Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core 5 330 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core 5 330 and Intel Core 5 320 share identical core counts, clocks, and cache, yet benchmark results reveal a clear split in workload behavior. The most striking difference appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core 5 330 scores 13150 against the Core 5 320's 6197, a massive 112.2% advantage. This is the single largest margin in the entire comparison and establishes the Core 5 330 as the dominant multi-threaded performer.

Cinebench R15 multi-core reinforces this trend. The Core 5 330 posts 1325 points versus 1054 for the Core 5 320, a 25.7% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a narrower gap, with the Core 5 330 at 5523 and the Core 5 320 at 5462, just 1.1% apart. The pattern is consistent: in multi-core rendering workloads, the Core 5 330 wins every Cinebench iteration, and the R23 result is particularly decisive.

Single-core results tell a different story. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core 5 320 scores 276 against the Core 5 330's 186, a 32.6% advantage for the 320. This is the second-largest delta in the dataset and flips the expected hierarchy. However, Cinebench R20 single-core shows the Core 5 330 slightly ahead at 779 versus 771, a 1% edge. Cinebench R23 single-core again favors the Core 5 320, with 1926 points versus 1856, a 3.6% margin. The single-core picture is mixed, but the Core 5 320 wins two of the three Cinebench single-threaded tests.

PassMark workloads add nuance. The Core 5 320 wins data compression with 148779 versus 145287, a 2.3% lead, and extended instructions with 13262 versus 12808, a 3.4% edge. It also takes random string sorting at 18038 versus 17771, 1.5% ahead, and physics at 1221 versus 1201, a 1.6% margin. The Core 5 330 counters with wins in data encryption (11076 versus 10984, 0.8%), prime number finding (114 versus 110, 3.6%), floating point math (43885 versus 42440, 3.4%), and integer math (33258 versus 32323, 2.9%).

The PassMark multithread score is nearly a tie: 15471 for the Core 5 330 versus 15450 for the Core 5 320, a 0.1% difference. PassMark single-thread also favors the Core 5 330 at 4088 versus 4045, a 1.1% edge. The recorded data shows the Core 5 330 wins 11 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, while the Core 5 320 takes 6. The overall average benchmark score lands at 18345 for the Core 5 330 and 18023 for the Core 5 320, with both CPUs sitting in the 72nd percentile against all processors in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 330 is the clear choice for multi-core rendering and compute-heavy tasks. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13150 versus 6197 is not just a small advantage, it is a doubling of performance. Anyone running CPU-intensive workloads such as 3D rendering, video encoding, or scientific simulation should favor the Core 5 330 based on this data. The Cinebench R15 multi-core result, 1325 versus 1054, and the R20 multi-core result, 5523 versus 5462, confirm this direction, though with less dramatic margins.

The Core 5 320 shows strength in specific single-threaded and data-processing scenarios. Its Cinebench R15 single-core score of 276 versus 186 is a substantial 32.6% win, and it also leads in Cinebench R23 single-core by 3.6%. For workloads that depend on low-latency single-thread execution, such as certain legacy applications or lightly threaded games, the Core 5 320 may deliver better responsiveness. The PassMark data compression, extended instructions, random string sorting, and physics results also favor the Core 5 320, suggesting an edge in data manipulation and structured workloads.

The Core 5 330, however, dominates in raw arithmetic. Its wins in floating point math, integer math, prime number finding, and data encryption indicate superior number-crunching capability. For engineering simulations, financial modeling, or encryption-heavy tasks, the Core 5 330 is the stronger part. The PassMark multithread score is effectively identical, so neither CPU has a meaningful advantage in general parallel throughput outside of Cinebench.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same foundational specifications. They share the Wildcat Lake codename, the Core 5 generation, and a 3 nm process node manufactured by Intel. Each has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyper-threading. The base clock is 1.50 GHz and the boost clock is 4.60 GHz for both. The cache layout is identical: 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3.

Memory support matches as well, with both supporting DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory. The PCIe configuration is the same, Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU only. Integrated graphics are identical, Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The socket is Intel BGA 1516 for both, and the thermal design power is 15 watts for each. Both are mobile-segment parts, currently active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The only specification differences are the part number and the launch MSRP. The Core 5 330 has part number SAE3G and a launch MSRP of $309. The Core 5 320 has part number SAE3H and a launch MSRP of $340. The release date is the same, 2026-04-15. Given the identical architecture, the benchmark differences must stem from binning or firmware-level tuning rather than fundamental design changes.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward decision. For multi-core performance, the Intel Core 5 330 is the overwhelming winner. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13150 versus 6197 is a 112.2% advantage, and no other benchmark comes close to reversing that trend. The Core 5 330 also takes the overall average benchmark score at 18345 versus 18023, and it wins 11 of the 17 head-to-head tests. The nearest rival comparison places the Core 5 330 within 0.1% of the Intel Core i3-14100 and 0.2% of the Intel Core 7 360, while the Core 5 320 sits 0.2% above the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and 0.7% above the Intel Core 5 120U.

For users prioritizing single-thread responsiveness in specific legacy workloads, the Core 5 320 has a notable edge in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it scores 276 versus 186. It also wins Cinebench R23 single-core and several PassMark data-processing tests. However, these wins are concentrated in fewer benchmarks, and the margins are smaller outside of the R15 single-core anomaly. The Core 5 320's average benchmark score is lower, and its percentile rank is identical at 72, meaning neither CPU pulls ahead in the broader database ranking.

The verdict is clear: the Core 5 330 is the better all-around processor for multi-threaded workloads, while the Core 5 320 offers specific single-thread wins that may matter for narrow use cases. Given the identical architecture and the Core 5 330's lower launch MSRP, the data favors the Core 5 330 for most buyers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 scores 13150, while the Intel Core 5 320 scores 6197, giving the 330 a 112.2% advantage.

Q: Is the Core 5 320 better for single-core performance?

A: In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core 5 320 leads with 276 versus 186, a 32.6% margin. It also wins Cinebench R23 single-core with 1926 versus 1856, but the Core 5 330 wins Cinebench R20 single-core with 779 versus 771.

Q: Do the two CPUs have the same clock speeds?

A: Yes, both have a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz.

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

A: The Core 5 330 wins 11 benchmarks, while the Core 5 320 wins 6 out of the 17 recorded tests.

Q: Are the cache sizes different between the two?

A: No, both have 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The Core 5 330 has an average benchmark score of 18345, and the Core 5 320 has an average of 18023.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core 5 330 | Intel Core 5 320 |

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

| Part Number | SAE3G | SAE3H |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | $340 |

All other recorded specifications are identical: 6 cores, 6 threads, 1.50 GHz base clock, 4.60 GHz boost clock, 15 W TDP, Intel BGA 1516 socket, Wildcat Lake codename, 3 nm process node, 192 KB L1 cache, 2.5 MB L2 cache, 6 MB shared L3 cache, DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory support, single-channel memory bus, 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth, no ECC support, Gen 4 PCIe with 6 lanes, Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, mobile market segment, active production status, and a release date of 2026-04-15.