Intel Core 5 213PTE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a decisive verdict: the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, with the Intel Core 5 213PTE taking a single victory. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is 66855, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 213PTE averages 32924, sitting in the 83rd percentile. That gap, roughly double the overall score, appears in nearly every workload category.

The largest margins belong to the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus in PassMark tests. Data encryption shows a 65.8% advantage (42144 versus 14413), extended instructions a 63.8% edge (44565 versus 16146), and prime number finding a 67.7% lead (486 versus 157). Data compression follows at 54.1% (568721 versus 261083), with floating point math at 55.9% (162692 versus 71722) and random string sorting at 56.4% (69090 versus 30106). These are not marginal differences; they represent a fundamentally higher throughput class.

Cinebench multi-core results reinforce the same pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 4640 against 2192, a 52.8% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 18442 versus 9135, a 50.5% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core narrows the margin to 29.5% (30867 versus 21751), but the Core Ultra still leads decisively. PassMark multi-thread scores 51596 versus 25590, a 50.4% difference, and PassMark physics shows 3494 versus 2199, a 37.1% edge.

Single-core results tell a more nuanced story. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins PassMark single-thread with 4757 versus 3718, a 21.8% advantage, and leads Cinebench R15 single-core by 5.8% (328 versus 309). However, the Core 5 213PTE takes Cinebench R20 single-core by 50.5% (2603 versus 1289) and Cinebench R23 single-core by 35.8% (3070 versus 2261). That R23 single-core win is the only head-to-head victory for the Core 5 213PTE, and it is substantial.

Notably, the Core 5 213PTE also wins Cinebench R20 single-core by the same 50.5% margin, yet the Head-to-Head table records the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus as the winner for that test. The recorded data explicitly lists the Core Ultra as the winner for Cinebench R20 single-core, so the comparison follows that designation. The Cinebench R23 single-core result stands as the sole reversal in the dataset.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus dominates in multi-threaded, memory-intensive, and math-heavy workloads. Its PassMark multi-thread score of 51596 is more than double the Core 5 213PTE's 25590. Integer math shows a 25.6% lead (125091 versus 93109), and physics simulation favors the Core Ultra by 37.1%. The Core Ultra also excels in data compression, encryption, extended instruction sets, and random string sorting. These are workloads that scale with core count, memory bandwidth, and modern instruction execution. The Core Ultra has 18 cores and 18 threads, a dual-channel memory bus at 115.2 GB/s, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache.

The Core 5 213PTE wins specifically in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 3070 against 2261. That 35.8% advantage indicates strong single-thread performance in this particular rendering test, likely tied to its 5.20 GHz boost clock and per-core L1 cache of 80 KB. The Core 5 also posts a competitive Cinebench R20 single-core score of 2603, though the recorded winner for that test is the Core Ultra. For users prioritizing a single specific rendering benchmark, the Core 5 213PTE holds the edge, but that edge does not extend to PassMark single-thread, where the Core Ultra leads by 21.8%.

The use-case split is clear. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the choice for parallel workloads, data processing, encryption, and any task that uses many threads. The Core 5 213PTE is relevant only for the narrow Cinebench R23 single-core scenario and for platforms requiring lower power draw on Socket 1700.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel product lines and use different manufacturing approaches. The Core 5 213PTE is built on Bartlett Lake, an architecture labeled as Core 5 (Bartlett Lake), and uses a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, codenamed Arrow Lake Refresh, and uses a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. The Core Ultra's transistor count is recorded at 17,800 million with a die size of 243 mm², while the Core 5's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Core configuration differs significantly. The Core 5 213PTE has 8 cores and 16 threads, indicating hyperthreading support. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, meaning no hyperthreading, but more physical cores. Cache hierarchies also diverge: the Core 5 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. Each cache level is larger on the Core Ultra.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 5 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra supports DDR5 only, also dual-channel, but with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. PCIe lanes differ: the Core 5 provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics are different tiers. The Core 5 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Both are desktop parts, both are active in production, and both are manufactured by Intel, though the Core Ultra's silicon is fabricated by TSMC.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show clear divergences across nearly every field. Core count: 8 versus 18. Threads: 16 versus 18. Base clock: 2.10 GHz versus 4.20 GHz. Boost clock: 5.20 GHz versus 5.30 GHz. TDP: 45 W versus 125 W. Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel Socket 1851. Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm. Foundry: Intel versus TSMC.

L1 cache per core: 80 KB versus 192 KB. L2 cache per core: 2 MB versus 3 MB. L3 shared: 24 MB versus 30 MB. Memory support: DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR5 only. Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. PCIe lanes: 16 versus 20. Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

The multiplier is locked on the Core 5 213PTE and unlocked on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. Launch MSRP is $221 for the Core 5 and $199 for the Core Ultra. Release dates are close: 2026-03-08 for the Core 5 and 2026-03-10 for the Core Ultra. Part numbers are SA4QM and SA4UZ respectively. The Core Ultra's series is recorded as Core Ultra Series 2, while the Core 5's series is null. Both have the same market segment, Desktop, and both support ECC memory.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus averages 66855, while the Intel Core 5 213PTE averages 32924.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The Core 5 213PTE has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads.

Q: Which processor wins Cinebench R23 single-core?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PTE wins that test with a score of 3070 versus 2261, a 35.8% advantage.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Core 5 213PTE has 76.8 GB/s, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 115.2 GB/s.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a TDP of 125 W, compared to 45 W for the Core 5 213PTE.

Q: What are the process nodes?

A: The Core 5 213PTE uses a 10 nm process from Intel. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses a 3 nm process from TSMC.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports one primary conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the superior processor in almost every measured workload. It wins 16 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, holds a 93rd percentile ranking versus 83rd for the Core 5, and doubles the average benchmark score. Its advantages span multi-core rendering, data compression, encryption, math operations, and single-thread PassMark performance. The 18 physical cores, larger caches, higher memory bandwidth, and 3 nm TSMC process all contribute to that result.

The Intel Core 5 213PTE retains a single meaningful win in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it leads by 35.8%. That makes it relevant for a narrow use case: single-threaded rendering in that specific benchmark. Its lower TDP of 45 W and support for DDR4 could also suit platforms on Socket 1700 that cannot accommodate the Core Ultra's 125 W requirement or DDR5-only memory. The Core 5 also has a locked multiplier, while the Core Ultra is unlocked.

For general desktop computing, multi-threaded productivity, data handling, or any workload that engages multiple cores, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the clear choice from the measurements. For a user constrained to Socket 1700, DDR4 memory, or a 45 W power envelope, the Core 5 213PTE is the only option in this comparison, and its single-core Cinebench R23 result provides some justification. Otherwise, the data points overwhelmingly to the Core Ultra.