Intel Core 5 213PTE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 238V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clear overall winner in the Intel Core 5 213PTE, which takes 14 of the 17 recorded benchmark comparisons. The Intel Core Ultra 5 238V manages only three wins, all in narrowly defined single-thread or specialized workloads.

The most lopsided result is in PassMark integer math, where the Core 5 213PTE scores 93,109 against 38,889 for the Ultra 5 238V, a 139.4% advantage. This is the single largest delta in the entire comparison and indicates a fundamental difference in how the two processors handle integer-heavy instruction streams. In data compression, the Core 5 213PTE posts 261,083 versus 176,532, a 47.9% lead. Physics simulation also favors the desktop part heavily: 2,199 against 1,546, a 42.2% margin.

The Cinebench suite shows remarkably consistent deltas across all six tests. In R15 multicore, the Core 5 213PTE scores 2,192 against 1,576 for the Ultra 5 238V, a 39.1% lead. R15 single-core shows a nearly identical gap: 309 versus 222, a 39.2% difference. R20 multicore delivers 9,135 versus 6,570, a 39% gap, while R20 single-core is 1,289 versus 927, again 39.1%. R23 multicore follows the pattern at 21,751 versus 15,645, a 39% delta, and R23 single-core lands at 3,070 versus 2,208, a 39% difference. This consistency across rendering workloads suggests the performance gap scales uniformly with clock speed and thread count rather than being workload-specific.

PassMark multithread shows the Core 5 213PTE at 25,590 versus 18,407 for the Ultra 5 238V, a 39% margin. Random string sorting goes 30,106 versus 21,585, a 39.5% lead. Floating-point math favors the desktop chip at 71,722 versus 53,160, a 34.9% advantage. Data encryption is closer: 14,413 versus 13,072, a 10.3% lead for the Core 5 213PTE. Extended instructions show the smallest desktop advantage in a Core 5 win, 16,146 versus 15,377, just 5% ahead.

The Ultra 5 238V wins two identical single-thread tests: PassMark single-thread and singlethread both record 3,890 versus 3,718 for the Core 5 213PTE, a 4.4% edge. The only other Ultra 5 victory is in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 174 against 157, a 9.8% advantage. These wins are meaningful but isolated; they do not translate into broader performance superiority.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 213PTE dominates in every multi-threaded and most single-threaded productivity benchmarks. Its Cinebench scores across R15, R20, and R23 show a consistent 39% lead over the Ultra 5 238V, which positions it as the stronger choice for rendering, video encoding, and other CPU-bound creative tasks. The PassMark multithread result reinforces this, with a 39% gap. The massive integer math advantage of 139.4% further indicates superior performance in general computation, database work, and any workload relying on arithmetic logic units.

The Core 5 213PTE also wins in data compression by 47.9%, making it the better option for archiving, file management, and compression-heavy server tasks. Physics simulation, which benefits from raw CPU throughput, favors the Core 5 by 42.2%. Even in single-core Cinebench tests, the desktop chip leads by 39%, meaning it is not merely a multi-thread specialist; it also delivers faster per-thread rendering performance.

The Ultra 5 238V wins in PassMark single-thread tests by 4.4%, indicating slightly faster single-thread execution in that specific benchmark suite. It also wins in prime number finding by 9.8%, which suggests an advantage in certain mathematical workloads that do not scale with thread count. These wins are narrow and do not compensate for the broad deficits elsewhere. The Ultra 5 is also the lower-power part, with a 17 TDP versus 45 TDP, which suits fanless or compact mobile designs where sustained multi-thread performance is less critical.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Core 5 213PTE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Ultra 5 238V uses Lunar Lake architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process by TSMC. The process node difference is substantial, but it does not translate into a performance advantage for the Ultra 5 in most benchmarks.

Core counts are identical at 8, but thread counts differ: the Core 5 213PTE supports 16 threads while the Ultra 5 238V supports only 8. This is a critical architectural distinction. The Core 5 uses simultaneous multithreading to double its logical thread count, while the Ultra 5 does not. This explains the consistent 39% multi-thread deltas in Cinebench and PassMark multithread, as the Core 5 can process twice as many threads simultaneously.

Cache layouts also differ significantly. The Core 5 213PTE has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 238V has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 8 MB of shared L3. While the Ultra 5 has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, its L3 cache is one-third the size of the Core 5's. This likely explains why the Ultra 5 wins in find prime numbers, a workload that may fit in its larger per-core caches, but loses in data compression and integer math where larger shared L3 helps.

The memory support differs as well. The Core 5 213PTE supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC memory. The Ultra 5 238V supports dual-channel memory but the type depends on the motherboard, with no ECC support. The Core 5's fixed memory bandwidth figure indicates a more conventional memory subsystem, while the Ultra 5's bandwidth is unspecified in the database.

PCIe lanes also differ: the Core 5 213PTE provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 5 238V offers Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes. This makes the Core 5 far more suitable for discrete GPUs and high-bandwidth expansion, while the Ultra 5 is limited to a minimal PCIe setup typical of ultraportable laptops.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 5 uses Arc 130V. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, so no performance comparison is possible here.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

• Threads: Core 5 213PTE has 16 threads; Ultra 5 238V has 8 threads.
• Boost clock: Core 5 213PTE boosts to 5.20 GHz; Ultra 5 238V boosts to 4.70 GHz.
• TDP: Core 5 213PTE is 45 W; Ultra 5 238V is 17 W.
• Socket: Core 5 213PTE uses Intel Socket 1700; Ultra 5 238V uses Intel BGA 2833.
• Process node: Core 5 213PTE is 10 nm at Intel; Ultra 5 238V is 3 nm at TSMC.
• L1 cache: Core 5 has 80 KB per core; Ultra 5 has 192 KB per core.
• L2 cache: Core 5 has 2 MB per core; Ultra 5 has 2.5 MB per core.
• L3 cache: Core 5 has 24 MB shared; Ultra 5 has 8 MB shared.
• Memory support: Core 5 supports DDR4 and DDR5; Ultra 5 depends on motherboard.
• Memory bandwidth: Core 5 has 76.8 GB/s; Ultra 5 has no recorded figure.
• ECC memory: Core 5 supports ECC; Ultra 5 does not.
• PCIe lanes: Core 5 has 16 CPU lanes; Ultra 5 has 4 CPU lanes.
• Integrated graphics: Core 5 uses UHD Graphics 730; Ultra 5 uses Arc 130V.
• Market segment: Core 5 is Desktop; Ultra 5 is Mobile.
• Release date: Core 5 released 2026-03-08; Ultra 5 released 2024-09-23.
• Launch MSRP: Core 5 has a launch MSRP of $221; Ultra 5 has no recorded launch MSRP.
• Part number: Core 5 is SA4QM; Ultra 5 is SRPN5SRPN4.

The base clocks are identical at 2.10 GHz for both parts.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PTE boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 238V boosts to 4.70 GHz.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Core 5 213PTE scores 21,751, which is 39% higher than the Ultra 5 238V's 15,645.

Q: Does the Ultra 5 238V win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins PassMark single-thread with 3,890 versus 3,718 (4.4% higher), and PassMark find prime numbers with 174 versus 157 (9.8% higher). It also wins the duplicate singlethread test by the same margin.

Q: What is the thread count difference?

A: The Core 5 213PTE has 16 threads, while the Ultra 5 238V has 8 threads. Both have 8 cores.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Core 5 213PTE supports ECC memory. The Ultra 5 238V does not.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The Core 5 213PTE has a TDP of 45 W, while the Ultra 5 238V has a TDP of 17 W.

The Verdict

Benchmark data indicates the Intel Core 5 213PTE is the stronger processor for almost every measured workload. It leads by 39% across all Cinebench tests, by 39% in PassMark multithread, by 47.9% in data compression, and by 139.4% in integer math. Its 16 threads versus 8 threads provide a clear multi-threading advantage, and its larger 24 MB L3 cache supports data-heavy tasks. The higher 5.20 GHz boost clock also helps in single-threaded Cinebench, where it leads by 39%. It is the appropriate choice for desktop users running rendering, compression, physics simulation, or general productivity workloads that benefit from high thread counts and large shared cache.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 238V wins only in PassMark single-thread tests and prime number finding. Its larger per-core L1 and L2 caches help in those narrow cases, and its 17 W TDP makes it far more power-efficient. Its 3 nm TSMC process and Lunar Lake architecture are newer, but the database shows no multi-thread benefit from that node advantage. The Ultra 5 is suited for mobile platforms where low power draw and compact BGA packaging matter more than raw throughput, and where the workload fits within its 8 MB L3 cache.

The Core 5 213PTE also offers 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, ECC memory support, DDR4 and DDR5 compatibility, and a desktop socket. The Ultra 5 238V provides only 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, no ECC, and motherboard-dependent memory. For users building a desktop system with discrete graphics, expansion cards, or ECC requirements, the Core 5 213PTE is the only viable option between these two. For a fanless or low-power laptop design, the Ultra 5 238V is the practical choice despite its lower benchmark scores. The data does not support the Ultra 5 as a performance alternative in any general-purpose desktop role.