Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core i9-14900F Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900F records an average benchmark score of 60008, placing it in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 330 has an average benchmark score of 18345, placing it in the 72nd percentile.

Q: How close is the Core 5 330 to its nearest rivals?

A: The database shows the Core 5 330 is tightly clustered with its nearest rivals. It sits 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i3-14100, 0.2% behind the Intel Core 7 360, 0.2% behind the Intel Core i3-13100, and 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core 3 305.

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

A: The largest single gap appears in the passmark integer math test. The Core i9-14900F scores 177066 versus 33258 for the Core 5 330, a difference of 81.2% in favor of the i9-14900F.

Q: In which benchmark does the Core 5 330 come closest to the Core i9-14900F?

A: The smallest gap is in passmark single-thread performance. The Core i9-14900F scores 4506 versus 4088 for the Core 5 330, a difference of only 9.3%.

Q: Does the Core i9-14900F win every head-to-head benchmark?

A: Yes. Out of 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the Core i9-14900F wins all 17. The Core 5 330 wins none.

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

A: The Core i9-14900F has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different designs. The Intel Core i9-14900F uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, and is manufactured on a 10 nm process node. It belongs to the Core 14th Gen series and targets the desktop market segment. The Intel Core 5 330 uses the Wildcat Lake architecture and is manufactured on a 3 nm process node. It belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation and targets the mobile market segment.

The process node difference is substantial: the Core 5 330 uses a 3 nm node versus 10 nm for the Core i9-14900F. This gives the Core 5 330 a significant density and efficiency advantage on paper, though the benchmark results do not reflect a performance advantage.

Cache layouts differ markedly. The Core i9-14900F has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 5 330 has 192 KB of total L1 cache, 2.5 MB of total L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i9-14900F also has a larger die size at 257 mm², while the Core 5 330 has no recorded die size.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core i9-14900F supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel memory bus, and it supports ECC memory. The Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a single-channel memory bus, and it does not support ECC memory. The Core 5 330 records a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, while the Core i9-14900F has no recorded memory bandwidth figure.

PCIe capabilities also differ. The Core i9-14900F provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 5 330 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The Core i9-14900F has no integrated graphics, whereas the Core 5 330 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i9-14900F wins in every recorded benchmark, making the use-case split unambiguous from the data. The Core 5 330 does not win a single head-to-head comparison.

For heavily multi-threaded workloads, the Core i9-14900F is the clear choice. Its 24 cores and 32 threads dominate Cinebench multicore tests and PassMark multithread tests. Data compression and encryption workloads also heavily favor the Core i9-14900F, with scores of 564207 and 34644 respectively versus 145287 and 11076 for the Core 5 330.

For single-threaded workloads, the Core i9-14900F still leads, but by a much smaller margin. The passmark single-thread score of 4506 versus 4088 represents only a 9.3% advantage. This suggests the Core 5 330's Wildcat Lake architecture, with its 3 nm process node, delivers competitive per-core performance despite having far fewer cores.

The Core 5 330's only potential advantage lies in its form factor and power profile, not in raw performance. It has a TDP of 15 watts versus 65 watts for the Core i9-14900F, uses a mobile BGA socket, and includes integrated graphics. These characteristics make it suitable for compact, power-sensitive mobile systems, but the benchmark data shows no performance scenario where it wins.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The Core i9-14900F has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core i9-14900F has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, while the Core 5 330 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz.

The Core i9-14900F has a TDP of 65 watts and uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core 5 330 has a TDP of 15 watts and uses Intel BGA 1516. The Core i9-14900F is a desktop processor, while the Core 5 330 is a mobile processor.

The Core i9-14900F was released on 2024-01-07, while the Core 5 330 was released on 2026-04-15. The Core i9-14900F has a launch MSRP of $524, while the Core 5 330 has a launch MSRP of $309. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The Core i9-14900F has a part number of SRN3W, while the Core 5 330 has a part number of SAE3G. The Core i9-14900F records a die size of 257 mm², while the Core 5 330 has no die size recorded. Both processors are manufactured by Intel and are currently in active production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core i9-14900F dominates across the entire benchmark suite. In Cinebench R15, it scores 3986 in multicore versus 1325 for the Core 5 330, a 66.8% advantage. In single-core, it scores 562 versus 186, a 66.9% advantage.

Cinebench R20 shows the same pattern. The Core i9-14900F scores 16611 in multicore versus 5523, and 2344 in single-core versus 779, both representing 66.8% advantages. Cinebench R23 continues this trend with a multicore score of 39551 versus 13150 and a single-core score of 5583 versus 1856, again a 66.8% difference in both cases.

PassMark results show even larger gaps in some tests. The biggest difference is in integer math, where the Core i9-14900F scores 177066 versus 33258, an 81.2% advantage. Data compression shows a 74.2% gap with scores of 564207 versus 145287. Random string sorting shows a 72.1% gap with scores of 63728 versus 17771.

Data encryption shows a 68% gap with scores of 34644 versus 11076. Floating point math shows a 63.3% gap with scores of 119550 versus 43885. Extended instructions show a 58.8% gap with scores of 31084 versus 12808. Physics shows a 58.6% gap with scores of 2899 versus 1201. Prime number finding shows a 45.5% gap with scores of 209 versus 114.

The multithread test shows a 66.8% gap with scores of 46532 versus 15471. The single-thread test shows the smallest gap at 9.3%, with scores of 4506 versus 4088. The single-thread test appears twice in the head-to-head data with identical results.

The Core 5 330 has no benchmark wins. The Core i9-14900F wins all 17 recorded comparisons.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i9-14900F is the superior processor in every measured performance category. Its average benchmark score of 60008 versus 18345 for the Core 5 330 places it in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 72nd percentile for the Core 5 330.

For users requiring maximum multi-threaded performance, the Core i9-14900F is the only choice between these two. Its 24 cores and 32 threads deliver massive advantages in Cinebench multicore tests, data compression, encryption, and integer math. The 81.2% lead in integer math and 74.2% lead in data compression demonstrate the scale of its advantage in compute-heavy workloads.

For users prioritizing single-threaded performance, the Core i9-14900F still wins, but the margin narrows considerably. The 9.3% advantage in passmark single-thread performance indicates that the Core 5 330's 3 nm Wildcat Lake architecture provides competitive per-core efficiency.

The Core 5 330 has no performance wins in the database. Its role is defined by its mobile form factor, 15 watt TDP, integrated graphics, and BGA socket, not by benchmark superiority. The data shows it is a capable mobile processor, but it is not in the same performance class as the Core i9-14900F.

The Core i9-14900F, with its 92nd percentile ranking and closest rivals being AMD Ryzen 9-class processors, is the clear choice for desktop workloads that demand maximum performance. The Core 5 330, with its 72nd percentile ranking and closest rivals being Core i3 and Core 3-class processors, serves a different market segment entirely.