Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core 7 160HL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core 5 330 and Intel Core 7 160HL occupy very different positions in the database, and the recorded data illustrates a clear split between single-threaded agility and multi-threaded throughput. The Core 5 330 is a 6-core, 6-thread part built on a 3 nm process, while the Core 7 160HL is a 14-core, 20-thread processor on a 10 nm process. The most direct comparison comes from the average benchmark score: the Core 5 330 records an average of 18,345, placing it in the 72nd percentile among all CPUs. The Core 7 160HL, by contrast, has no individual benchmark scores in the database and an average score of 0, which places it in the 50th percentile. That absence of direct measurements means the comparison must rely on the architectural and specification data recorded for each part.

The Core 5 330 delivers a set of Cinebench results that show its single-core strength. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 186. In R20 single-core, it scores 779. In R23 single-core, it reaches 1,856. These numbers indicate a processor that handles lightly threaded workloads with high efficiency, a pattern consistent with its 4.60 GHz boost clock. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4,088 reinforces this picture. The Core 7 160HL offers a higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz, which suggests it should be competitive in single-threaded tasks, but without recorded benchmark scores, the database cannot confirm that expectation.

Multi-threaded results for the Core 5 330 show a different story. Its Cinebench R15 multicore score is 1,325, R20 multicore is 5,523, and R23 multicore is 13,150. These are respectable numbers for a 6-core processor, but they are limited by the lack of hyper-threading: 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core 7 160HL, with 14 cores and 20 threads, has a structural advantage in parallel workloads. Its larger core count and thread count should produce substantially higher multi-threaded throughput, though the database lacks direct measurements to quantify that advantage.

The nearest rivals for the Core 5 330 provide context for its average score. The Intel Core i3-14100 sits 0.1% behind with an average score of 18,318. The Intel Core 7 360 sits 0.2% ahead with 18,374. The Intel Core i3-13100 matches that 0.2% gap with 18,380. The Intel Core 3 305 is 0.2% behind with 18,302. These margins are narrow, meaning the Core 5 330 lands in a tightly packed performance cluster. The Core 7 160HL has no nearest rivals listed, so the database provides no comparable reference points for it.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 330 wins in scenarios that favor high clock speeds on a small number of cores. Its 4.60 GHz boost clock, combined with 6 cores, makes it well suited to applications that rely on responsive single-threaded execution. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4,088 and its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,856 both point to strong performance in this area. The 3 nm process node also gives it an efficiency advantage: the 15 W TDP is significantly lower than the 45 W TDP of the Core 7 160HL, which makes it attractive for thermally constrained mobile designs. Its integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores provides a baseline graphics capability for systems that do not use a discrete GPU.

The Core 7 160HL wins in scenarios that demand parallel processing. Its 14 cores and 20 threads give it a raw thread count more than three times that of the Core 5 330. Its 24 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 6 MB on the Core 5 330, also benefits workloads that repeatedly access large datasets. The dual-channel memory bus on the Core 7 160HL supports higher memory bandwidth than the single-channel bus on the Core 5 330, which matters for memory-intensive tasks. Its 5.20 GHz boost clock is the highest in this comparison, giving it a potential edge even in some lightly threaded situations. Its Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units is a more capable integrated GPU than the Xe3 implementation on the Core 5 330.

The market segments reinforce this split. The Core 5 330 is recorded as a mobile processor, while the Core 7 160HL is recorded as a desktop processor. The Core 7 160HL uses the Intel Socket 1700, a desktop platform, while the Core 5 330 uses Intel BGA 1516, a soldered mobile package. The Core 7 160HL also supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, whereas the Core 5 330 supports only DDR5 and LPDDR5X. That broader memory compatibility gives the desktop part more flexibility in system design.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design families. The Core 5 330 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation. It is built on a 3 nm process at Intel. The Core 7 160HL uses the Raptor Lake-PS codename and belongs to the Core 7 generation. It is built on a 10 nm process at Intel. The process node difference is significant: 3 nm versus 10 nm represents a major generational leap in transistor density and power efficiency.

Core and thread counts differ sharply. The Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyper-threading is present. The Core 7 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement with performance and efficiency cores, consistent with the Raptor Lake architecture. Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 5 330 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 160HL has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L1 and L2 figures on the Core 7 160HL are larger on an individual basis, while the Core 5 330 uses a smaller total L3 pool.

Memory support separates the two as well. The Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core 7 160HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus; no bandwidth figure is recorded in the database. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Core 5 330 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU, while the Core 7 160HL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU. Both parts lack ECC memory support and both have locked multipliers.

Integrated graphics differ in scale. The Core 5 330 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core 7 160HL includes Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The latter has a substantially larger graphics subsystem, which matters for systems relying on the built-in GPU. Release dates also differ: the Core 7 160HL launched in April 2024, while the Core 5 330 launched in April 2026. The Core 5 330 has a recorded launch MSRP of $309. The Core 7 160HL has no launch MSRP recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 160HL has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, compared to 4.60 GHz on the Intel Core 5 330.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel Core 7 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus. The Intel Core 7 160HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 is built on a 3 nm process. The Intel Core 7 160HL is built on a 10 nm process.

Q: What average benchmark score does the Core 5 330 achieve?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 records an average benchmark score of 18,345, placing it in the 72nd percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Does the Core 7 160HL have recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The database lists no benchmark scores for the Intel Core 7 160HL, and its average benchmark score is 0.

The Verdict

The data in the database points to two different use cases. The Intel Core 5 330 is the only one of the two with recorded benchmark scores, and those scores show a capable mobile processor. Its average score of 18,345 places it in the 72nd percentile, and its nearest rivals sit within 0.2% in either direction. That clustering means the Core 5 330 performs in line with established desktop processors like the Intel Core i3-14100 and Intel Core i3-13100, despite being a 15 W mobile part. Its single-thread scores, especially the Cinebench R23 result of 1,856 and PassMark result of 4,088, indicate it handles everyday responsive workloads well.

The Intel Core 7 160HL is a different kind of product. With 14 cores, 20 threads, 24 MB of L3 cache, and a 5.20 GHz boost clock, it is built for heavier parallel workloads. The lack of benchmark scores in the database means the data cannot confirm its real-world performance, but the specifications clearly position it as a higher-throughput desktop processor. Its 45 W TDP and Socket 1700 platform support that role. Its dual-channel memory bus and support for DDR4 and DDR5 give system builders more options than the Core 5 330 provides.

A buyer choosing between these two should follow the benchmark evidence. The Core 5 330 has measurable performance data showing it competes with strong desktop processors in average score. The Core 7 160HL offers more cores, more threads, more cache, and a higher boost clock, but the database has no measurements to verify how those specifications translate into actual performance. The Core 5 330 also carries a launch MSRP of $309, while the Core 7 160HL has no recorded price. For workloads that depend on parallel execution, the Core 7 160HL has the structural advantage. For verified performance data and mobile efficiency, the Core 5 330 is the only one with recorded results.