Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core i9-14900 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900 has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The i9-14900 also supports a dual-channel memory bus, whereas the Core 5 330 uses a single-channel memory bus.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900 leads in every single-thread benchmark. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2212 versus 1856 for the Core 5 330, a 16.1% advantage. In PassMark single-thread, the gap narrows to 5.4%, with scores of 4323 and 4088 respectively.

Q: What is the difference in cache capacity between the two?

A: The Core i9-14900 has 36 MB of shared L3 cache and 2 MB of L2 per core, while the Core 5 330 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache and 2.5 MB of total L2. The i9-14900 also lists 80 KB of L1 per core, while the Core 5 330 has 192 KB of L1 overall.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core i9-14900 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Core 5 330 has a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s; the database does not record a bandwidth figure for the i9-14900.

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Core i9-14900 scores 31070 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 13150 for the Core 5 330, a 57.7% lead. The i9-14900 also wins Cinebench R20 multi-core with 15910 against 5523, a 65.3% margin.

Q: How does the integrated graphics differ between the two?

A: The Core 5 330 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core i9-14900 uses UHD Graphics 770. The database does not include comparative graphics benchmark results.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core i9-14900 across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Core 5 330 does not win a single recorded test. That said, the two parts occupy different market positions: the Core 5 330 is a mobile processor with a 15 W TDP, while the Core i9-14900 is a desktop part with a 65 W TDP.

For workloads that stress many threads, the i9-14900 delivers massive advantages. Data compression favors the i9-14900 by 73.6%, integer math by 81%, and multithread PassMark by 65.3%. Extended instructions also favor the i9-14900 by 58.2%. These are the kinds of tasks where the 24-core, 32-thread desktop processor simply outmuscles the 6-core mobile chip.

The Core 5 330 is positioned for efficiency and portability. Its 3 nm process node, 15 W TDP, and BGA socket point toward thin-and-light mobile designs. In that context, the benchmark gaps are less surprising: the Core 5 330 is not competing for the same chassis or power envelope. The practical use case for the Core 5 330 is battery-conscious mobile computing, while the i9-14900 targets desktop workloads where sustained multi-thread throughput matters more than power draw.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design lineages. The Core i9-14900 is built on Raptor Lake-R, part of the Core 14th Gen series, and uses a 10 nm process node. The Core 5 330 is codenamed Wildcat Lake, part of the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation, and uses a 3 nm process node. The die size for the i9-14900 is recorded as 257 mm²; no die size is listed for the Core 5 330.

The Core i9-14900 uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform, while the Core 5 330 uses Intel BGA 1516, indicating a soldered mobile design. The i9-14900 supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes; the Core 5 330 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The i9-14900 also supports ECC memory, while the Core 5 330 does not.

Both processors have unlocked multipliers set to false, so neither supports user multiplier adjustment according to the recorded data. The Core i9-14900 uses a dual-channel memory bus and supports DDR4 and DDR5; the Core 5 330 uses a single-channel bus and supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The i9-14900 has a larger shared L3 cache at 36 MB versus 6 MB, though the Core 5 330 lists a smaller L1 total of 192 KB compared to 80 KB per core for the i9-14900.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The Core i9-14900 has 24 cores and 32 threads; the Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clocks are 2.00 GHz for the i9-14900 and 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 330. Boost clocks are 5.80 GHz and 4.60 GHz respectively. TDP is 65 W for the i9-14900 and 15 W for the Core 5 330.

The i9-14900 uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core 5 330 uses Intel BGA 1516. The i9-14900 has a 10 nm process node and a 257 mm² die size; the Core 5 330 uses a 3 nm process node with no recorded die size. The i9-14900 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus and ECC memory; the Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and no ECC. Memory bandwidth is recorded only for the Core 5 330 at 59.7 GB/s.

PCIe support differs: the i9-14900 has Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Core 5 330 has Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 770 on the i9-14900 and Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores on the Core 5 330. The Core 5 330 has a launch MSRP of $309; the i9-14900 has a launch MSRP of $549.

Cache structures differ as well. The i9-14900 lists 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The Core 5 330 lists 192 KB L1 total, 2.5 MB L2 total, and 6 MB shared L3. The i9-14900 was released on 2024-01-08; the Core 5 330 was released on 2026-04-16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records 17 head-to-head comparisons, and the Intel Core i9-14900 wins all of them. The largest margin comes in PassMark integer math, where the i9-14900 scores 175010 against 33258, a delta of 81%. That is the single biggest gap in the dataset.

Data compression shows a similar story: 550271 for the i9-14900 versus 145287 for the Core 5 330, a 73.6% difference. Random string sorting favors the i9-14900 by 70.9%, with scores of 61060 and 17771. Data encryption shows a 67% gap, with 33540 against 11076.

Cinebench results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i9-14900 scores 4793 versus 1325, a 72.4% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 15910 against 5523, a 65.3% margin. Cinebench R23 multi-core has 31070 versus 13150, a 57.7% gap. The single-core Cinebench results are closer: R23 single-core shows 2212 against 1856, a 16.1% difference, and R20 single-core shows 2245 against 779, a 65.3% margin.

PassMark single-thread is the tightest comparison in the entire dataset. The i9-14900 scores 4323, while the Core 5 330 scores 4088, a gap of only 5.4%. That confirms the Core 5 330 has competitive single-thread capability despite its much lower core count and TDP. Physics results show a 51.7% lead for the i9-14900, with 2486 against 1201. Prime number finding favors the i9-14900 by 39.4%, with 188 against 114. Floating point math shows a 63.5% gap, with 120262 against 43885.

The average benchmark score for the i9-14900 is 58115, placing it in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 330 has an average benchmark score of 18345, placing it in the 72nd percentile. The i9-14900's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M at 58323, the AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D at 58386, and the Intel Xeon w5-2545 at 58504. The Core 5 330's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-14100 at 18318, the Intel Core 7 360 at 18374, and the Intel Core i3-13100 at 18380.

The Verdict

The data indicates a straightforward choice for raw performance: the Intel Core i9-14900 wins every recorded benchmark against the Intel Core 5 330. Its 24 cores, 32 threads, 5.80 GHz boost clock, and 36 MB L3 cache deliver dominant multi-thread results, with the largest advantage reaching 81% in integer math. For desktop users who need heavy compute, the i9-14900 is the clear pick.

The Core 5 330 is not without merit, but its strengths are not captured in the benchmark sweep. It uses a 3 nm process node, a 15 W TDP, and a BGA socket, which positions it for mobile systems where power efficiency and thermals are priorities. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4088 sits within 5.4% of the i9-14900, showing that single-thread responsiveness is not a weak point.

The recorded data does not support any scenario where the Core 5 330 wins a performance comparison. Instead, the choice comes down to platform and usage context. The i9-14900 belongs in a desktop socket with PCIe Gen 5, dual-channel memory, and ECC support. The Core 5 330 belongs in a mobile chassis with PCIe Gen 4, LPDDR5X support, and a much lower power envelope. Buyers selecting between these two are not choosing between similar products; they are choosing between a desktop flagship and a mobile efficiency part. The benchmark verdict favors the i9-14900 in every measurable performance category.