Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 226V Comparison

Intel Core 5 330 and Intel Core Ultra 5 226V are two mobile processors with different design priorities. Benchmark data shows the Core Ultra 5 226V wins 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the Core 5 330 takes 4 wins. The Core Ultra 5 226V holds a higher average benchmark score of 19368 compared to 18345 for the Core 5 330, placing it in the 73rd percentile versus the 72nd percentile. The data indicates the Core Ultra 5 226V is the stronger all-around performer, but the Core 5 330 has specific advantages in certain workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 226V dominates most multi-threaded and math-heavy workloads. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 1501 against 1325, a margin of 11.7 percent. In Cinebench R20 multicore, it delivers 6381 versus 5523, a 13.4 percent advantage. PassMark multi-thread results show 17850 against 15471, a 13.3 percent lead. The Core Ultra 5 226V also wins all PassMark math tests: floating point math at 52270 versus 43885, integer math at 38647 versus 33258, and find prime numbers at 166 versus 114. Data compression favors the Core Ultra 5 226V at 170687 versus 145287, and encryption at 12710 versus 11076. Extended instructions, random string sorting, and physics tests all go to the Core Ultra 5 226V with margins between 12.9 and 17.1 percent.

The Core 5 330 wins in Cinebench R23 multicore by a substantial 33.5 percent, scoring 13150 versus 9848. It also takes Cinebench R23 single-core at 1856 versus 1744, a 6.4 percent edge. PassMark single-thread goes to the Core 5 330 at 4088 versus 3754, an 8.9 percent lead. These wins cluster around newer Cinebench versions and single-threaded PassMark tests, suggesting the Core 5 330 has stronger per-core performance in sustained workloads.

The use-case split is clear. The Core Ultra 5 226V handles parallel tasks, encryption, compression, and floating-point calculations better. The Core 5 330 excels in single-threaded tasks and shows a significant advantage in Cinebench R23 multicore, which may indicate better scaling in that specific benchmark. For typical productivity with mixed workloads, the Core Ultra 5 226V has more consistent wins across a broader range of tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use different silicon designs. The Core 5 330 is based on the Wildcat Lake codename, while the Core Ultra 5 226V uses Lunar Lake architecture. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs: Intel fabricates the Core 5 330, while TSMC fabricates the Core Ultra 5 226V. This foundry distinction may influence thermal and power characteristics, though the recorded data does not include direct measurements.

Core configuration differs significantly. The Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 226V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts equal core counts. The Core Ultra 5 226V has two additional physical cores, which likely explains its advantage in multithreaded PassMark tests and Cinebench R15/R20 multicore.

Base clock speeds differ: the Core 5 330 runs at 1.50 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 226V starts at 2.10 GHz. Boost clocks are closer, with the Core 5 330 reaching 4.60 GHz and the Core Ultra 5 226V reaching 4.50 GHz. The higher base clock of the Core Ultra 5 226V may contribute to its wins in tests sensitive to sustained low-load performance.

Cache hierarchies differ. The Core 5 330 has 192 KB L1 cache, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 226V lists 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. With 8 cores, the Core Ultra 5 226V's per-core L2 configuration totals more L2 cache in aggregate, and its L3 is 2 MB larger.

Memory architecture also separates the two. The Core 5 330 uses a single-channel memory bus with DDR5 and LPDDR5X support, delivering 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 226V uses a dual-channel memory bus, though its memory support is listed as dependent on the motherboard and no bandwidth figure is recorded. The dual-channel configuration provides a structural advantage for memory-intensive workloads.

PCIe capabilities differ. The Core 5 330 offers PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 5 226V offers PCIe Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. Generational throughput is higher on the Core Ultra 5 226V, but lane count is lower.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 5 330 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 5 226V uses Arc 130V. No graphics benchmarks are recorded in the database, so comparative GPU performance cannot be assessed from this data.

The Core Ultra 5 226V belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 family, while the Core 5 330 has no series designation. Release dates differ: the Core 5 330 launched on 2026-04-15, and the Core Ultra 5 226V launched on 2024-09-23. The Core 5 330 has a launch MSRP of $309, while the Core Ultra 5 226V has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Core Ultra 5 226V has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Core 5 330 wins with a score of 13150 versus 9848 for the Core Ultra 5 226V, a 33.5 percent advantage.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock?

A: The Core Ultra 5 226V has a base clock of 2.10 GHz, while the Core 5 330 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz.

Q: Which processor uses a dual-channel memory bus?

A: The Core Ultra 5 226V uses a dual-channel memory bus. The Core 5 330 uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Core Ultra 5 226V has 8 MB shared L3 cache, while the Core 5 330 has 6 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 5 226V averages 19368, compared to 18345 for the Core 5 330. The Core Ultra 5 226V also sits in the 73rd percentile versus the 72nd percentile for the Core 5 330.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 330 | Intel Core Ultra 5 226V |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 6 | 8 |

| Threads | 6 | 8 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.60 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 17 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2833 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Lunar Lake |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L1 cache | 192 KB | 192 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 2.5 MB | 2.5 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 6 MB shared | 8 MB shared |

| Memory bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | Not recorded |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 lanes | Gen 5, 4 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Arc 130V |

| Release date | 2026-04-15 | 2024-09-23 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | Not recorded |

| Average benchmark score | 18345 | 19368 |

| Percentile | 72 | 73 |

The specification table highlights the structural differences. The Core Ultra 5 226V has more cores, a higher base clock, dual-channel memory, larger L3 cache, and a newer PCIe generation. The Core 5 330 has a higher boost clock, lower TDP, single-channel memory, and a later release date.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 5 226V leads in 13 of 17 tests, but the margins vary. Its largest single-core win comes in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it scores 267 against 186, a 30.3 percent advantage. That is the widest gap in either direction across all recorded tests. The Core Ultra 5 226V also dominates find prime numbers at 166 versus 114, a 31.3 percent lead, and physics at 1449 versus 1201, a 17.1 percent edge.

The Core 5 330's biggest win is Cinebench R23 multicore at 13150 versus 9848, a 33.5 percent margin. That result is notable because the Core Ultra 5 226V wins both Cinebench R15 multicore and R20 multicore by 11.7 and 13.4 percent respectively, yet loses R23 multicore by a large margin. The shift suggests the Core 5 330 responds better to the R23 workload structure, possibly due to its higher boost clock of 4.60 GHz versus 4.50 GHz.

In PassMark tests, the Core Ultra 5 226V wins every category except single-thread. Data compression goes 170687 to 145287, a 14.9 percent lead. Data encryption goes 12710 to 11076, a 12.9 percent lead. Extended instructions go 14724 to 12808, a 13 percent lead. Floating point math goes 52270 to 43885, a 16 percent lead. Integer math goes 38647 to 33258, a 13.9 percent lead. Random string sorting goes 20813 to 17771, a 14.6 percent lead. PassMark multithread goes 17850 to 15471, a 13.3 percent lead.

The Core 5 330 wins PassMark single-thread at 4088 versus 3754, an 8.9 percent margin, and Cinebench R23 single-core at 1856 versus 1744, a 6.4 percent margin. These single-thread wins are smaller than the Core Ultra 5 226V's Cinebench R15 single-core win, but they show the Core 5 330 has competitive single-core capability.

The head-to-head data also includes Geekbench results for the Core Ultra 5 226V only: 8598 multicore and 1930 single-core. No Geekbench scores are recorded for the Core 5 330, so a direct comparison in that test is not possible.

The win count is lopsided. The Core Ultra 5 226V takes 13 wins, the Core 5 330 takes 4. However, the Core 5 330's Cinebench R23 multicore win is the largest single margin in the entire comparison, which complicates a simple verdict based on win count alone.

The Verdict

The data supports the Core Ultra 5 226V as the better all-around processor for most workloads. It wins 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, holds a higher average benchmark score of 19368 versus 18345, and ranks in the 73rd percentile compared to the 72nd percentile. Its advantages span multithreaded processing, math operations, data compression, encryption, and physics simulations. The 8-core, 8-thread configuration with dual-channel memory and a 2.10 GHz base clock provides a solid foundation for parallel tasks.

The Core 5 330 is the better choice for users prioritizing single-thread performance and Cinebench R23 multicore results. Its 4.60 GHz boost clock likely drives its PassMark single-thread win and its 33.5 percent margin in Cinebench R23 multicore. The 6-core design with 6 threads and a 15 W TDP also makes it a lower-power option, though power efficiency cannot be directly quantified from the recorded data.

For workloads like video encoding, 3D rendering in Cinebench R23, or applications that scale with single-core speed, the Core 5 330 delivers superior results. For general productivity, scientific computing, encryption, and compression tasks, the Core Ultra 5 226V leads consistently. The Core Ultra 5 226V also offers PCIe Gen 5 and a dual-channel memory bus, which may benefit future upgrade paths, while the Core 5 330 offers PCIe Gen 4 and a single-channel bus.

The release timeline matters. The Core Ultra 5 226V launched on 2024-09-23, while the Core 5 330 launched on 2026-04-15. The newer design of the Core 5 330 does not translate to overall performance superiority, as the average benchmark score favors the older Core Ultra 5 226V.

The launch MSRP of $309 for the Core 5 330 provides a reference point, but no comparable price is recorded for the Core Ultra 5 226V, so a cost comparison is not possible from the data.

The verdict from the recorded measurements is straightforward: the Core Ultra 5 226V is the stronger performer across most benchmarks, while the Core 5 330 holds specific wins in single-threaded tests and Cinebench R23 multicore. Each processor suits different tasks, and the choice depends on workload priorities rather than overall capability.