CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i5-3330 and AMD Ryzen Embedded V1605B are both quad-core desktop processors that land within 0.4% of each other in average benchmark score, yet their performance profiles diverge sharply depending on the workload. The data shows a split decision: the AMD chip wins two of the three head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel part takes a decisive victory in one specific multi-core test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result comes from Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Intel Core i5-3330 posts a score of 3486 against the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1605B’s 3160. That is a 10.3% advantage for the Intel processor, and it is the only test in the head-to-head set where Intel comes out ahead. This result is notable because the i5-3330 is a 2012-era Ivy Bridge part with 4 cores and 4 threads, while the V1605B is a 2018 Zen-based chip with simultaneous multithreading, giving it 4 cores and 8 threads. Despite the thread-count disadvantage, the Intel part’s higher per-core cache allocation and older but robust architecture allow it to outperform in this heavily multi-threaded workload.

The other two head-to-head comparisons swing decisively toward AMD. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ryzen Embedded V1605B scores 654 against the i5-3330’s 351. That is a 46.3% margin in AMD’s favor, a massive gap that reflects the V1605B’s ability to leverage its 8 threads in this benchmark. The single-core comparison is also lopsided: in Cinebench R23 single-core, the AMD part scores 841 versus Intel’s 492, a 41.5% difference. This single-core dominance is consistent with the V1605B’s higher boost clock of 3.60 GHz compared to the i5-3330’s 3.20 GHz, though the architectural improvements in Zen also play a role.

The overall win count is 2-1 in favor of the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1605B, but the picture is more nuanced than that tally suggests. The Intel part’s win in R23 multi-core is a substantial 10.3% margin, while AMD’s wins are even larger in percentage terms but come in tests where the absolute scores are lower for both chips. The R15 multi-core result shows a 46.3% delta, and the R23 single-core shows a 41.5% delta, both of which dwarf Intel’s 10.3% win. When averaging across all benchmark results, the two chips land within 0.4% of each other, the i5-3330 averages 1200 points and the V1605B averages 1196 points, placing them in a statistical dead heat overall.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload type. For users whose primary tasks involve single-threaded responsiveness or moderately threaded applications, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1605B is the stronger choice. Its 41.5% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 46.3% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core indicate that it handles both lightly threaded and reasonably parallel workloads with greater efficiency. The V1605B also does this while consuming far less power, with a 15 W TDP versus the i5-3330’s 77 W, though TDP numbers are not directly benchmark scores.

For users running heavily multi-threaded workloads that resemble Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel Core i5-3330 holds a 10.3% advantage. This is a narrower win than AMD’s margins, but it appears in a modern, demanding benchmark that stresses all cores simultaneously. If the target application scales well beyond 8 threads, the i5-3330’s 10.3% edge could translate into meaningful throughput gains, but the i5-3330’s lack of hyperthreading limits its ceiling in highly threaded scenarios.

Both processors sit at the 34th percentile among all CPUs, meaning they are neither entry-level nor high-end parts. The average benchmark scores of 1200 and 1196 are nearly identical, and the nearest rivals for both chips include parts like the AMD Athlon PRO 200GE (1200, 0% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 3 2200G (1202, -0.2% delta), confirming that neither CPU breaks new ground in overall performance. The verdict is that the AMD part is better for general desktop use and single-threaded tasks, while the Intel part is better for specific multi-core workloads that mirror R23’s scaling pattern.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design eras and philosophies. The Intel Core i5-3330 uses the Ivy Bridge architecture, built on a 22 nm process node at Intel’s foundry. It features 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The die size is 133 mm², and the cache layout consists of 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The i5-3330 supports DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration and does not support ECC memory. It uses the Intel Socket 1155 and offers PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The integrated graphics are Intel HD 2500.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded V1605B is a Zen-based part manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process node. It has 4 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The die is significantly larger at 210 mm², and the transistor count is 4,950 million, a figure not provided for the Intel part. The cache hierarchy differs notably: the V1605B has 128 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, but only 2 MB of shared L3 cache. This is one-third the L3 capacity of the i5-3330’s 6 MB. The V1605B supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration, also without ECC support, and uses the AMD Socket FP5. The integrated graphics are Radeon Vega 8, a more capable iGPU compared to Intel HD 2500. The V1605B’s PCIe configuration is not listed in the data.

The architectural differences explain much of the benchmark behavior. The i5-3330’s larger 6 MB L3 cache likely helps in the R23 multi-core test, where repeated access to shared data benefits from a larger pool. The V1605B’s smaller 2 MB L3 cache is offset by faster per-core L1 and L2 capacities, which may contribute to its strong single-core performance. The Zen architecture’s higher boost clock of 3.60 GHz versus 3.20 GHz also gives the AMD part a raw frequency advantage in lightly threaded workloads.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The most obvious divergence is in thread count: the i5-3330 has 4 threads while the V1605B has 8 threads, a direct result of AMD’s simultaneous multithreading support. Base clocks differ as well, with the i5-3330 at 3.00 GHz and the V1605B at 2.00 GHz, but the boost clocks reverse the order, 3.20 GHz for Intel and 3.60 GHz for AMD. The TDP gap is substantial: 77 W for the i5-3330 versus 15 W for the V1605B, a 5x difference in power envelope.

Memory support differs by generation, with the i5-3330 using DDR3 and the V1605B using DDR4. The process nodes are 22 nm for Intel and 14 nm for AMD, and the foundries are Intel and GlobalFoundries, respectively. The die sizes are 133 mm² for the i5-3330 and 210 mm² for the V1605B, while the transistor count for the V1605B is 4,950 million, with no figure available for the Intel part. The cache configurations are markedly different: the i5-3330 has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core with 6 MB shared L3, while the V1605B has 128 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core with 2 MB shared L3.

The sockets are incompatible, Intel Socket 1155 versus AMD Socket FP5, and the integrated graphics differ, with Intel HD 2500 on the i5-3330 and Radeon Vega 8 on the V1605B. The PCIe configuration is Gen 3 with 16 lanes for the Intel part, while no PCIe information is listed for the AMD part. The i5-3330 has a part number (SR0RQ) and was released on September 2, 2012, while the V1605B has no listed part number and was released on February 20, 2018. The production status for the i5-3330 is not listed, while the V1605B is marked as Active. Both CPUs are locked (multiplier not unlocked) and target the desktop market segment.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-3330 averages 1200 points, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1605B averages 1196 points, a difference of 0.4% in favor of Intel.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core i5-3330 scores 3486, which is 10.3% higher than the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1605B’s 3160, making Intel the winner in that test.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in either direction?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V1605B leads by 46.3% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, scoring 654 versus the Intel Core i5-3330’s 351.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores?

A: Yes, both have 4 cores, but the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1605B has 8 threads while the Intel Core i5-3330 has 4 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V1605B boosts to 3.60 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Core i5-3330’s 3.20 GHz boost clock.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are at the 34th percentile among all CPUs, indicating similar overall standing despite different benchmark profiles.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Embedded V1605B wins in single-threaded workloads, as demonstrated by its 41.5% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core (841 versus 492). This makes it the better choice for everyday tasks like web browsing, document editing, and light productivity where per-core speed matters most. It also wins in moderately threaded workloads, as the Cinebench R15 multi-core result shows a 46.3% advantage (654 versus 351), making it suitable for applications that use a handful of threads but not all 8 simultaneously. The V1605B’s lower 15 W TDP also makes it more appropriate for compact or power-constrained systems, though power draw is not a benchmark score.

The Intel Core i5-3330 wins in one specific scenario: heavily multi-threaded workloads that resemble Cinebench R23 multi-core. Its 10.3% lead (3486 versus 3160) suggests that applications capable of fully utilizing 4 cores without hyperthreading can see a measurable benefit from the i5-3330’s larger 6 MB L3 cache and older but efficient Ivy Bridge design. This could include rendering tasks, batch processing, or other parallel compute jobs that align with R23’s scaling behavior. However, this win is narrower than AMD’s margins, and the i5-3330’s 77 W TDP and older DDR3 memory support make it a less efficient platform overall. For users prioritizing raw multi-core throughput in a specific benchmark profile, the i5-3330 has the edge; for everything else, the V1605B is the data-supported pick.