Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 3 205 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records 17 head-to-head comparisons between the Intel Core 5 330 and the Intel Core Ultra 3 205. The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 wins all 17 of those matchups. The data shows a consistent performance advantage across every recorded workload, though the margin varies considerably depending on the nature of the test.

Starting with multi-threaded rendering workloads, the Cinebench results show a substantial gap. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core Ultra 3 205 scores 2001 against the Core 5 330's 1325, a delta of 33.8 percent. The same 33.8 percent margin repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the Ultra 3 records 8339 versus 5523, and in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the Ultra 3 reaches 19856 against 13150. These consistent deltas indicate a stable performance ratio across the three Cinebench versions, suggesting the advantage is structural rather than workload-specific.

Single-threaded Cinebench results follow the same pattern. The Core Ultra 3 205 posts 282 in Cinebench R15 singlecore versus 186 for the Core 5 330, a 34 percent lead. In R20 singlecore, the scores are 1177 and 779, again a 33.8 percent delta. In R23 singlecore, the Ultra 3 reaches 2803 against 1856, maintaining the 33.8 percent margin. The near-identical deltas across multicore and singlecore Cinebench tests indicate that the Core Ultra 3 205 benefits from both higher per-core throughput and additional core resources.

The Passmark suite reveals a wider spread of performance differences. The largest single gap appears in Passmark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 3 205 scores 268 versus 114 for the Core 5 330, a 57.5 percent advantage. This test is heavily dependent on integer arithmetic and memory latency, and the data suggests the Ultra 3's architecture handles this workload far more efficiently.

Data compression shows the second-largest margin. The Ultra 3 records 260651 against 145287, a 44.3 percent lead. Data encryption follows with 18772 versus 11076, a 41 percent delta. Extended instructions show a 43.3 percent gap, with scores of 22578 and 12808. Floating point math delivers 75136 for the Ultra 3 versus 43885 for the Core 5 330, a 41.6 percent difference. Integer math shows a 39.3 percent gap, with 54755 against 33258.

The multithreaded Passmark score favors the Ultra 3 by 40.9 percent, with 26167 versus 15471. Physics testing shows a 40.4 percent lead, with 2016 against 1201. Random string sorting delivers a 42.8 percent advantage, with 31083 versus 17771.

The narrowest margin appears in Passmark single-thread testing. The Core Ultra 3 205 scores 4575 against 4088 for the Core 5 330, a 10.6 percent lead. This is the only recorded benchmark where the performance gap falls below 30 percent. The single-thread results suggest that while the Ultra 3 has superior per-core performance, the difference is not as pronounced as in heavily threaded or memory-intensive workloads.

The average benchmark score in the database places the Core Ultra 3 205 at 31473, while the Core 5 330 sits at 18345. The percentile ranking also reflects this separation: the Ultra 3 sits at the 82nd percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 5 330 ranks at the 72nd percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows no benchmark category where the Intel Core 5 330 takes the lead. Every one of the 17 head-to-head comparisons favors the Intel Core Ultra 3 205. This creates a clear separation in use-case suitability, but the magnitude of the gap varies by workload type.

The Core Ultra 3 205 shows its largest advantages in workloads that stress integer calculation and memory throughput. The 57.5 percent lead in find prime numbers, the 44.3 percent lead in data compression, and the 43.3 percent lead in extended instructions point to an architecture that handles arithmetic-heavy, data-dense tasks with notably higher efficiency. The 41.6 percent lead in floating point math and the 42.8 percent lead in random string sorting reinforce this pattern.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the Ultra 3 still wins, but by a smaller margin. The 10.6 percent lead in Passmark single-thread testing indicates that the per-core clock advantage and architectural efficiency deliver meaningful but modest gains in lightly threaded applications. The Cinebench singlecore deltas of around 34 percent are larger, which may reflect differences in how each test harness scales with the architecture.

The Core 5 330, with its 6 cores and 6 threads, does not outperform the 8-core, 8-thread Ultra 3 in any recorded test. Even in the least favorable comparison for the Ultra 3, the single-thread Passmark test, the Core 5 330 still trails. The data provides no scenario where the Core 5 330 emerges as the faster part.

The Core Ultra 3 205 also holds advantages in platform-level capabilities that appear in the database. It supports dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the Core 5 330 uses single-channel memory at 59.7 GB/s. The Ultra 3 offers PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, whereas the Core 5 330 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes. These differences likely contribute to the performance gaps observed in memory-sensitive benchmarks like data compression and prime number calculation.

The Verdict

The benchmark data delivers an unambiguous result. The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 outperforms the Intel Core 5 330 in every recorded test. The average benchmark score of 31473 for the Ultra 3 versus 18345 for the Core 5 330 represents a 71.5 percent difference in the database's aggregate metric. The percentile ranking reinforces this: 82nd percentile for the Ultra 3, 72nd for the Core 5 330.

The nearest rivals listed in the database provide additional context. The Core 5 330's closest competitor is the Intel Core i3-14100, with an average score of 18318 and a delta of 0.1 percent. The Core 7 360 sits at 18374, a 0.2 percent delta, and the Core i3-13100 also sits at 18380, a 0.2 percent delta. The Core 3 305 at 18302 shows a 0.2 percent delta. These near-identical scores indicate the Core 5 330 performs essentially on par with these parts in the aggregate metric.

For the Core Ultra 3 205, the nearest rival is the Intel Core 7 240H with a score of 31483 and a delta of 0 percent. The AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX scores 31495, a 0.1 percent delta, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H scores 31508, a 0.1 percent delta. The Intel Core i5-13500 scores 31510, also a 0.1 percent delta. The Ultra 3 205 sits within a tight cluster of these parts, indicating it delivers performance comparable to a broader set of mid-range and higher-end mobile and desktop chips.

The data suggests the Core Ultra 3 205 is the faster processor for any compute-heavy workload. The Core 5 330, while showing competitive aggregate scores against its own nearest rivals, cannot match the Ultra 3's throughput. The Core 5 330 does offer a lower TDP of 15 watts versus 57 watts for the Ultra 3, and it uses a single-channel memory configuration. These power and platform differences may matter for specific system designs, but they do not translate into any performance win in the recorded benchmarks.

The release dates place the Core 5 330 in April 2026 and the Core Ultra 3 205 in July 2025. The Core 5 330 uses the Wildcat Lake architecture on a 3 nm process from Intel's foundry, while the Ultra 3 uses Arrow Lake on a 3 nm process from TSMC. The Ultra 3 is a desktop part, while the Core 5 330 is a mobile part. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 330 is $309, and the launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 3 205 is $140.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 205. In Passmark single-thread testing, it scores 4575 versus 4088 for the Core 5 330, a 10.6 percent lead. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, the Ultra 3 scores 2803 against 1856, a 33.8 percent margin.

Q: How large is the multi-threaded performance gap?

A: The Core Ultra 3 205 leads by 33.8 percent in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests. In Passmark multithread, the lead is 40.9 percent, with scores of 26167 versus 15471.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The Core Ultra 3 205 supports dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Core 5 330 uses single-channel memory with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

Q: How do their core and thread counts compare?

A: The Core Ultra 3 205 has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 3 205 has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Core 5 330 has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz.

Q: What are the percentile rankings for each processor?

A: The Core Ultra 3 205 sits at the 82nd percentile among all CPUs. The Core 5 330 sits at the 72nd percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in their design targets and platform integration. The Intel Core 5 330 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation. It is built on a 3 nm process at Intel's foundry. The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2. It is fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC.

The Core Ultra 3 205 integrates 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The database does not list transistor counts or die sizes for the Core 5 330. The Ultra 3 has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Core 5 330 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The lower base clock for the Core 5 330 likely reflects its mobile-oriented design and 15 watt TDP, while the Ultra 3 carries a 57 watt TDP and targets desktop systems.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The Core 5 330 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 3 205 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 15 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core L2 and shared L3 allocations for the Ultra 3 align with its higher benchmark scores, particularly in workloads that benefit from larger cache footprints.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 3 205 supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s. Neither part supports ECC memory. The PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core 5 330 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU, while the Ultra 3 provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

Integrated graphics differ between the two. The Core 5 330 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 3 205 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 16 execution units. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, so no performance comparison is available from the recorded data.

The socket types reflect their market segments. The Core 5 330 uses Intel BGA 1516, a mobile socket, while the Core Ultra 3 205 uses Intel Socket 1851, a desktop socket. The Core 5 330 is classified as a mobile part, and the Ultra 3 is classified as a desktop part. Both have locked multipliers, and both are listed as active in production.

The launch MSRP for the Core 5 330 is $309. The launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 3 205 is $140. The release dates place the Ultra 3 in July 2025 and the Core 5 330 in April 2026.