CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i3-14100F and Intel Core 5 330 are two very different processors that end up in a surprisingly close overall battle. The i3-14100F is a desktop part built on Intel’s Raptor Lake architecture, while the Core 5 330 is a mobile chip using the newer Wildcat Lake design on a 3 nm process. Despite their contrasting builds, their average benchmark scores sit nearly identical, the i3-14100F posts an average of 18,519 against the Core 5 330’s 18,345, a difference of less than one percent. Both land in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs. The head-to-head results reveal a clear split: the Core 5 330 wins 14 of 17 tests, but the i3-14100F takes decisive victories in the workloads where it does win.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided result favors the Intel Core i3-14100F in integer math. The desktop chip scores 45,357 in PassMark integer math, while the Core 5 330 manages only 33,258, a 36.4% advantage for the i3-14100F. That is the single largest delta in the entire comparison. The i3-14100F also dominates in data compression, scoring 176,106 against 145,287 for the Core 5 330, a 21.2% lead. These two wins highlight the desktop part’s strength in heavily integer-oriented, memory-latency-sensitive workloads.

The Core 5 330 answers with its own set of commanding wins. In PassMark’s find prime numbers test, the mobile chip scores 114 versus just 61 for the i3-14100F, a 46.5% margin, the widest of any test. Floating point math also goes decisively to the Core 5 330: 43,885 vs 35,370, a 19.4% gap. Data encryption similarly favors the Core 5 330 by 19.4%, with scores of 11,076 versus 8,922. The Core 5 330 also leads in single-thread performance, posting 4,088 in PassMark single-thread against 3,778 for the i3-14100F, a 7.6% advantage.

In the Cinebench suite, the Core 5 330 edges ahead consistently but by small margins. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 13,150 versus 13,084 for the i3-14100F, a 0.5% lead. Single-core R23 shows a similar pattern: 1,856 vs 1,847, again a 0.5% difference. The results are nearly identical in R20 and R15, with the Core 5 330 winning multi-core by 0.5% in both, and single-core R20 by 0.5%. The only exact tie comes in Cinebench R15 single-core, where both chips score 186. PassMark multi-thread is another near dead heat: 15,471 for the Core 5 330 against 15,420 for the i3-14100F, a 0.3% margin.

The remaining tests all go to the Core 5 330. It wins extended instructions by 6.4% (12,808 vs 11,984), physics by 10.3% (1,201 vs 1,077), and random string sorting by 1% (17,771 vs 17,596). Across all 17 head-to-head benchmarks, the Core 5 330 wins 14, loses 3, and ties 1. But the magnitude of the i3-14100F’s two biggest wins, 36.4% in integer math and 21.2% in compression, nearly offsets the frequency of the Core 5 330’s smaller victories.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-14100F is the clear choice for integer-heavy data processing. Its 36.4% lead in PassMark integer math and 21.2% lead in data compression suggest it handles sorting, hashing, and database-style operations with more efficiency. The 4-core, 8-thread configuration with 12 MB of shared L3 cache appears better suited to these tasks than the Core 5 330’s 6-core, 6-thread layout with only 6 MB of shared L3. For workloads that involve heavy arithmetic on whole numbers, like financial modeling, some scientific computing, and certain compression algorithms, the i3-14100F holds a definitive edge.

The Core 5 330 wins everywhere else, making it the more versatile processor for general-purpose and floating-point work. Its 46.5% blowout in prime number finding and 19.4% lead in floating point math point to a stronger FPU and possibly better instruction scheduling. The 19.4% advantage in data encryption also makes it the better fit for security-related tasks, VPNs, or encrypted storage. Single-thread performance is another win for the Core 5 330, with a 7.6% lead in PassMark single-thread, that translates to snappier everyday responsiveness in lightly threaded applications. The Cinebench results, while close, all favor the Core 5 330, meaning it is slightly better for rendering workloads that scale across cores, though the 0.5% margins are essentially negligible in real-world use.

For multi-threaded PassMark, the Core 5 330 wins by a hair at 0.3%, but the practical difference is nil. Physics simulation goes to the Core 5 330 by 10.3%, which could matter for certain game physics engines or engineering simulations. Random string sorting, a proxy for pointer-chasing and memory access patterns, goes to the Core 5 330 by 1%, again, a minor margin. In short, the i3-14100F is a specialist for integer math and compression, while the Core 5 330 is the generalist that wins most other tests, often by double digits.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i3-14100F is built on the Raptor Lake architecture using Intel’s 10 nm process, with a die size of 163 mm². It has 4 cores and 8 threads, meaning it supports Hyper-Threading. Its base clock is 3.50 GHz with a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, and it carries a TDP of 58 watts. The Core 5 330, by contrast, uses the Wildcat Lake architecture on a 3 nm process, a node size that is a significant shrink from the i3-14100F. It has 6 cores but only 6 threads, so no Hyper-Threading. Its base clock is much lower at 1.50 GHz, but boost reaches 4.60 GHz, close to the i3-14100F’s boost. The TDP is dramatically lower at 15 watts, reflecting its mobile design.

Cache configurations differ sharply. The i3-14100F has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Core 5 330 has a total of 192 KB of L1, which is less per core given its 6 cores, 2.5 MB of L2, and only 6 MB of shared L3. The i3-14100F’s 12 MB of L3 is double the Core 5 330’s, which likely explains its compression and integer math dominance. The Core 5 330 compensates with a newer process and possibly higher IPC, which shows in its floating point and single-thread wins.

Memory support and platform connectivity also diverge. The i3-14100F supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, and it has PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). It also supports ECC memory. The Core 5 330 is limited to DDR5 and LPDDR5X, uses a single-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, and has just 6 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The i3-14100F has no integrated graphics, while the Core 5 330 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The i3-14100F uses an Intel Socket 1700, while the Core 5 330 is soldered to an Intel BGA 1516 socket, making it a non-upgradeable mobile part. The i3-14100F carries a launch MSRP of $109; the Core 5 330 has a launch MSRP of $309.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-14100F has an average benchmark score of 18,519, slightly ahead of the Intel Core 5 330’s 18,345, a difference of about 0.9%.

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

A: The Core 5 330 scores 13,150, edging out the i3-14100F’s 13,084 by 0.5%. The margin is small but consistent across all Cinebench versions.

Q: Does the i3-14100F support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the i3-14100F supports ECC memory. The Core 5 330 does not support ECC.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark win for either chip?

A: The Core 5 330 wins PassMark find prime numbers by 46.5%, scoring 114 versus 61 for the i3-14100F. That’s the largest delta in either direction.

Q: Which chip has more cores and threads?

A: The Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the i3-14100F has 4 cores and 8 threads. The i3-14100F uses Hyper-Threading, giving it more threads than cores.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two?

A: The i3-14100F is built on Intel’s 10 nm process, while the Core 5 330 uses a newer 3 nm process. The Core 5 330’s TDP is 15 watts, compared to 58 watts for the i3-14100F.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload rather than an overall winner. For tasks that involve integer math, data compression, or heavy L3 cache usage, the Intel Core i3-14100F is the superior part. Its 36.4% lead in integer math and 21.2% lead in data compression are the largest wins of the entire comparison, and its 12 MB of shared L3 cache is double that of the Core 5 330. This chip is the right pick for users who prioritize database operations, file compression, or any workload that benefits from a large, fast cache.

For almost everything else, the Intel Core 5 330 is the better choice. It wins 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, including decisive victories in prime number finding (46.5%), floating point math (19.4%), and data encryption (19.4%). Its single-thread performance is 7.6% better, and it wins every Cinebench test, albeit by narrow 0.5% margins. It also offers integrated graphics and a dramatically lower TDP of 15 watts, making it suitable for compact or battery-powered systems where the i3-14100F’s 58-watt TDP and lack of iGPU would be a drawback. The Core 5 330 is the generalist that handles most tasks slightly better or much better, and it is the safer pick for a broad range of use cases.

The i3-14100F’s only other advantages are its support for DDR4 memory, dual-channel memory bus, PCIe Gen 5, and ECC, all features that matter for specific desktop or server-like builds. But for a typical user, the Core 5 330’s frequency of wins and its modern 3 nm process make it the more compelling chip. The verdict: choose the i3-14100F if your workload is dominated by integer math and compression, or if you need ECC and DDR4. Choose the Core 5 330 for general performance, floating point, encryption, and mobile or low-power systems. The data favors the Core 5 330 for most users, but the i3-14100F is a specialist that wins where it counts for certain workloads.