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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a total sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 across all 17 benchmark comparisons. The Intel Core 5 213PTE does not record a single win in any test, with the Core Ultra 9 285 taking every workload category.

The largest margin comes in data encryption, where the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 46,949 against 14,413 for the Core 5 213PTE, a delta of -69.3 percent. This indicates that encryption workloads favor the higher-core-count part by a substantial margin. Extended instructions show a similar story, with the Core Ultra 9 285 posting 45,357 versus 16,146, a -64.4 percent gap. Prime number finding follows at -65.8 percent, with scores of 459 and 157 respectively.

The Cinebench suite tells a consistent tale. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4,933 while the Core 5 213PTE manages 2,192, a -55.6 percent difference. Single-core R15 shows the same percentage delta, with 696 versus 309. Cinebench R20 multicore records 20,556 against 9,135, and R20 single-core shows 2,901 versus 1,289, both again at -55.6 percent. Cinebench R23 multicore delivers 48,945 versus 21,751, with single-core at 6,909 against 3,070. The consistency of the -55.6 percent figure across all six Cinebench tests suggests a proportional scaling advantage rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

PassMark tests reveal a more varied landscape. Float point math shows the Core Ultra 9 285 at 194,988 versus 71,722, a -63.2 percent gap. Random string sorting records 73,651 against 30,106, a -59.1 percent difference. Multithread performance sits at 56,602 versus 25,590, a -54.8 percent margin. Integer math shows the narrowest multicore gap at -43.5 percent, with 164,869 versus 93,109. Physics follows at -38.9 percent, with 3,598 versus 2,199.

The smallest overall gap appears in single-thread tests. PassMark single-thread and singlethread both show the Core Ultra 9 285 at 4,881 versus 3,718 for the Core 5 213PTE, a -23.8 percent difference. This indicates that while the Core Ultra 9 285 leads decisively in every category, its advantage narrows considerably when only one core is active. The data compression test sits in between, with 602,121 versus 261,083, a -56.6 percent gap.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins more benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core 5 213PTE records zero wins.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75,488. The Core 5 213PTE averages 32,924. The Core Ultra 9 285 sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 213PTE sits at the 83rd percentile.

Q: How do these CPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Core 5 213PTE is 0.1 percent behind the Intel Core i7-12700, 0.3 percent ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H, 0.5 percent behind the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D, and 0.5 percent behind the AMD Ryzen 7 8700G. The Core Ultra 9 285 is 0.1 percent behind the AMD EPYC 8224P, 0.2 percent ahead of the AMD EPYC 4545P, 0.3 percent behind the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D, and 0.3 percent behind the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755.

Q: What is the difference in Cinebench R23 multicore scores?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945 in Cinebench R23 multicore. The Core 5 213PTE scores 21,751. This represents a -55.6 percent delta in favor of the Core Ultra 9 285.

Q: Which CPU has better single-thread performance?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 records 4,881 in PassMark single-thread tests. The Core 5 213PTE records 3,718. The delta is -23.8 percent, which is the smallest margin across all benchmark categories.

Q: What are the launch MSRP values?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PTE has a launch MSRP of $221. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a launch MSRP of $579.

The Verdict

The data supports one clear conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the superior processor in every measured workload. The 17-0 record in head-to-head benchmarks is unambiguous. For users who prioritize raw throughput, rendering capability, encryption speed, or any form of parallel computation, the Core Ultra 9 285 delivers scores that are consistently 39 to 69 percent higher than the Core 5 213PTE.

The Core 5 213PTE does not offer any benchmark category where it takes the lead. Even in single-thread tests, where the gap narrows to -23.8 percent, it still trails. The nearest rival comparison shows the Core 5 213PTE trading blows with mainstream desktop and mobile parts, sitting within 0.5 percent of the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D and the AMD Ryzen 7 8700G. The Core Ultra 9 285, by contrast, competes with server-class EPYC parts, sitting within 0.3 percent of the AMD EPYC 8224P and the AMD EPYC 4545P.

The percentile ranking confirms the class difference. The Core Ultra 9 285 at the 95th percentile of all CPUs places it firmly in high-end territory. The Core 5 213PTE at the 83rd percentile still represents a capable desktop processor, but it operates in a different performance tier. Anyone choosing between these two based on benchmark data alone would select the Core Ultra 9 285 without hesitation.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every hardware field. The Core 5 213PTE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851. This means they are not socket-compatible and require different motherboards.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 5 213PTE has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. Notably, the Core Ultra 9 285 has no hyperthreading, as its thread count equals its core count.

Clock speeds favor the Core Ultra 9 285 on both ends. The base clock is 2.50 GHz versus 2.10 GHz, and the boost clock is 5.60 GHz versus 5.20 GHz. Thermal design power also differs, with the Core 5 213PTE rated at 45 watts and the Core Ultra 9 285 at 65 watts.

Memory support diverges. The Core 5 213PTE supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The Core Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory, but memory bandwidth differs: 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 213PTE versus 102.4 GB/s for the Core Ultra 9 285. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe lanes differ. The Core 5 213PTE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 9 285 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ, with the Core 5 213PTE using UHD Graphics 730 and the Core Ultra 9 285 using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

Release dates place the Core 5 213PTE as the newer part, launching in 2026-03-08, while the Core Ultra 9 285 launched in 2024-12-31. Part numbers are SA4QM for the Core 5 213PTE and SRQD4 for the Core Ultra 9 285. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap is fundamental. The Core 5 213PTE uses the Bartlett Lake codename with a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake-S codename with a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. The Core Ultra 9 285 is part of the Core Ultra Series 2 and the Arrow Lake architecture, while the Core 5 213PTE belongs to the Core 5 generation of Bartlett Lake.

Process technology explains much of the performance difference. The 3 nm node from TSMC allows for significantly higher transistor density and efficiency compared to the 10 nm Intel node. The Core Ultra 9 285 contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The transistor count and die size for the Core 5 213PTE are not recorded in the database.

Cache hierarchy differs at every level. 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 9 285 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core caches and the larger shared L3 pool give the Core Ultra 9 285 a structural advantage in data-heavy workloads.

The difference in core and thread topology is also architectural. The Core 5 213PTE uses 8 cores with 16 threads, implying simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses 24 cores with 24 threads, indicating a design without SMT. This means the Core Ultra 9 285 relies on physical cores alone for its thread throughput, which the benchmark data shows is more than sufficient.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins in every recorded benchmark category. There are no exceptions in the data. The margin varies by workload type, which provides useful insight into where each processor is relatively stronger or weaker.

The Core Ultra 9 285 shows its largest advantages in data encryption (-69.3 percent), prime number finding (-65.8 percent), extended instructions (-64.4 percent), and floating point math (-63.2 percent). These workloads benefit from the combination of more cores, larger caches, and the 3 nm process node. The encryption result in particular suggests that the Core Ultra 9 285 has dedicated acceleration or a much wider execution pipeline for cryptographic operations.

The Core Ultra 9 285 shows its smallest advantage in PassMark physics (-38.9 percent), integer math (-43.5 percent), and single-thread tests (-23.8 percent). The physics test often scales with core count but also depends on per-core efficiency, so the smaller gap there indicates the Core 5 213PTE's cores are relatively efficient for their clock speed. The single-thread margin of -23.8 percent is the closest either processor comes to parity, driven by the 5.20 GHz boost clock of the Core 5 213PTE against the 5.60 GHz of the Core Ultra 9 285.

For the Core 5 213PTE, the best-case scenarios relative to its rival are single-threaded applications and integer math. Its 5.20 GHz boost clock and 16 threads allow it to stay within roughly a quarter of the Core Ultra 9 285 in single-core workloads. It remains a capable desktop processor for everyday tasks, as its 83rd percentile ranking and average score of 32,924 place it alongside the Intel Core i7-12700 and above the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H.

For the Core Ultra 9 285, the data shows a processor that dominates in multi-threaded, encryption-heavy, and floating-point-intensive workloads. Its 95th percentile ranking and average score of 75,488 put it in the company of server-class AMD EPYC parts. The 24 physical cores, 36 MB of L3 cache, and 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth make it the clear choice for rendering, scientific computing, data compression, and any workload that can utilize parallel execution.

The benchmark record leaves no ambiguity. The Core Ultra 9 285 is the stronger processor across the board, and the Core 5 213PTE offers no workload where it takes the lead. The choice between them comes down to performance needs, and the data says the Core Ultra 9 285 delivers more in every measured category.