Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core 7 160UL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Core 5 330 and the Intel Core 7 160UL is decisively lopsided. Across 17 recorded benchmark tests, the Intel Core 5 330 claims 16 wins, while the Intel Core 7 160UL secures a single victory. The average benchmark score tells a similar story: 18345 for the Core 5 330 against 14232 for the Core 7 160UL, a gap of roughly 28.8%.

The most dramatic differences appear in Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core 5 330 scores 1325 versus 946 for the Core 7 160UL, a 40.1% advantage. The same 40.1% delta repeats across Cinebench R15 singlecore (186 vs 133), R20 multicore (5523 vs 3942), R20 singlecore (779 vs 556), R23 multicore (13150 vs 9386), and R23 singlecore (1856 vs 1325). This consistent 40.1% margin across both single-core and multi-core rendering workloads indicates a fundamental per-thread performance advantage for the Core 5 330, not merely a core-count effect.

PassMark tests reinforce this picture with several large margins. The Core 5 330 leads in extended instructions by 119.6% (12808 vs 5832), which is the largest proportional gap in the entire head-to-head set. Prime number finding shows a 128% advantage (114 vs 50). Floating point math runs 71% ahead (43885 vs 25670). Data encryption shows a 55% lead (11076 vs 7146). Random string sorting posts a 50.1% delta (17771 vs 11843). Physics simulation is 46.6% higher (1201 vs 819). Multithread performance is 40.1% better (15471 vs 11043). Data compression comes in at 33.3% (145287 vs 108953). Even single-thread results, where the margin is smallest, show a 20.6% lead (4088 vs 3391 for both single-thread tests).

The one bright spot for the Intel Core 7 160UL is integer math. It scores 47515 against 33258 for the Core 5 330, a 30% advantage. This is the only benchmark where the Core 7 160UL wins, and it is a substantial one. The result suggests the Core 7 160UL has an architecture or execution path that is particularly efficient for integer-heavy calculations, despite trailing in nearly every other workload category.

Looking at nearest rivals for context, the Core 5 330 sits within 0.2% of the Intel Core 3 305 (18302), within 0.1% of the Intel Core i3-14100 (18318), and essentially tied with the Intel Core 7 360 (18374) and Intel Core i3-13100 (18380). The Core 7 160UL, by contrast, is 0.3% behind the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14277), 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i5-10400F (14185), and within 0.5% of the Intel Xeon 6756E (14163). The performance class separation is clear: the Core 5 330 operates in a higher tier than the Core 7 160UL, roughly 28.8% higher on average, which aligns with its 72nd percentile ranking versus the 69th percentile for the Core 7 160UL.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 has an average benchmark score of 18345, compared to 14232 for the Intel Core 7 160UL.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the Intel Core 7 160UL beats the Intel Core 5 330?

A: Yes, one test: PassMark integer math. The Core 7 160UL scores 47515 versus 33258 for the Core 5 330, a 30% advantage.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap between the two processors?

A: In Cinebench R23 singlecore, the Core 5 330 scores 1856 against 1325 for the Core 7 160UL, a 40.1% difference. In PassMark single-thread tests, the Core 5 330 scores 4088 versus 3391, a 20.6% margin.

Q: What is the largest proportional performance difference in the head-to-head results?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core 5 330 leads by 128% (114 vs 50). PassMark extended instructions is close behind at 119.6% (12808 vs 5832).

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-core rendering workloads?

A: The Core 5 330 leads by 40.1% in every Cinebench multicore test: R15 (1325 vs 946), R20 (5523 vs 3942), and R23 (13150 vs 9386).

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each processor relative to all CPUs in the database?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 ranks in the 72nd percentile, while the Intel Core 7 160UL ranks in the 69th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 330 is the clear winner for rendering workloads. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 all show a uniform 40.1% lead in both single-core and multi-core tests. This makes it the stronger choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, and any application that relies on sustained CPU throughput across multiple threads. The PassMark multithread result (15471 vs 11043, a 40.1% delta) confirms that the advantage extends beyond Cinebench into general parallel workloads.

The Core 5 330 also dominates in data security and compression tasks. PassMark data encryption shows a 55% lead (11076 vs 7146), and data compression shows a 33.3% lead (145287 vs 108953). These results indicate a strong showing for encrypted storage, file archiving, and database workloads that involve heavy data transformation.

Scientific and mathematical computation favors the Core 5 330 as well. Floating point math is 71% higher (43885 vs 25670), prime number finding is 128% higher (114 vs 50), and extended instructions are 119.6% higher (12808 vs 5832). Random string sorting, relevant to database indexing and text processing, is 50.1% higher (17771 vs 11843). Physics simulation, a proxy for gaming physics and scientific simulation, is 46.6% higher (1201 vs 819).

The single area where the Intel Core 7 160UL wins is integer math. The 30% margin (47515 vs 33258) suggests that for workloads dominated by integer arithmetic, such as certain financial calculations, integer-based cryptography, or legacy codebases that do not leverage vector instructions, the Core 7 160UL delivers meaningfully better throughput. However, this is a narrow niche. In every other recorded metric, the Core 5 330 is ahead, often by substantial margins.

For users prioritizing single-thread responsiveness, the Core 5 330 is also the better option. The PassMark single-thread score of 4088 versus 3391 (20.6% lead) and the Cinebench R23 singlecore score of 1856 versus 1325 (40.1% lead) both point to faster per-core execution. This matters for lightly threaded applications, UI responsiveness, and legacy software that does not scale across cores.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several core specifications. The Intel Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Intel Core 7 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. Despite having fewer cores and threads, the Core 5 330 achieves higher benchmark scores in nearly all tests, indicating a substantial per-core performance advantage.

Base clock speeds are 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 330 and 1.80 GHz for the Core 7 160UL. Boost clocks are 4.60 GHz and 5.20 GHz respectively. The Core 7 160UL has higher clock speeds on paper, but the benchmark data shows the Core 5 330 outperforming it, which points to architectural efficiency differences rather than raw clock rate.

Both processors have a 15 W TDP, so power consumption is identical on paper. The Core 5 330 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the Core 7 160UL uses the Intel Socket 1700. Memory support differs: the Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and a measured memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, while the Core 7 160UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus and no recorded bandwidth figure.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 5 330 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 7 160UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 5 330 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe), while the Core 7 160UL uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. The Core 5 330 has a launch MSRP of $309; the Core 7 160UL has no recorded launch MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is stark. The Intel Core 5 330 is built on the Wildcat Lake architecture with a 3 nm process node, while the Intel Core 7 160UL uses the Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node. Both are fabricated by Intel, but the process node difference of 3 nm versus 10 nm is a primary driver of the performance gap observed in benchmarks.

The Core 5 330 has a cache hierarchy of 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Core 7 160UL has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The Core 7 160UL has a larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 6 MB), yet the Core 5 330 still outperforms it in most tests, suggesting that cache size alone does not compensate for the architectural and process node advantages of the Core 5 330.

The Core 5 330 is a mobile market segment part, while the Core 7 160UL is a desktop market segment part. The Core 5 330 was released on 2026-04-15, while the Core 7 160UL was released on 2024-04-07. The production status for both is Active. The Core 5 330 has a part number of SAE3G, while the Core 7 160UL has an unknown part number.

The Core 7 160UL uses Raptor Lake-PS codename and is explicitly listed as Raptor Lake architecture. The Core 5 330 lists no explicit architecture field but uses the Wildcat Lake codename with the generation label "Core 5 (Wildcat Lake)". The Core 7 160UL is labeled "Core 7 (Raptor Lake-PS)". Neither processor supports ECC memory. The Core 5 330 integrates 2 Xe graphics units, while the Core 7 160UL integrates 96 EU graphics, which is a notable difference in integrated graphics capability, though no graphics benchmarks are recorded in the database for either part.

The single-channel memory bus on the Core 5 330 is a potential bottleneck for memory-intensive workloads, but the measured bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s indicates that the design still delivers competitive throughput. The Core 7 160UL has a dual-channel memory bus but no recorded bandwidth figure, leaving its memory throughput unmeasured in the database.