Intel Core 5 213PTE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores, while the Intel Core 5 213PTE has 8 cores. Both processors present 16 threads to the operating system, meaning the Core 5 relies on simultaneous multithreading to reach its thread count.

Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PTE boosts to 5.20 GHz, compared to the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H's 4.90 GHz. Both processors share the same 2.10 GHz base clock.

Q: Which CPU is built on a more advanced manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses a 3 nm process node, while the Intel Core 5 213PTE is fabricated on a 10 nm node. Both are produced by Intel's own foundry operations.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PTE supports DDR4 and DDR5, whereas the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Ultra 9 also carries a higher memory bandwidth rating.

Q: Which processor has the higher overall benchmark percentile?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H sits in the 88th percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the Intel Core 5 213PTE sits in the 83rd percentile. The average benchmark score for the Ultra 9 is 43210, versus 32924 for the Core 5.

Q: Which chip won more head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H won 13 of the 17 recorded comparisons. The Intel Core 5 213PTE won the remaining 4.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectural families. The Intel Core 5 213PTE is a Bartlett Lake part, released as part of the Core 5 generation, and targets the desktop market with an Intel Socket 1700 interface. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H belongs to the Panther Lake architecture, part of the Core Ultra Series 3, and is a mobile part using Intel BGA 2540.

The manufacturing process separates them clearly: the Core 5 uses a 10 nm node, while the Ultra 9 is built on a 3 nm node. That process advantage pairs with a different core configuration. The Core 5 has 8 cores and 16 threads, relying on hyper-threading. The Ultra 9 has 16 physical cores and 16 threads, meaning it does not use simultaneous multithreading.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 5 allocates 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 allocates 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. Despite the smaller L3 pool, the Ultra 9's larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations serve its higher core count.

Integrated graphics present another distinction. The Core 5 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 9 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The Ultra 9 also carries a different memory controller, supporting LPDDR5X in addition to DDR5, whereas the Core 5 accepts DDR4 and DDR5.

PCIe lane counts differ as well. The Core 5 provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 9 provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes. ECC memory support is present on the Core 5 but absent on the Ultra 9. The Core 5 also has a launch MSRP of $221, while the Ultra 9 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 213PTE takes a clear lead in single-threaded workloads that favor high clock speeds. Its 5.20 GHz boost clock helps it win Cinebench R15 single-core and Cinebench R23 single-core by significant margins. It also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core and PassMark integer math, showing that its 8-core, 16-thread configuration can hold its own in certain sustained compute tasks.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H dominates the broader multi-threaded and data-intensive workload categories. It wins Cinebench R15 multi-core, Cinebench R20 multi-core, and Cinebench R20 single-core. In PassMark tests, it wins data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, multithread, physics, and random string sorting. Its 16 physical cores give it a substantial edge in parallel workloads that scale with core count.

The pattern is consistent: the Core 5 excels where clock speed and single-core efficiency matter most, while the Ultra 9 wins where core count and memory bandwidth feed heavy parallel processing. The Ultra 9's 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth versus the Core 5's 76.8 GB/s likely contributes to its wins in data compression and encryption.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 213PTE | Intel Core Ultra 9 386H |

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

| Cores | 8 | 16 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Boost Clock | 5.20 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Panther Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

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

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 12 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2026-03-08 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | None recorded |

Both processors share the same 2.10 GHz base clock and dual-channel memory bus. Both have locked multipliers and are currently marked as Active in production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results split into two distinct categories, with the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H winning the majority of tests but the Intel Core 5 213PTE scoring decisive victories in specific areas.

The largest win for the Core 5 comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 3070 versus 2071.5 for the Ultra 9, a 48.2% advantage. This result aligns with the Core 5's higher 5.20 GHz boost clock. The Core 5 also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 21751 versus 20547, a 5.9% margin. In PassMark integer math, the Core 5 scores 93109 against 87284, a 6.7% win. Cinebench R15 single-core goes to the Core 5 by a slim 1.8% margin, 309 versus 303.5.

The Ultra 9 responds with a broad sweep of the remaining tests. Its biggest win comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 341 versus 157, a 54% advantage. Data encryption shows a 46.9% gap, 27150 versus 14413. Extended instructions deliver a 44.6% lead, 29138 versus 16146. Floating point math goes 108527 versus 71722, a 33.9% margin.

In Cinebench multi-core tests, the Ultra 9 wins R15 with 3223 versus 2192, a 32% lead, and R20 with 12820 versus 9135, a 28.7% margin. It also wins Cinebench R20 single-core by 28.7%, scoring 1809 versus 1289.

PassMark multithread shows 35399 versus 25590, a 27.7% lead for the Ultra 9. Physics follows at 3028 versus 2199, a 27.4% gap. Random string sorting goes 42135 versus 30106, a 28.5% margin. Data compression favors the Ultra 9 at 352365 versus 261083, a 25.9% difference. PassMark single thread shows 4218 versus 3718, an 11.9% lead for the Ultra 9.

The score totals reflect this split. The Ultra 9's average benchmark score of 43210 places it in the 88th percentile, while the Core 5's 32924 places it in the 83rd percentile. The Ultra 9's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 at 43326 and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 at 43431, both within 0.5% of its score. The Core 5 sits within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D and AMD Ryzen 7 8700G, and within 0.1% of the Intel Core i7-12700.

The recorded data indicates that the Ultra 9 is the stronger overall performer when averaged across all benchmarks, but the Core 5's single-core victories in Cinebench R23 and its multi-core win in the same test show that the higher clock speed can overcome core count disadvantages in certain workloads.