Intel Core 5 213PTE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data reveals a clear split between the two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H wins 13 of the 17 recorded comparisons, while the Intel Core 5 213PTE takes 4 wins. However, the magnitude of those victories matters more than the raw count.

The Core Ultra 7 265H dominates in most multi-threaded and throughput-oriented workloads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 2989 against 2192, a 26.7% advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 24.7% lead, with 12131 versus 9135. PassMark multi-thread follows the same pattern: 34027 versus 25590, a 24.8% gap. The data compression test shows a 22% edge, 334711 versus 261083. Data encryption reveals the widest margin of the entire comparison, with the Core Ultra 7 265H scoring 26005 against 14413, a 44.6% difference. Extended instructions also favor the Ultra chip heavily, 26805 versus 16146, a 39.8% lead. Floating point math favors the Ultra part by 34.3%, 109123 versus 71722. Random string sorting goes to the Ultra at 40742 versus 30106, a 26.1% gap. Find prime numbers shows a 53.1% advantage, 335 versus 157. Physics simulation delivers a narrower win, 2497 versus 2199, an 11.9% edge. The single-thread PassMark test also goes to the Ultra, 4334 versus 3718, a 14.2% difference.

The Core 5 213PTE counters with some notable wins. Cinebench R23 single-core is its largest victory: 3070 versus 2080, a 47.6% margin. That is a substantial single-thread result. Cinebench R23 multi-core also favors the Core 5, scoring 21751 against 19940, a 9.1% advantage. Interestingly, the R23 multi-core result contradicts the R15 and R20 multi-core results, where the Ultra chip led by roughly 25%. PassMark integer math goes to the Core 5 at 93109 versus 85479, an 8.9% edge. The final Core 5 win is Cinebench R15 single-core, but by the slimmest margin in the dataset: 309 versus 307, a 0.7% difference. That is effectively a statistical tie, though the recorded data lists the Core 5 as the winner.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story. The Core Ultra 7 265H sits at 41621, while the Core 5 213PTE sits at 32924. The Ultra part lands in the 88th percentile of all CPUs in the database, compared to the 83rd percentile for the Core 5. The nearest rivals confirm the positioning: the Core Ultra 7 265H is within 0.1% of the Intel Core 7 251TE, and within 0.6% of the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X. The Core 5 213PTE sits within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D and 0.1% of the Intel Core i7-12700.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different architectural families and different manufacturing nodes. The Core 5 213PTE uses Bartlett Lake silicon built on Intel's 10 nm process. The Core Ultra 7 265H uses Arrow Lake-H silicon built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. That process difference is significant: the Ultra part packs more transistors into a smaller area, but the database does not record transistor counts or die sizes for either chip.

Core configuration also differs sharply. The Core 5 213PTE has 8 cores and 16 threads, meaning it uses simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra 7 265H has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning it has no SMT. The Ultra part relies on physical cores alone for its thread count. Cache layouts differ as well. The Core 5 uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and the same 24 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core cache on the Ultra part aligns with its higher throughput in many workloads.

Clock speeds are close on paper. The Core 5 has a 2.10 GHz base clock and a 5.20 GHz boost clock. The Core Ultra 7 has a 2.20 GHz base clock and a 5.30 GHz boost clock. The Ultra chip is 0.10 GHz higher on both figures. Thermal design power differs considerably: the Core 5 is rated at 45 W, while the Core Ultra 7 is rated at 28 W. That makes the Ultra part the lower-power option despite having twice the core count. The socket situation is entirely different, with the Core 5 using Intel Socket 1700 for desktop builds, while the Core Ultra 7 uses Intel BGA 2049, a mobile package.

Memory support diverges. The Core 5 supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 7 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The Core Ultra 7 records a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, versus 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5. Both support ECC memory. PCIe lanes also differ: the Core 5 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 7 provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The integrated graphics are different as well: UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 5, Arc Graphics 140T on the Core Ultra 7.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H wins 13 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 5 213PTE wins 4.

Q: What is the largest single victory for the Core 5 213PTE?

A: The largest Core 5 win is Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 3070 against 2080, a 47.6% margin. It also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 9.1% and PassMark integer math by 8.9%.

Q: What is the largest single victory for the Core Ultra 7 265H?

A: The largest Ultra win is PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 335 against 157, a 53.1% advantage. Data encryption is close behind at 44.6%.

Q: Do the two processors have the same number of threads?

A: No. The Core 5 213PTE has 8 cores and 16 threads, using SMT. The Core Ultra 7 265H has 16 cores and 16 threads, with no SMT.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265H records an average benchmark score of 41621, placing it in the 88th percentile. The Core 5 213PTE records 32924, placing it in the 83rd percentile.

Q: Which chip has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265H, at 102.4 GB/s. The Core 5 213PTE records 76.8 GB/s.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in every major specification category. The Core 5 213PTE has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 265H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clock: 2.10 GHz versus 2.20 GHz. Boost clock: 5.20 GHz versus 5.30 GHz. TDP: 45 W versus 28 W. Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 2049. Architecture: Bartlett Lake versus Arrow Lake. Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm. Foundry: Intel versus TSMC.

Cache differs per core. L1 is 80 KB per core on the Core 5, 192 KB per core on the Ultra. L2 is 2 MB per core on the Core 5, 3 MB per core on the Ultra. L3 is identical at 24 MB shared. Memory support: DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. PCIe: Gen 5 with 16 lanes versus Gen 5 with 8 lanes. Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc Graphics 140T. Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile. The Core 5 has a launch MSRP of $221; the Ultra 7 has no recorded launch MSRP. Release dates differ: the Core 5 launched in March 2026, the Ultra 7 in January 2025. Part numbers: SA4QM versus SRQAQ. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 265H is the stronger choice for throughput-heavy workloads. Its 16 physical cores and higher memory bandwidth drive large leads in data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, and multi-threaded PassMark results. The 44.6% encryption advantage and 53.1% prime number advantage suggest workloads that scale with core count and cache depth will favor the Ultra chip. The 22% compression lead and 34.3% floating point lead reinforce that pattern. The Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core results, both around 25% in favor of the Ultra part, align with the PassMark multi-thread data. For rendering, physics simulation, and data processing tasks, the recorded data points clearly to the Core Ultra 7 265H.

The Core 5 213PTE wins in specific scenarios. Its Cinebench R23 single-core result is 47.6% ahead, which is a substantial outlier compared to the rest of the single-thread data. The R23 multi-core win, 9.1%, is also noteworthy because it contradicts the R15 and R20 multi-core results. PassMark integer math favors the Core 5 by 8.9%, indicating that integer-heavy code paths may run better on the Bartlett Lake design. The R15 single-core win is negligible at 0.7%. The Core 5's 45 W TDP and desktop socket make it a different class of part physically, but the benchmark data shows it holding its own in integer math and in the R23 test suite. The 47.6% R23 single-core gap is the single most striking result in the entire comparison, and it suggests that specific compiler or instruction patterns in that test favor the Core 5 design strongly. For workloads that resemble the R23 single-core test, the Core 5 213PTE is the clear winner.