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

The Intel Core 5 213PTE and Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus occupy different tiers of Intel’s desktop lineup, and the benchmark data shows a decisive split. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with margins ranging from 20.9% to 65.3%. The Core 5 213PTE, meanwhile, posts an average benchmark score of 32924, sitting at the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus averages 66159, placing it at the 93rd percentile. These are not close competitors; the data describes one processor that roughly doubles the overall performance of the other.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus dominates every single measured workload. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 42718 against the Core 5 213PTE’s 21751, a delta of 49.1%. The single-core R23 test tells the same story: 6030 versus 3070, again a 49.1% gap. This consistency across both single-threaded and multi-threaded Cinebench tests indicates that the advantage is not merely a core-count effect but also a per-core efficiency gain.

Cinebench R20 mirrors the pattern. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus reaches 17941 multi-core and 2532 single-core, while the Core 5 213PTE manages 9135 and 1289 respectively, both 49.1% behind. In Cinebench R15, the same delta appears: 4305 versus 2192 multi-core, 607 versus 309 single-core. Every Cinebench iteration shows the same 49.1% deficit, suggesting the performance gap is stable across rendering workloads of varying duration and complexity.

PassMark tests reveal an even wider spread in certain tasks. The largest margin is in find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 452 versus 157, a 65.3% lead. Data encryption shows a 65.1% gap (41292 versus 14413), and extended instructions trail by 62.3% (42880 versus 16146). These are compute-heavy, integer-driven workloads where the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus’s additional cores and newer architecture compound into outsized advantages.

Floating point math shows a 55.1% difference: 159824 versus 71722. Random string sorting is 55.2% in favor of the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus (67209 versus 30106). Data compression, a common proxy for file archiving and database work, sees a 52.8% gap (553155 versus 261083). Multi-threaded PassMark overall shows 50146 versus 25590, a 49% difference, while physics simulation is 3183 versus 2199, a narrower 30.9% gap.

The closest margins appear in integer math and single-threaded tests. Integer math scores 123030 versus 93109, a 24.3% lead for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. PassMark single-thread (and the duplicate singlethread entry) records 4698 versus 3718, a 20.9% difference. Even the smallest recorded advantage remains substantial; the Core 5 213PTE never comes within 20% of its rival on any metric.

The Core 5 213PTE’s nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core i7-12700 (average score 32942, only 0.1% ahead) and the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D (33079, 0.5% ahead). This places it in a performance class around the 33000 average mark. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, by contrast, sits near the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (65914, 0.4% behind) and the Intel Core 9 273PQE (66099, 0.1% behind). The gap between the two processors in this comparison, roughly 33235 points of average score, is far larger than the differences within either processor’s nearest rival cluster.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different silicon generations. The Core 5 213PTE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on Intel’s 10 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 5 213PTE has no transistor count or die size listed in the database.

Core configuration differs sharply. The Core 5 213PTE has 8 cores and 16 threads, meaning it uses hyperthreading to double thread count. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, no hyperthreading, so each core corresponds to exactly one thread. Despite having 10 additional cores, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus’s thread count is only 2 higher because it lacks simultaneous multithreading.

Cache hierarchy also favors the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. L1 cache is 192 KB per core versus 80 KB per core. L2 cache is 3 MB per core versus 2 MB per core. L3 shared cache is 30 MB versus 24 MB. Every cache level is larger on the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, both per-core and in total shared capacity.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The Core 5 213PTE has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The base clock difference is substantial (2.10 GHz higher on the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus), while boost clocks are nearly identical (5.30 versus 5.20 GHz).

Power and thermal design diverge heavily. The Core 5 213PTE has a TDP of 45 watts; the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is rated at 125 watts. This nearly 3x TDP difference explains why the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus can sustain higher base clocks and feed 18 cores, though it also means the cooling and power delivery requirements are different in kind.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 5 213PTE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses. Memory bandwidth is listed at 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 213PTE and 115.2 GB/s for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, a 38.4 GB/s difference. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity favors the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus: Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only) versus Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics situation is reversed. The Core 5 213PTE includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics (listed as N/A), requiring a discrete GPU for any display output.

Socket compatibility separates the two entirely. The Core 5 213PTE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses Intel Socket 1851. These are not interchangeable; a motherboard designed for one cannot accept the other. The multiplier is locked on the Core 5 213PTE and unlocked on the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, meaning only the latter supports overclocking through the multiplier.

Release dates are nearly simultaneous: the Core 5 213PTE launched on 2026-03-08, and the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus on 2026-03-10. Both are marked as Active production status and target the Desktop market segment. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 family, while the Core 5 213PTE has no series designation listed.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The Intel Core 5 213PTE has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 10 more cores but only 2 more threads because it does not use hyperthreading, whereas the Core 5 213PTE uses hyperthreading to reach 16 threads from 8 cores.

Q: How large is the performance difference in Cinebench R23?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 42718 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 21751 for the Core 5 213PTE, a 49.1% lead. In single-core R23, it scores 6030 versus 3070, also a 49.1% lead. The same delta appears across Cinebench R15 and R20 tests.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 5 213PTE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports DDR5 only. Both are dual-channel, but memory bandwidth differs: 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 213PTE versus 115.2 GB/s for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. Both support ECC memory.

Q: Are the two processors socket-compatible?

A: No. The Core 5 213PTE uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses Intel Socket 1851. A motherboard built for one socket cannot support the other processor.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Core 5 213PTE includes UHD Graphics 730. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics (N/A), so it requires a discrete graphics card for display output.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each processor?

A: The Core 5 213PTE has a TDP of 45 watts. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a TDP of 125 watts. This difference affects cooling requirements and power delivery needs.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus outperforms the Intel Core 5 213PTE in every one of the 17 recorded tests. Its average benchmark score of 66159 is roughly double the Core 5 213PTE’s 32924. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 213PTE sits at the 83rd percentile. The smallest margin of victory is 20.9% in single-threaded PassMark; the largest is 65.3% in find prime numbers.

The Core 5 213PTE’s only advantages are qualitative and contextual. It uses less power (45 watts versus 125 watts TDP), supports DDR4 as well as DDR5, includes integrated graphics, and fits the widely used Socket 1700 platform. It also has a higher boost clock relative to its core count, reaching 5.20 GHz with only 8 cores, which may benefit lightly threaded workloads that cannot leverage the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus’s 18 cores.

For workloads that scale across cores, such as rendering, encryption, compression, or math-heavy simulation, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus delivers anywhere from 24.3% to 65.3% more performance per the recorded data. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it is 49.1% faster. In data encryption, it is 65.1% faster. In floating point math, it is 55.1% faster. These are not edge-case gains; they appear across every category in the database.

The Core 5 213PTE’s nearest rivals in the database, such as the Core i7-12700 and Ryzen 7 7800X3D, all cluster within 0.5% of its average score. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus’s nearest rivals, including the Ryzen 9 7950X3D and Core 9 273PQE, cluster near 66000. The two processors do not compete in the same performance band; they are separated by roughly a factor of two in aggregate benchmark output.

Users constrained to Socket 1700 motherboards or those needing DDR4 support will find the Core 5 213PTE to be the only viable option between the two. Users building on Socket 1851 with DDR5 and a discrete GPU will see substantially higher throughput across all measured workloads with the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. The data does not support any workload category where the Core 5 213PTE wins a recorded test.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors according to the database:

• Cores: 8 (Core 5 213PTE) versus 18 (Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus)
• Threads: 16 versus 18
• Base clock: 2.10 GHz versus 4.20 GHz
• Boost clock: 5.20 GHz versus 5.30 GHz
• TDP: 45 watts versus 125 watts
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel Socket 1851
• Codename: Bartlett Lake versus Arrow Lake Refresh
• Generation: Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) versus Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake)
• Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• Transistors: not listed versus 17,800 million
• Die size: not listed versus 243 mm²
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core
• L2 cache: 2 MB per core versus 3 MB per core
• L3 cache: 24 MB shared versus 30 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 versus DDR5 only
• Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s
• PCIe: Gen 5, 16 lanes versus Gen 5, 20 lanes
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 versus N/A
• Multiplier unlocked: false versus true
• Part number: SA4QM versus SA4V3
• Launch MSRP: $221 versus $184

Fields that are identical include manufacturer (Intel), ECC memory support (true on both), memory bus (dual-channel), market segment (Desktop), and production status (Active).

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins every benchmark category recorded. In Cinebench rendering tests (R15, R20, R23), it leads by 49.1% in both single-core and multi-core. In PassMark integer math, it leads by 24.3%, the smallest margin in the dataset. In PassMark single-thread tests, the lead is 20.9%. These are the only two categories where the Core 5 213PTE comes within 25% of the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus.

The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus shows its largest advantages in integer-heavy workloads: find prime numbers (65.3% ahead), data encryption (65.1% ahead), and extended instructions (62.3% ahead). Floating point math (55.1%), random string sorting (55.2%), and data compression (52.8%) also show massive gaps. Physics simulation (30.9%) and multi-threaded PassMark (49%) complete the sweep.

The Core 5 213PTE has no benchmark wins. Its role in a system is defined by its platform characteristics rather than performance. It fits Socket 1700, which is compatible with a large installed base of DDR4 motherboards. Its 45-watt TDP makes it suitable for systems with modest cooling and power delivery. Its integrated UHD Graphics 730 allows operation without a discrete GPU. Its locked multiplier means no overclocking, but its 5.20 GHz boost clock is only 0.10 GHz below the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus’s 5.30 GHz.

For a user with an existing Socket 1700 DDR4 platform, the Core 5 213PTE offers a path to an 8-core, 16-thread processor with a high boost clock and ECC support. For new builds or upgrades to Socket 1851 with DDR5, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus delivers roughly double the average benchmark score, a higher single-thread score (4698 versus 3718), and a larger cache at every level. The data shows no recorded workload where the Core 5 213PTE is faster, so the choice reduces to platform compatibility and power constraints rather than performance comparison.