Intel Core 5 213PTE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records 17 direct comparisons between the Intel Core 5 213PTE and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K. The results are overwhelmingly one-sided: the Core Ultra 9 285K claims 16 wins, while the Core 5 213PTE takes a single victory.

The largest margin comes in PassMark data encryption, where the Core Ultra 9 285K scores 57,745 against 14,413 for the Core 5 213PTE, a difference of 75%. This pattern continues across computational workloads. In PassMark data compression, the Core Ultra 9 285K reaches 790,052, which is 67% ahead of the Core 5 213PTE's 261,083. Extended instruction throughput shows a 74.1% gap, with the Core Ultra 9 285K posting 62,277 versus 16,146. Prime number finding, a test sensitive to raw integer throughput and cache behavior, sees the Core Ultra 9 285K at 541 compared to 157, a 71% lead. Floating point math follows suit: 224,324 for the Core Ultra 9 285K against 71,722, a 68% advantage.

Multi-core rendering benchmarks amplify the same story. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285K scores 6,494, which is 66.2% higher than the Core 5 213PTE's 2,192. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 61.9% gap (24,003 versus 9,135). Cinebench R23 multi-core narrows the relative difference to 48.8%, but the absolute gap remains large: 42,522 for the Core Ultra 9 285K versus 21,751 for the Core 5 213PTE. PassMark multi-thread results indicate a 62% delta, with scores of 67,260 and 25,590 respectively. PassMark physics, a measure of simulation and constraint solving, gives the Core Ultra 9 285K a 44.2% edge (3,938 versus 2,199). Random string sorting, a memory-latency sensitive test, shows a 68.3% gap favoring the Core Ultra 9 285K (94,927 versus 30,106).

Single-thread performance is closer but still favors the larger chip. PassMark single-thread scores put the Core Ultra 9 285K at 5,087, which is 26.9% ahead of the Core 5 213PTE's 3,718. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a modest 13.9% gap (359 versus 309). Cinebench R20 single-core, however, shows a much larger 62% difference, with the Core Ultra 9 285K scoring 3,388 against 1,289. This inconsistency across Cinebench versions is notable.

The Core 5 213PTE's sole win comes in Cinebench R23 single-core. There, it scores 3,070, which is 29.2% ahead of the Core Ultra 9 285K's 2,377. This is the only benchmark in the entire comparison where the Core 5 213PTE leads, and the margin is substantial. The data does not explain the mechanism, but the result is consistent across the recorded score.

Overall, the average benchmark score in the database places the Core Ultra 9 285K at 83,807, which is 83,807 versus 32,924 for the Core 5 213PTE. The Core Ultra 9 285K sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 213PTE sits in the 83rd percentile.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K wins 16 of the 17 recorded comparisons. The Intel Core 5 213PTE wins only one, Cinebench R23 single-core.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in the data?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark data encryption, where the Core Ultra 9 285K leads by 75%. The Core 5 213PTE scores 14,413 and the Core Ultra 9 285K scores 57,745.

Q: Where does the Core 5 213PTE outperform the Core Ultra 9 285K?

A: The Core 5 213PTE wins Cinebench R23 single-core with a score of 3,070, which is 29.2% higher than the Core Ultra 9 285K's 2,377.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 9 285K compare in multi-core workloads?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285K leads by 66.2% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 61.9% in Cinebench R20 multi-core, and 48.8% in Cinebench R23 multi-core. PassMark multi-thread shows a 62% gap.

Q: What are the percentile rankings of these two CPUs?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285K is in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 213PTE is in the 83rd percentile.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285K has an average benchmark score of 83,807. The Core 5 213PTE has an average of 32,924.

Architecture Differences

The two processors differ substantially at the architectural level. The Core 5 213PTE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation of that family. The Core Ultra 9 285K uses the Arrow Lake-S codename and the Arrow Lake architecture, part of the Core Ultra Series 2. This is a generational split that maps to different process nodes: the Core 5 213PTE is fabricated on a 10 nm node by Intel, while the Core Ultra 9 285K is fabricated on a 3 nm node by TSMC.

The core counts are very different. The Core 5 213PTE has 8 cores and 16 threads, indicating hyperthreading support. The Core Ultra 9 285K has 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning it does not use simultaneous multithreading. The socket types also differ: the Core 5 213PTE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 9 285K uses Intel Socket 1851. This means the two are not physically interchangeable on a motherboard.

Cache hierarchies scale with the core counts. The Core 5 213PTE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 285K has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core caches on the Core Ultra 9 285K are consistent with its higher transistor count: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, whereas the transistor count and die size for the Core 5 213PTE are not recorded in the database.

Memory support also differs. The Core 5 213PTE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 9 285K supports only DDR5. Both are dual-channel. The recorded memory bandwidth for the Core 5 213PTE is 76.8 GB/s, while the Core Ultra 9 285K reaches 102.4 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs in lane count: the Core 5 213PTE provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, and the Core Ultra 9 285K provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 213PTE includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 9 285K includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The Core Ultra 9 285K has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 5 213PTE does not. The Core Ultra 9 285K also has a higher base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, compared to 2.10 GHz base and 5.20 GHz boost for the Core 5 213PTE. The thermal design power is recorded at 125 watts for the Core Ultra 9 285K and 45 watts for the Core 5 213PTE.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K dominates in nearly every measured category. It leads by 66.2% or more in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core, by 62% in PassMark multi-thread, and by 67% to 75% in PassMark data compression, encryption, and extended instructions. It also wins single-thread tests in PassMark and Cinebench R15 and R20, though the margins are smaller (13.9% to 26.9%). Its 96th percentile ranking versus the Core 5 213PTE's 83rd percentile confirms that the Core Ultra 9 285K sits in a higher performance class.

The Core 5 213PTE has one notable strength: Cinebench R23 single-core, where it beats the Core Ultra 9 285K by 29.2%. This is a real result in the data, but it is an isolated one. Across the full set of 17 comparisons, the Core Ultra 9 285K wins 16. The Core 5 213PTE also offers lower power consumption (45 watts versus 125 watts) and broader memory compatibility (DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR5 only), which are system-level considerations that the benchmark scores do not capture.

The choice between these two processors depends on the workload. For multi-threaded rendering, encryption, compression, or physics simulation, the Core Ultra 9 285K is the stronger part by a wide margin. For a single-threaded Cinebench R23 workload, the Core 5 213PTE is faster. The Core 5 213PTE also fits into the Intel Socket 1700 platform, while the Core Ultra 9 285K requires the Intel Socket 1851 platform. The data does not indicate any scenario where the Core 5 213PTE matches the Core Ultra 9 285K across a broad range of tests.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 213PTE | Intel Core Ultra 9 285K |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 8 | 24 |

| Threads | 16 | 24 |

| Base clock | 2.10 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.20 GHz | 5.70 GHz |

| TDP | 45 watts | 125 watts |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 2 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 24 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Multiplier unlocked | false | true |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | $589 |

| Release date | 2026-03-08 | 2024-10-23 |

| Transistors | not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die size | not recorded | 243 mm² |

The specification table shows that the Core Ultra 9 285K leads on raw resources: more cores, higher clocks, larger caches, more PCIe lanes, and higher memory bandwidth. The Core 5 213PTE counters with lower power draw, DDR4 compatibility, and a lower launch MSRP of $221, which is a single data point and not a basis for cost analysis. Both processors are marked Active in production status and target the desktop market segment.