Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235A Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor achieves the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A records an average benchmark score of 48201, while the Intel Core 5 330 scores 18345. The Ultra 5 235A sits in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the Core 5 330's 72nd percentile.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A scores 32633 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Core 5 330 scores 13150. The delta is 59.7 percent in favor of the Ultra 5 235A.

Q: Does the Core 5 330 win any benchmark category?

A: No. Across all 17 head-to-head benchmark entries, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A wins every test. The Core 5 330 records zero wins.

Q: What is the closest margin between the two processors?

A: The narrowest gap appears in PassMark single-thread testing, where the Ultra 5 235A scores 4557 versus 4088 for the Core 5 330, a 10.3 percent difference. Every other test shows a gap of at least 50 percent.

Q: How do the two compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Ultra 5 235A supports dual-channel memory with a recorded bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Core 5 330 uses single-channel memory with a recorded bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

Q: What are the production statuses of these parts?

A: Both processors are listed as Active in production. The Core 5 330 has a release date of 2026-04-15, while the Ultra 5 235A has a release date of 2025-07-28.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The Intel Core 5 330 carries the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A uses the Arrow Lake-S codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2 and the Arrow Lake architecture. Both are fabricated on a 3 nm process, but the foundry differs: the Core 5 330 is produced by Intel, while the Ultra 5 235A is produced by TSMC.

The core configurations diverge sharply. The Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyperthreading indicated. The Ultra 5 235A has 14 cores and 14 threads, also without extra threads per core. This 8-core difference explains much of the multi-threaded performance gap.

Cache hierarchies are built differently. The Core 5 330 has an L1 cache of 192 KB total, an L2 of 2.5 MB, and a shared L3 of 6 MB. The Ultra 5 235A lists L1 as 192 KB per core, L2 as 3 MB per core, and a shared L3 of 24 MB. The per-core L2 structure on the Ultra 5 235A gives it substantially more aggregate cache, especially for workloads that repeatedly access working sets that fit in L2.

Memory architecture also separates the two. The Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus, with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Ultra 5 235A supports only DDR5 but over a dual-channel bus, achieving 102.4 GB/s. The Ultra 5 235A also has a larger transistor count at 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the Core 5 330 does not list transistor or die size data.

PCIe connectivity differs. The Core 5 330 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Ultra 5 235A uses Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 5 330 has Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe units, while the Ultra 5 235A has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 EU.

Clock speeds favor the Ultra 5 235A. Its base clock is 3.40 GHz with a boost of 5.00 GHz, versus 1.50 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost on the Core 5 330. The TDP ratings reflect their market segments: 15 W for the mobile-oriented Core 5 330, 65 W for the desktop-oriented Ultra 5 235A. The Core 5 330 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Ultra 5 235A uses Intel Socket 1851. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a consistent, dominant performance advantage for the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 5 235A scores 3289 against 1325 for the Core 5 330, a 59.7 percent delta. The single-core R15 test shows 464 versus 186, also a 59.9 percent gap. These early Cinebench results set the pattern.

Cinebench R20 follows the same trajectory. Multi-core scores are 13705 for the Ultra 5 235A and 5523 for the Core 5 330, another 59.7 percent difference. Single-core R20 is 1934 versus 779, again 59.7 percent. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 32633 versus 13150, and single-core 4607 versus 1856, with the same 59.7 percent delta. The consistency across Cinebench versions indicates that the 59.7 percent gap is stable across varying workload intensities.

PassMark tests reveal a broader spread. Data compression shows the Ultra 5 235A at 393800 versus 145287, a 63.1 percent difference. Data encryption records 30136 versus 11076, a 63.2 percent gap. Extended instructions score 31625 versus 12808, a 59.5 percent delta. Find prime numbers shows the largest relative gap: 392 versus 114, a 70.9 percent difference. This test often reflects raw integer throughput and memory latency behavior.

Floating-point math scores 118778 versus 43885, a 63.1 percent gap. Integer math records 88626 versus 33258, a 62.5 percent difference. PassMark multithread scores 38392 versus 15471, a 59.7 percent delta. Physics shows 2437 versus 1201, a 50.7 percent gap, the smallest multi-threaded margin. Random string sorting scores 49489 versus 17771, a 64.1 percent difference.

The single-thread tests show the narrowest margin. PassMark single-thread scores 4557 versus 4088, a 10.3 percent delta. This is repeated identically in both single-thread and singlethread entries in the database. While the Ultra 5 235A still wins, the single-thread gap is far smaller than the multi-threaded gaps. This suggests that per-core efficiency is closer between the two, and the large overall performance difference arises mainly from core count and memory bandwidth.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a decisive outcome. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark entries. Its average benchmark score of 48201 places it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 330 sits at 18345 in the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 5 235A include the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 with a delta of 0.1 percent, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX at 0.2 percent, the AMD EPYC 4345P at 0.6 percent, and the AMD Ryzen 9 3900 at 0.6 percent. The Core 5 330's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-14100 at 0.1 percent, the Intel Core 7 360 at 0.2 percent, the Intel Core i3-13100 at 0.2 percent, and the Intel Core 3 305 at 0.2 percent.

Users seeking maximum throughput in multi-threaded workloads should select the Ultra 5 235A. Its 14 cores, 24 MB shared L3, dual-channel memory at 102.4 GB/s, and 5.00 GHz boost clock deliver roughly 2.5 times the multi-core Cinebench scores of the Core 5 330. The Ultra 5 235A is also the stronger choice for desktop work given its Socket 1851 platform and Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes.

The Core 5 330, with its 6 cores, 15 W TDP, and mobile BGA 1516 socket, targets a different physical environment. Its single-thread performance is only 10.3 percent behind the Ultra 5 235A, which keeps it competitive for lightly threaded tasks. But in every measured multi-threaded scenario, the Ultra 5 235A is at least 50.7 percent ahead. The Core 5 330's launch MSRP is $309, while the Ultra 5 235A's launch MSRP is $269.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads; the Ultra 5 235A has 14 cores and 14 threads. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz versus 3.40 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.60 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. TDP is 15 W for the Core 5 330 and 65 W for the Ultra 5 235A. Sockets differ: Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel Socket 1851.

Cache configurations are not directly comparable. The Core 5 330 lists L1 as 192 KB, L2 as 2.5 MB, and L3 as 6 MB shared. The Ultra 5 235A lists L1 as 192 KB per core, L2 as 3 MB per core, and L3 as 24 MB shared. Memory support differs: the Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Ultra 5 235A supports only DDR5. Memory bus widths are single-channel versus dual-channel, and bandwidths are 59.7 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s.

PCIe capabilities differ: Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the Core 5 330, Gen 5 with 20 lanes for the Ultra 5 235A. Integrated graphics differ: Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe units versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 EU. Process nodes are both 3 nm, but the foundry is Intel for the Core 5 330 and TSMC for the Ultra 5 235A. Release dates differ: 2026-04-15 versus 2025-07-28. The Ultra 5 235A also lists transistor count of 17,800 million and die size of 243 mm², which the Core 5 330 does not provide.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A wins in every benchmark category recorded. Its largest margins are in PassMark find prime numbers, where it leads by 70.9 percent, and random string sorting at 64.1 percent. Data compression and floating-point math both show 63.1 percent gaps. Data encryption is 63.2 percent behind for the Core 5 330. Integer math trails by 62.5 percent. All Cinebench tests show a 59.7 percent gap for multi-core and 59.9 percent or 59.7 percent for single-core.

The Core 5 330's closest performance comes in PassMark single-thread testing, where it trails by only 10.3 percent. In physics, the gap is 50.7 percent, which is the smallest multi-threaded margin. These two areas define the Core 5 330's relative strength: lightly threaded desktop tasks and physics simulations where the core count advantage of the Ultra 5 235A matters less.

For mobile use cases, the Core 5 330's 15 W TDP and BGA 1516 socket position it for compact systems. Its support for LPDDR5X memory and integrated Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe units suggests a focus on power-efficient portable devices. The Ultra 5 235A, with its 65 W TDP, desktop socket, and 20 Gen 5 PCIe lanes, suits high-throughput desktop builds. The data confirms that the Ultra 5 235A is the superior processor for compute-intensive tasks across every measured workload.