Intel Core 5 210H vs Intel Core 5 330 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Core 5 210H and the Intel Core 5 330 shows a clear split: the 210H dominates in raw multi-threaded throughput and memory-intensive workloads, while the 330 wins in newer rendering tests and single-thread efficiency. Of the 17 recorded comparisons, the 210H takes 11 wins, with the 330 claiming 6.

Starting with the largest margins, the 210H delivers its biggest victory in PassMark integer math, scoring 61503 against 33258. That is an 84.9 percent advantage, the single largest delta in the entire dataset. The 210H also crushes the 330 in PassMark data compression, 217805 versus 145287, a 49.9 percent lead. In Cinebench R15, the 210H is ahead by 32.6 percent in multicore (1757 vs 1325) and 32.8 percent in singlecore (247 vs 186). These are enormous gaps, especially considering both processors carry the Core 5 branding.

The 210H continues its winning run in PassMark random string sorting, 23451 versus 17771, a 32 percent edge. PassMark multithread shows a 18 percent advantage for the 210H, 18252 versus 15471. Cinebench R20 results put the 210H ahead by 17.8 percent in both multicore (6504 vs 5523) and singlecore (918 vs 779). PassMark data encryption goes to the 210H by 10 percent, 12187 versus 11076. Smaller wins for the 210H include extended instructions (13370 vs 12808, 4.4 percent) and floating point math (45057 vs 43885, 2.7 percent).

The 330 fights back in several important areas. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the 330 scores 13150 against 11830, a 10 percent advantage. That is notable because the 330 has fewer cores and threads, yet it wins the newest Cinebench multicore test. The 330 also takes Cinebench R23 singlecore, 1856 versus 1771, a 4.6 percent lead. In PassMark physics, the 330 posts 1201 versus 1040, a 13.4 percent win. The 330 leads PassMark single thread by 13.4 percent as well, 4088 versus 3539. Its best showing is PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 114 against 53, a 53.5 percent blowout in favor of the 330.

The pattern is consistent. The 210H wins every legacy Cinebench generation (R15 and R20) and most PassMark workloads that stress parallel throughput. The 330 wins the Cinebench R23 suite, which is the most recent rendering benchmark in the set, plus physics, single-thread, and prime number calculation. The single-thread results are particularly telling: the 330 beats the 210H by double digits in PassMark single thread, even though its base clock is lower. Boost behavior and architecture efficiency appear to be the deciding factors, not raw clock specifications.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Core 5 210H is the stronger all-around processor for multi-threaded workloads, while the Intel Core 5 330 is the better choice for single-thread performance and the latest Cinebench render test. The 210H wins 11 of 17 benchmarks and holds the higher average benchmark score, 24872 versus 18345. That is a 35.5 percent difference in aggregate performance, which aligns with the 210H's 77th percentile versus the 330's 72nd percentile among all CPUs.

The 210H also sits in a different competitive tier. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-13620H (0.2 percent behind), AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX (0.2 percent ahead of the 210H), Intel Core i7-11850H (0.3 percent behind), and AMD Ryzen 5 7500F (0.4 percent behind). The 330 competes against lower-tier parts: Intel Core i3-14100 (0.1 percent behind the 330), Intel Core 7 360 (0.2 percent ahead), Intel Core i3-13100 (0.2 percent ahead), and Intel Core 3 305 (0.2 percent behind). The 210H's rival set includes a Ryzen 9 and a Core i7, which indicates the 330 is not in the same performance class despite the shared Core 5 naming.

The launch MSRP for the 210H is $342. The launch MSRP for the 330 is $309.

Where Each One Wins

The 210H wins where core count and thread count matter. It has 8 cores and 12 threads, versus 6 cores and 6 threads for the 330. That explains the 84.9 percent lead in integer math, the 49.9 percent lead in data compression, and the 32 percent lead in random string sorting. Workloads that scale with parallel resources, such as video encoding, batch file compression, database operations, and spreadsheet calculations, will favor the 210H. The Cinebench R15 and R20 results confirm this pattern, with the 210H winning both multicore tests by 32.6 percent and 17.8 percent respectively.

The 330 wins where single-core efficiency and newer instruction behavior dominate. Its PassMark single thread score of 4088 is 13.4 percent higher than the 210H's 3539. The Cinebench R23 singlecore result also goes to the 330, 1856 versus 1771. The 53.5 percent lead in prime number finding suggests the 330 handles integer-heavy loop operations more efficiently per clock. Physics simulation also favors the 330 by 13.4 percent, which indicates a strong per-core FPU or scheduling advantage. For users running interactive workloads, light code compilation, or applications that depend on single-thread responsiveness, the 330 is the better match.

The Cinebench R23 multicore result is the outlier that deserves attention. The 330 wins that test by 10 percent despite having fewer cores and threads. This suggests the 330's newer architecture, built on a 3 nm process, extracts more performance per core than the 210H's 10 nm Raptor Lake design. The 330's per-core cache configuration may also play a role, as it carries 192 KB of L1 and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, while the 210H lists 80 KB L1 per core and 2 MB L2 per core.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 210H has an average benchmark score of 24872, while the Intel Core 5 330 scores 18345. The 210H also holds a higher percentile rank at 77 versus 72.

Q: Why does the Intel Core 5 330 win Cinebench R23 multicore despite having fewer cores?

A: The 330 scores 13150 in Cinebench R23 multicore versus 11830 for the 210H, a 10 percent advantage. The 330 uses a newer 3 nm process and has a different core topology, which appears to deliver more performance per core in this specific rendering workload.

Q: Which benchmark shows the largest performance gap between the two?

A: PassMark integer math shows the largest gap. The Intel Core 5 210H scores 61503 against 33258 for the Intel Core 5 330, a difference of 84.9 percent.

Q: What are the single-thread performance differences?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 leads PassMark single thread with 4088 versus 3539 for the 210H, a 13.4 percent advantage. The 330 also wins Cinebench R23 singlecore, 1856 versus 1771, a 4.6 percent lead. The 210H wins Cinebench R15 and R20 singlecore tests by 32.8 percent and 17.8 percent respectively.

Q: How do the two processors compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s and uses a single-channel memory bus. The Intel Core 5 210H uses a dual-channel memory bus, but no bandwidth figure is recorded for it in the database.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 210H has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 330 has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. Despite the lower boost clock, the 330 wins PassMark single thread by 13.4 percent.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations. The Intel Core 5 210H uses Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-H variant, built on Intel's 10 nm process. The Intel Core 5 330 uses Wildcat Lake, built on a 3 nm process, also by Intel. The 330 is the newer design, with a release date in 2026 compared to the 210H's 2024 release.

Core and thread counts differ sharply. The 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads, which indicates a hybrid or hyperthreaded layout. The 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyperthreading. The 210H's thread advantage is a major reason for its wins in multithreaded PassMark tests and legacy Cinebench versions.

Cache configurations also differ. The 210H lists 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The 330 lists 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The 330's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches likely contribute to its single-thread wins, while the 210H's larger total L3 (12 MB versus 6 MB) helps across all cores.

Memory support diverges as well. The 210H supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus. The 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus, with a recorded bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The 210H's dual-channel configuration gives it a memory bandwidth advantage in theory, though no bandwidth number is recorded for it.

PCIe connectivity differs. The 210H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The 330 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The 210H's newer PCIe standard and higher lane count give it an edge for external devices that rely on PCIe bandwidth.

Integrated graphics also differ. The 210H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 48 execution units. The 330 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The 330's graphics solution is newer, but execution unit counts are not directly comparable across the two architectures.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two processors differ in the recorded data.

| Field | Intel Core 5 210H | Intel Core 5 330 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 6 |

| Threads | 12 | 6 |

| Base clock | 2.20 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 15 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-H | Wildcat Lake |

| Generation | Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

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

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

| L3 cache | 12 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | Not recorded | 59.7 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 48EU | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) |

| Release date | 2024-12-17 | 2026-04-15 |

| Launch MSRP | $342 | $309 |

| Part number | SRQ6RQ5MN | SAE3G |

The 210H uses the higher TDP envelope, 45 W versus 15 W, which permits higher sustained clocks but carries different thermal requirements. The sockets are not interchangeable: BGA 1744 versus BGA 1516. Users choosing between these parts must account for motherboard compatibility, as the socket difference prevents direct substitution. The 330's 3 nm process gives it a manufacturing advantage, but the 210H compensates with more cores, more threads, a dual-channel memory bus, and a higher boost clock.