213PTE) versus unknown (Core 7 150UL)
• Benchmarks: populated array (Core 5 213PTE) versus empty array (Core 7 150UL)
• Percentile vs all CPUs: 83 (Core 5 213PTE) versus 50 (Core 7 150UL)
• Average benchmark score: 32924 (Core 5 213PTE) versus 0 (Core 7 150UL)
• Nearest rivals: four listed entries (Core 5 213PTE) versus none (Core 7 150UL)

Fields that are identical include manufacturer (Intel), process node (10 nm), foundry (Intel), L1 cache (80 KB per core), memory support (DDR4, DDR5), memory bus (dual-channel), socket (Intel Socket 1700), market segment (Desktop), production status (Active), multiplier unlocked (false), and the absence of 3D V-Cache.

The Verdict

The recorded data presents an asymmetric picture. The Intel Core 5 213PTE has comprehensive benchmark coverage and a percentile ranking of 83, with an average score of 32924 that places it within 0.5% of rivals such as the AMD Ryzen 7 8700G and AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D. Its nearest competitor, the Intel Core i7-12700, scores 32942, a delta of only -0.1%, meaning the Core 5 is statistically indistinguishable from that processor in aggregate performance. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H trails by 0.3%, while the two AMD desktop parts lead by 0.5%. This clustering indicates the Core 5 213PTE delivers performance in line with established mid-range and high-end CPUs from the previous generation.

The Intel Core 7 150UL, with no benchmarks, a 50th percentile ranking, and an average score of zero, cannot be evaluated on performance from the database. Its specifications suggest a different purpose: a 15 W TDP, 10 cores, 12 threads, and Iris Xe Graphics 96EU point toward low-power desktop systems, all-in-one units, or embedded applications where thermal and acoustic constraints take priority over raw throughput. The Core 5 213PTE, with its 45 W TDP, higher clocks, larger caches, ECC support, and Gen 5 PCIe, is positioned for users who need computational performance and platform features such as error-correcting memory and high-speed expansion.

The verdict from the data is straightforward: the Core 5 213PTE is the choice for those who need measured performance, as the database contains extensive evidence of its capabilities across rendering, math, compression, and single-threaded tasks. The Core 7 150UL is the choice for those who prioritize low power consumption and a more capable integrated GPU, based on its TDP and graphics specifications, though no benchmark data exists to quantify its actual performance. The two processors serve different market segments, and the data supports selecting the Core 5 for performance-oriented builds and the Core 7 for efficiency-oriented designs.