Intel Core 5 213PTE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two Intel processors into clearly distinct usage profiles. The Intel Core 5 213PTE wins 4 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins 13. The wins are not distributed evenly across workload types; they cluster in specific computational domains.

The Core 5 213PTE takes the crown in Cinebench R23, both multi-core and single-core, and also wins PassMark integer math. Its largest victory is a 50.2% margin in Cinebench R23 single-core, which indicates a strong advantage in lightly threaded, latency-sensitive tasks. The 33.2% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core is equally decisive, showing that for sustained all-core rendering workloads of that specific benchmark generation, the desktop part dominates.

The Core Ultra 5 338H controls nearly everything else. It wins all other Cinebench iterations (R15 and R20, both multi and single core), plus the bulk of the PassMark suite: data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, and single thread. Its wins range from a modest 5.6% in data compression to a commanding 48.4% in prime number finding. The mobile chip also holds a 32.5% lead in both data encryption and extended instructions.

The pattern is clear. The Core 5 213PTE is a specialist for certain rendering tasks and integer-heavy code. The Core Ultra 5 338H is the generalist, winning the broader set of tests across encryption, compression, physics, and floating point workloads. For mixed-use scenarios, the Ultra 5 338H appears more versatile. For specific applications that resemble Cinebench R23, the Core 5 213PTE is the stronger option.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different manufacturing nodes and design philosophies. The Core 5 213PTE uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm process built by Intel. The Core Ultra 5 338H is a Panther Lake part on a 3 nm process, also from Intel. The 3 nm node gives the Ultra 5 a transistor density advantage, though the database does not list transistor counts or die sizes for either part.

Core counts differ significantly. The Core 5 213PTE has 8 cores and 16 threads, meaning it supports simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores but only 12 threads, so it lacks hyper-threading on all cores. This explains some of the benchmark divergence: the desktop chip can process two threads per core, while the mobile chip relies on raw core count.

Cache hierarchies are built differently. The Core 5 213PTE has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 338H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 18 MB of shared L3. The desktop part has more total L3, while the mobile part has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches.

Clock speeds also diverge. The Core 5 213PTE has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 338H runs at 1.90 GHz base and 4.70 GHz boost. The desktop chip has the higher peak frequency, which aligns with its single-core Cinebench R23 victory. The mobile chip compensates with lower power draw.

Power envelopes are very different. The Core 5 213PTE is rated at 45 W TDP, while the Core Ultra 5 338H is rated at 25 W TDP. This nearly two-to-one ratio in thermal design power reflects their intended markets: desktop versus mobile. The socket types differ accordingly, with the desktop part using Intel Socket 1700 and the mobile part using Intel BGA 2540.

Memory support separates them further. The Core 5 213PTE supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel configuration with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, and it supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 338H uses LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth, nearly 78% higher. The mobile chip does not support ECC. PCIe lane counts also differ: the desktop part has Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the mobile part has Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 213PTE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 338H uses Arc B370. The database does not provide benchmark scores for these iGPUs, so no performance comparison is possible from the recorded data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are the most striking. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 5 213PTE scores 21751 against the Ultra 5 338H's 16331, a 33.2% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the desktop part scores 3070 against 2044, a 50.2% lead. These are the two largest margins in either direction in the entire comparison.

The Cinebench R15 and R20 results flip the script. In R15 multi-core, the Ultra 5 338H scores 2504 versus 2192, a 12.5% lead. In R20 multi-core, it scores 10213 versus 9135, a 10.6% lead. The R20 single-core test also goes to the mobile chip, 1441 versus 1289, a 10.5% margin. Only the R15 single-core test favors the desktop part, and narrowly: 309 versus 305, a 1.3% difference.

The PassMark suite shows the Ultra 5 338H's dominance in most computational categories. Data encryption is a 32.5% win for the mobile chip (21367 versus 14413). Extended instructions also show a 32.5% margin (23906 versus 16146). Prime number finding is the biggest PassMark gap, 304 versus 157, a 48.4% lead for the Ultra 5 338H. Floating point math favors the mobile chip by 14.7% (84067 versus 71722).

The Core 5 213PTE's PassMark wins are more limited. Integer math shows a 43.4% advantage for the desktop part (93109 versus 64934). This is a substantial margin, indicating strong performance in integer-heavy code. But the mobile chip wins data compression by 5.6% (276539 versus 261083), multithread by 10.9% (28717 versus 25590), physics by 18.5% (2697 versus 2199), random string sorting by 11.7% (34082 versus 30106), and single thread by 11.1% (4180 versus 3718).

The overall average benchmark scores reflect the balance of wins. The Core 5 213PTE has an average benchmark score of 32924, while the Core Ultra 5 338H averages 33989. The database percentiles confirm this: the desktop part sits at the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, while the mobile part is at the 84th percentile. The Ultra 5 338H's nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H with an average score of 34083, a 0.3% difference against the mobile chip. The Core 5 213PTE's closest rival is the Intel Core i7-12700 at 32942, a 0.1% margin against the desktop part.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload type. For Cinebench R23 rendering and integer math, the Intel Core 5 213PTE is the stronger processor. Its 50.2% single-core and 33.2% multi-core leads in R23 are decisive, and its 43.4% integer math advantage confirms a specialization in that domain. The desktop part also offers ECC memory support, which the mobile chip lacks.

For the broader set of benchmarks, the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is the better performer. It wins 13 of 17 tests, including all Cinebench R15 and R20 iterations, plus the majority of PassMark categories. Its average benchmark score is 3.2% higher (33989 versus 32924), and it sits one percentile point higher in the global distribution. The mobile chip also delivers significantly higher memory bandwidth (136.5 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s) and uses a more advanced 3 nm process.

The thermal design power difference is a major factor. The Core 5 213PTE draws 45 W, while the Core Ultra 5 338H draws only 25 W. For mobile platforms, the Ultra 5 338H is the obvious choice, as it fits within a lower power envelope while still winning most benchmarks. For desktop systems where power draw is less constrained, the Core 5 213PTE offers the higher boost clock and stronger Cinebench R23 performance.

Users who prioritize the specific Cinebench R23 workload, or who need ECC memory and integer math performance, should select the Core 5 213PTE. Users who need a broader mix of encryption, compression, floating point, and single-threaded PassMark performance, or who require the lower power draw of a mobile platform, should select the Core Ultra 5 338H. The database does not indicate a single all-around winner; it shows two processors with complementary strengths.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PTE has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H boosts to 4.70 GHz.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core Ultra 5 338H does not support ECC memory. The Core 5 213PTE does support ECC.

Q: Which chip wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 5 213PTE wins 4.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core 5 213PTE leads by 50.2% (3070 versus 2044).

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H has an average benchmark score of 33989, which is higher than the Core 5 213PTE's average of 32924.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 5 213PTE supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode. The Core Ultra 5 338H supports LPDDR5X in dual-channel mode.