Intel Core 5 213PTE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data tells a clear story: the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H dominates the Intel Core 5 213PTE across nearly every measured workload. Of the 17 recorded comparisons, the Core Ultra 7 366H claims 16 wins, with the Core 5 213PTE taking only a single victory.

The largest margins appear in the PassMark encryption and prime number tests. In data encryption, the Core Ultra 7 366H scores 25,845 against 14,413 for the Core 5 213PTE, a 44.2% advantage. The find prime numbers test shows an even wider gap: 326 versus 157, meaning the Core Ultra 7 366H completes the workload more than twice as fast, a 51.8% difference. Extended instructions follow suit, with the Core Ultra 7 366H posting 26,901 versus 16,146, a 40% lead.

Cinebench results are consistent across all three versions. In R15 multicore, the Core Ultra 7 366H scores 2,870 versus 2,192, a 23.6% edge. R20 multicore shows 11,960 against 9,135, again 23.6% ahead. R23 multicore delivers 28,477 versus 21,751, preserving the same 23.6% delta. Single-core tests mirror this pattern exactly: R15 single-core shows 405 versus 309, R20 single-core shows 1,688 versus 1,289, and R23 single-core shows 4,020 versus 3,070, each a 23.6% or 23.7% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 366H.

PassMark multithread performance follows the same trajectory. The Core Ultra 7 366H records 33,429 against 25,590, a 23.4% lead. Physics tests show 2,880 versus 2,199, another 23.6% gap. Floating point math favors the Core Ultra 7 366H at 103,615 versus 71,722, a 30.8% margin. Data compression also goes to the Core Ultra 7 366H: 327,455 versus 261,083, a 20.3% improvement. Random string sorting completes the sweep of multithreaded workloads, with the Core Ultra 7 366H ahead by 24.4% (39,814 versus 30,106).

The single-thread PassMark results are closer. The Core Ultra 7 366H scores 4,043 against 3,718, an 8% advantage. This narrower gap suggests the Core 5 213PTE's high boost clock helps it remain competitive in lightly threaded scenarios, even though it still loses.

The sole win for the Core 5 213PTE comes in PassMark integer math. There, it scores 93,109 versus 83,695 for the Core Ultra 7 366H, an 11.2% margin. This is an outlier in an otherwise one-sided comparison, and it indicates that the Core 5 213PTE has a specific strength in integer arithmetic workloads that the Core Ultra 7 366H does not match.

The average benchmark scores reflect the overall picture. The Core Ultra 7 366H averages 41,263, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 5 213PTE averages 32,924, good for the 83rd percentile. The Core Ultra 7 366H sits 25.3% higher in average score.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design families. The Core 5 213PTE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on Intel's 10 nm process node. It targets the desktop segment with an Intel Socket 1700 package. The Core Ultra 7 366H belongs to the Panther Lake family, part of the Core Ultra Series 3, and uses a more advanced 3 nm process node from Intel. It is a mobile part on Intel BGA 2540.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 5 213PTE has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. This means the Core Ultra 7 366H doubles the physical core count but offers no additional threads, suggesting its cores are not all paired with hyperthreading. The Core 5 213PTE relies on hyperthreading to reach 16 threads from 8 cores.

Clock speeds favor the Core 5 213PTE in terms of maximum boost. It has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and boosts to 5.20 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 366H has a 2.00 GHz base clock and a 4.80 GHz boost. Despite the lower top speed, the Core Ultra 7 366H still wins every single-thread benchmark, which indicates its per-core efficiency from the 3 nm process more than compensates for the clock deficit.

Cache configurations differ in structure. The Core 5 213PTE has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 366H has more cache per core at every level, but the Core 5 213PTE has more total L3 cache.

Memory support separates the two as well. The Core 5 213PTE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with a higher bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. It does not support ECC. The Core Ultra 7 366H's 50% higher memory bandwidth is notable for memory-intensive workloads.

PCIe lanes also differ. The Core 5 213PTE offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra 7 366H offers Gen 5 but with only 12 lanes. This gives the desktop part more expansion headroom for discrete GPUs or storage.

Integrated graphics are different generations. The Core 5 213PTE uses UHD Graphics 730. The Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The mobile part's newer graphics architecture is likely a factor in its overall performance profile.

Thermal design power shows the intended use cases. The Core 5 213PTE carries a 45 W TDP. The Core Ultra 7 366H draws only 25 W. This nearly 2x difference in power envelope is remarkable given that the Core Ultra 7 366H still outperforms the Core 5 213PTE in almost every test.

Release dates are close. The Core 5 213PTE launched on 2026-03-08. The Core Ultra 7 366H launched on 2026-01-04. The Core Ultra 7 366H has a listed launch MSRP of $221 for the Core 5 213PTE, while the Core Ultra 7 366H has no recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is the clear choice for most workloads. Its wins span rendering, encryption, compression, physics simulation, floating point math, and single-threaded tasks. For Cinebench workloads, which are representative of 3D rendering and creative content production, the Core Ultra 7 366H holds a consistent 23.6% lead. This makes it the stronger processor for video editing, 3D modeling, and other render-heavy tasks.

The Core Ultra 7 366H also excels at security-related workloads. Its 44.2% advantage in data encryption and 40% lead in extended instructions make it suitable for encryption-heavy applications, virtualization, or workloads that leverage modern instruction sets. Data compression, a common server and database task, also favors the Core Ultra 7 366H by 20.3%.

For multithreaded general computing, the Core Ultra 7 366H is again dominant. Its PassMark multithread score of 33,429 versus 25,590 represents a 23.4% advantage. Physics calculations show the same margin at 23.6%. Floating point math, critical for scientific computing and numerical analysis, favors the Core Ultra 7 366H by 30.8%.

The Core 5 213PTE has a narrow but real niche. Its 11.2% win in PassMark integer math means it handles integer-heavy workloads better than the Core Ultra 7 366H. Integer math is relevant for certain types of database operations, financial calculations, and some compression algorithms that rely more on integer arithmetic than floating point. The Core 5 213PTE also has more PCIe lanes and ECC memory support, which may matter for specific desktop workstation configurations.

Single-threaded performance favors the Core Ultra 7 366H, but not by as wide a margin. The 8% difference in PassMark single-thread tests suggests that the Core 5 213PTE's 5.20 GHz boost clock keeps it within striking distance in lightly threaded workloads such as legacy applications, some office productivity tasks, or older games that rely on a single core.

The Core 5 213PTE's larger L3 cache (24 MB versus 18 MB) may benefit certain cache-sensitive workloads, although the benchmark data does not isolate this factor. Its 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus 12 for the Core Ultra 7 366H gives it more direct bandwidth for multiple expansion cards or storage devices.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H averages 41,263 across all recorded benchmarks, compared to 32,924 for the Intel Core 5 213PTE. The Core Ultra 7 366H sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 213PTE is in the 83rd percentile.

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

A: The Intel Core 5 213PTE has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 7 366H has twice the physical core count but the same thread count.

Q: What is the biggest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest difference is in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H scores 326 versus 157 for the Intel Core 5 213PTE, a 51.8% advantage.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Intel Core 5 213PTE wins?

A: Yes, in PassMark integer math, the Intel Core 5 213PTE scores 93,109 against 83,695 for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H, an 11.2% margin. This is the only benchmark out of 17 where the Core 5 213PTE comes out ahead.

Q: Which processor uses a more advanced manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is built on a 3 nm process node, while the Intel Core 5 213PTE uses a 10 nm process node. Both are fabricated by Intel.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth specifications compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 5 213PTE supports DDR4 and DDR5 with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 50% higher memory bandwidth.

The Verdict

The data points decisively toward the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H for virtually any performance-conscious buyer. It wins 16 of 17 benchmarks, delivers a 25.3% higher average score, and achieves this while consuming 25 W versus 45 W for the Core 5 213PTE. The combination of higher performance and lower power draw makes it the superior engineering achievement on paper.

The Core Ultra 7 366H's wins are not marginal. The 23.6% lead across all Cinebench tests, the 44.2% encryption advantage, and the 51.8% prime number gap are substantial. Its 3 nm process node, 16 physical cores, and 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth give it a structural advantage that the Core 5 213PTE cannot overcome despite its higher 5.20 GHz boost clock.

The Intel Core 5 213PTE remains relevant only for specific scenarios. Its 11.2% win in integer math is the sole bright spot. Its ECC memory support and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes make it a plausible choice for a desktop workstation where data integrity and expansion capacity matter more than raw throughput. The 24 MB L3 cache is also larger than the Core Ultra 7 366H's 18 MB, which could matter in cache-sensitive workloads not captured by the recorded benchmarks.

For mobile users, the Core Ultra 7 366H is the obvious pick. Its 25 W TDP suits thin-and-light laptops, while its benchmark dominance ensures no performance sacrifice. The Core 5 213PTE is a desktop part, so direct comparison in the same chassis is not applicable, but the data shows that the Core Ultra 7 366H outperforms it in almost every measurable way.

The nearest rivals in the database confirm the Core Ultra 7 366H's standing. It is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440, 0.3% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, and 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H. This places it in a tightly competitive band among modern high-end processors. The Core 5 213PTE, by contrast, sits 0.1% behind the Intel Core i7-12700, 0.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H, and 0.5% behind both the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D and AMD Ryzen 7 8700G.

Users who need a desktop processor with ECC support, maximum PCIe expansion, and a specific integer math strength should consider the Core 5 213PTE. Everyone else should choose the Core Ultra 7 366H based on the recorded data.