Intel Core 5 213PTE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear overall winner: the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H takes 16 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons. The only exception is Passmark integer math, where the Intel Core 5 213PTE delivers a decisive 50% advantage, scoring 93109 against 62070. That single win is substantial, but it stands alone against a broad sweep.

In Cinebench tests, the Core Ultra 5 336H leads by a consistent margin. Across R15, R20, and R23, multi-core scores favor the mobile chip by 9.3% in every case: 2418 versus 2192 in R15, 10076 versus 9135 in R20, and 23991 versus 21751 in R23. Single-core Cinebench results show a slightly larger gap of 9.4% across all three versions, with the Core Ultra 5 336H posting 341, 1422, and 3387 against the Core 5 213PTE's 309, 1289, and 3070.

Passmark workloads amplify the separation in several categories. Data encryption shows a 32.3% advantage for the Core Ultra 5 336H, with scores of 21291 versus 14413. Extended instructions widen further to 34.2%, at 24542 versus 16146. The largest single delta in the entire comparison appears in prime number finding, where the Core Ultra 5 336H leads by 47.5%, scoring 299 against 157. Floating point math favors the same chip by 13%, at 82415 versus 71722.

Other Passmark tests reinforce the pattern. Multithread performance sits 10.4% higher for the Core Ultra 5 336H (28545 versus 25590). Physics scores favor it by 18% (2682 versus 2199), and random string sorting by 12.5% (34402 versus 30106). Data compression shows a smaller but still positive edge of 6.9%, at 280340 versus 261083. Single-thread Passmark results give the Core Ultra 5 336H a 7.4% lead, with 4013 versus 3718.

The average benchmark score confirms the hierarchy: the Core Ultra 5 336H reaches 34485, while the Core 5 213PTE sits at 32924. That difference places the Core Ultra 5 336H in the 84th percentile of all CPUs, one point above the Core 5 213PTE's 83rd percentile. The rival sets are telling as well. The Core 5 213PTE lands within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D and AMD Ryzen 7 8700G, and within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H. The Core Ultra 5 336H, meanwhile, sits within 0.2% of the Intel Core i7-13700HX and within 0.8% of the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350. Both processors are competitive against their immediate peers, but the Core Ultra 5 336H operates in a slightly higher performance tier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the majority of benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H wins 16 of 17 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 5 213PTE wins only Passmark integer math, by 50%.

Q: How large is the Cinebench multi-core gap between the two?

A: The Core Ultra 5 336H leads by 9.3% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests. The scores are 2418 versus 2192, 10076 versus 9135, and 23991 versus 21751, respectively.

Q: Where does the Core 5 213PTE show its best relative performance?

A: In Passmark integer math, the Core 5 213PTE scores 93109 versus 62070, a 50% advantage. That is its only win across the entire benchmark suite.

Q: What is the biggest percentage difference in any single test?

A: Passmark find prime numbers shows the largest delta at 47.5%, with the Core Ultra 5 336H scoring 299 against the Core 5 213PTE's 157.

Q: How do the two compare in average benchmark score and percentile ranking?

A: The Core Ultra 5 336H averages 34485 and ranks in the 84th percentile. The Core 5 213PTE averages 32924 and ranks in the 83rd percentile.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core 5 213PTE boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 336H boosts to 4.60 GHz. Despite the lower boost clock, the Core Ultra 5 336H wins nearly all benchmarks.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different designs. The Core 5 213PTE uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm process, built by Intel for the Desktop segment. The Core Ultra 5 336H is a Panther Lake part on a 3 nm process, also fabricated by Intel, targeting Mobile systems. The process node gap alone explains part of the efficiency and performance profile difference.

Core counts differ sharply. The Core 5 213PTE has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. That means the Core Ultra 5 336H doubles the core count but maintains the same thread count, indicating a different core topology. The cache hierarchy reflects this. The Core 5 213PTE carries 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 336H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 on the Core Ultra 5 336H suggest a more capable individual core design, while the Core 5 213PTE compensates with more shared L3.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 5 213PTE supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use a dual-channel memory bus, but memory bandwidth favors the Core Ultra 5 336H at 115.2 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s. ECC memory is available on the Core 5 213PTE but not on the Core Ultra 5 336H.

PCIe lanes differ modestly: the Core 5 213PTE provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 336H provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are distinct as well, with the Core 5 213PTE using UHD Graphics 730 and the Core Ultra 5 336H using Intel Xe3 Graphics. The sockets are incompatible, with the Core 5 213PTE on Intel Socket 1700 and the Core Ultra 5 336H on Intel BGA 2540.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The Core 5 213PTE has 8 cores and 16 threads; the Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.10 GHz for the Core 5 213PTE and 1.90 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 336H. Boost clocks are 5.20 GHz and 4.60 GHz, respectively.

Thermal design power shows a major split: 45 W for the Core 5 213PTE versus 25 W for the Core Ultra 5 336H. The Core Ultra 5 336H achieves higher benchmark scores while drawing a lower TDP envelope, reflecting the efficiency of the 3 nm process.

The Core 5 213PTE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 336H uses Intel BGA 2540. The Core 5 213PTE belongs to the Bartlett Lake generation; the Core Ultra 5 336H belongs to the Ultra 5 (Panther Lake-H) generation. The Core Ultra 5 336H is the only one with a named series, Core Ultra Series 3.

Cache specifications differ across all three levels. The Core 5 213PTE has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 336H has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. Memory support differs as noted, with the Core 5 213PTE accepting DDR4 and DDR5 and the Core Ultra 5 336H accepting DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. ECC support exists only on the Core 5 213PTE. PCIe lane counts are 16 for the Core 5 213PTE and 12 for the Core Ultra 5 336H. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 versus Intel Xe3 Graphics. The market segment differs: Desktop for the Core 5 213PTE, Mobile for the Core Ultra 5 336H. The Core 5 213PTE has a launch MSRP of $221; the Core Ultra 5 336H has no recorded launch MSRP. Both are active production parts, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H as the stronger performer in nearly every measured workload. Its 16 cores, 3 nm process, higher memory bandwidth, and larger per-core caches translate into consistent leads across Cinebench and most Passmark tests. The 47.5% advantage in prime number finding and the 34.2% lead in extended instructions indicate a significant edge in compute-heavy and integer-heavy tasks that leverage modern instruction sets. The 9.3% to 9.4% Cinebench margins show that the advantage holds in both single-core and multi-core rendering workloads.

The Intel Core 5 213PTE retains one clear strength: Passmark integer math, where it beats the Core Ultra 5 336H by 50%. That result suggests the Bartlett Lake design is particularly effective in certain scalar integer operations, despite its older 10 nm process and lower core count. Its 24 MB of shared L3 and 5.20 GHz boost clock likely contribute to this specific outcome.

For buyers choosing between the two, the decision depends on workload and platform. The Core Ultra 5 336H is the better choice for general productivity, rendering, encryption, compression, and most compute tasks. Its 25 W TDP also makes it suitable for mobile implementations where power efficiency matters. The Core 5 213PTE, with its 45 W TDP and Desktop socket, fits systems that require ECC memory support and prioritize integer math performance above all else. The benchmark record does not support a broader claim for the Core 5 213PTE; its single win, while large, does not offset the 16-test sweep by the Core Ultra 5 336H.