Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core i7-14700F Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core 5 330 compare to the Intel Core i7-14700F in overall benchmark average?

A: The Core i7-14700F holds a decisive edge with an average benchmark score of 53,620 versus 18,345 for the Core 5 330. The 14700F also sits in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 330 lands in the 72nd percentile.

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700F wins, but by a narrow margin. In PassMark single-thread testing, the 14700F scores 4,257 against the Core 5 330's 4,088, a delta of only -4% for the Core 5 330. Cinebench R23 single-core tells a different story, with the 14700F at 4,958 and the Core 5 330 at 1,856, a much larger gap.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The biggest delta appears in PassMark integer math, where the Core i7-14700F scores 155,808 versus 33,258 for the Core 5 330, a difference of -78.7% for the Core 5 330. Data compression is also lopsided, with the 14700F at 505,885 versus 145,287, a -71.3% gap.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each chip?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700F has 20 cores and 28 threads. The Intel Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The 14700F's thread count is more than four times that of the Core 5 330.

Q: Which chip has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700F boosts to 5.40 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 330 boosts to 4.60 GHz. The 14700F also has a higher base clock at 2.10 GHz versus 1.50 GHz.

Q: Do these processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Intel Core i7-14700F supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus. The Intel Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus. The 14700F also supports ECC memory, while the Core 5 330 does not.

The Verdict

The data positions these two processors in entirely different segments. The Intel Core i7-14700F wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the database, with 17 documented victories and zero for the Core 5 330. Its average benchmark score of 53,620 is roughly 2.9 times the Core 5 330's 18,345. The 14700F belongs to the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 330 sits at the 72nd percentile.

The Core 5 330 is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 1516 with a 15 W TDP, designed for low-power systems. Its nearest rivals in the database, the Intel Core i3-14100 and Intel Core 3 305, have average scores within 0.2% of its own. That places it firmly in entry-level territory. The 14700F, a desktop chip on Intel Socket 1700 with a 65 W TDP, competes against the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X and AMD EPYC 7313P, both within 0.8% of its average score.

The choice depends entirely on platform. The Core 5 330 suits compact, power-constrained mobile designs where its integrated Xe3 Graphics and low thermal envelope matter. The 14700F is for desktop builds requiring maximum multi-threaded throughput, with ECC memory support and Gen 5 PCIe lanes. The benchmark data gives no scenario where the Core 5 330 outperforms the 14700F in raw compute.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core i7-14700F dominates every benchmark category recorded. Multicore workloads show the widest gaps. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the 14700F scores 35,122 versus 13,150, a -62.6% delta for the Core 5 330. The same -62.6% delta appears in Cinebench R15 multicore (3,540 vs 1,325) and Cinebench R20 multicore (14,751 vs 5,523). PassMark multithread confirms the pattern: 41,317 for the 14700F versus 15,471, again a -62.6% gap.

Integer math is the most punishing test for the Core 5 330. The 14700F delivers 155,808 points against 33,258, a -78.7% delta. Data compression follows at -71.3%, with the 14700F scoring 505,885 versus 145,287. Random string sorting shows a -68.2% gap (55,918 vs 17,771), and data encryption shows -63.3% (30,144 vs 11,076).

The 14700F also wins in floating-point math, scoring 107,005 against 43,885, a -59% delta. Extended instructions show a -55.2% gap (28,564 vs 12,808). Physics tests are closer but still lopsided: 2,455 versus 1,201, a -51.1% delta. Find prime numbers shows the smallest multi-threaded gap at -35.2%, with 176 points versus 114.

Single-threaded results are the only category where the Core 5 330 approaches parity. PassMark single-thread scores are 4,257 for the 14700F and 4,088 for the Core 5 330, a -4% delta. However, Cinebench single-core tests tell a very different story. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 14700F scores 4,958 against 1,856, a -62.6% gap. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2,082 versus 779, also -62.6%. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 499 versus 186, -62.7%.

The discrepancy between PassMark and Cinebench single-thread results is notable. The PassMark single-thread test suggests near-parity in basic single-threaded tasks, while Cinebench's rendering workload exposes a massive gap. The 14700F's higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz versus 4.60 GHz likely contributes, though the architecture differences also play a role.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most striking difference. The 14700F has 20 cores and 28 threads, while the Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Clock speeds favor the 14700F across the board: base clock of 2.10 GHz versus 1.50 GHz, boost clock of 5.40 GHz versus 4.60 GHz.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The 14700F has 33 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core 5 330 has 6 MB shared. The 14700F lists L1 at 80 KB per core and L2 at 2 MB per core. The Core 5 330 lists total L1 of 192 KB and total L2 of 2.5 MB.

Memory support diverges completely. The 14700F supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and ECC memory enabled. The Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus and no ECC. The Core 5 330 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s; the 14700F has no bandwidth figure recorded.

PCIe capabilities differ by generation and lane count. The 14700F uses Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. The Core 5 330 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are present only on the Core 5 330, which features Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The 14700F has no integrated graphics.

The TDP gap is significant: 65 W for the 14700F versus 15 W for the Core 5 330. Sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1700 for the 14700F, Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 5 330. The market segments confirm the intended use cases: desktop for the 14700F, mobile for the Core 5 330. Both processors are currently active in production.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i7-14700F is built on the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, using a 10 nm process node. The Intel Core 5 330 belongs to the Wildcat Lake generation, built on a 3 nm process node. Both are fabricated by Intel, but the process difference is substantial: 3 nm versus 10 nm.

The 14700F has a recorded die size of 257 mm². No die size is recorded for the Core 5 330. The smaller process node for the Core 5 330 does not translate into performance gains in the recorded data; the 14700F's larger, higher-power design wins every benchmark.

The 14700F is a hybrid architecture with a 20-core, 28-thread configuration, consistent with Raptor Lake's performance and efficiency core layout. The Core 5 330 uses 6 cores and 6 threads with no hyper-threading, a simpler configuration for its mobile role. The 14700F also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Core 5 330.

The 14700F's 33 MB L3 cache versus 6 MB for the Core 5 330 reflects the desktop chip's larger transistor budget. The 14700F's cache is organized per core for L1 and L2, while the Core 5 330 lists aggregate L1 and L2 totals. The 14700F's dual-channel memory controller and DDR4 support indicate a design aimed at maximum bandwidth flexibility, while the Core 5 330's single-channel LPDDR5X support targets power efficiency in mobile systems.

The 14700F launches with a 65 W TDP and requires a discrete GPU due to its lack of integrated graphics. The Core 5 330 integrates Xe3 Graphics, eliminating the need for a separate GPU in basic systems. The 14700F's Gen 5 PCIe implementation with 16 lanes enables high-bandwidth expansion, while the Core 5 330's Gen 4 with 6 lanes suits lighter mobile workloads.