Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 236V Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 236V records an average benchmark score of 21952, while the Intel Core 5 330 averages 18345. The Ultra 5 sits in the 75th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the Core 5's 72nd percentile.

Q: How much faster is the Ultra 5 in multi-threaded Cinebench workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 5 scores 15628 versus 13150 for the Core 5, a 15.9% advantage. The same 15.9% delta appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core (6563 vs 5523) and R15 multi-core (1575 vs 1325).

Q: Does the Core 5 330 win any benchmark at all?

A: Yes, the Core 5 330 wins both PassMark single-thread tests. It scores 4088 against the Ultra 5's 3893, a 5% advantage. This is the only category where the Core 5 leads.

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

A: The widest margin is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 5 scores 171 versus 114 for the Core 5, a 33.3% difference. The next largest gaps are PassMark physics (20.1% ahead) and random string sorting (17.8% ahead).

Q: How does the Ultra 5 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Ultra 5's average score of 21952 places it 0.1% behind the Core Ultra 5 238V (21981), 0.2% behind the Core i7-11700F (21988), and 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 3600X (21992). It sits 0.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9534 (21900).

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

A: The Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 236V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading.

The Verdict

The benchmark data consistently favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 236V. Out of 17 head-to-head comparisons, the Ultra 5 wins 15, with the Core 5 330 taking only the two PassMark single-thread tests. The Ultra 5's average score of 21952 exceeds the Core 5's 18345 by roughly 19.7%, and its 75th percentile ranking versus 72nd confirms a higher overall standing in the database.

For workloads that stress multi-core performance, such as rendering, compression, or encryption, the Ultra 5 is the clear choice. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15628 outperforms the Core 5's 13150 by 15.9%. PassMark multi-thread results show a similar pattern: 18375 versus 15471, a 15.8% lead. The Ultra 5 also delivers substantially better floating-point math (52774 vs 43885) and integer math (38765 vs 33258).

The Core 5 330 has one meaningful niche: single-threaded PassMark performance. Its 4088 score beats the Ultra 5's 3893 by 5%. This could matter for older software that relies heavily on a single thread, but the Ultra 5 still wins every Cinebench single-core test, with a 15.9% advantage in R23 (2206 vs 1856) and 16.2% in R15 (222 vs 186). The discrepancy between PassMark and Cinebench single-thread results suggests workload-specific behavior, but the Cinebench suite is the more consistent indicator.

The data supports choosing the Ultra 5 for nearly all tasks. The Core 5 330 only makes sense when the PassMark single-thread score is the primary metric, which is a narrow use case given that the Ultra 5 dominates every other category including the Cinebench single-core tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the Ultra 5 comes in PassMark find prime numbers: 171 versus 114, a 33.3% margin. This test measures algorithmic efficiency and integer throughput, and the gap is substantial. PassMark physics shows a 20.1% lead (1503 vs 1201), indicating better simulation or game-physics performance. Random string sorting follows at 17.8% (21628 vs 17771), a memory and cache-sensitive workload.

The Cinebench suite shows remarkably consistent deltas. R15 multi-core records 1575 versus 1325 (15.9%), R20 multi-core 6563 versus 5523 (15.8%), and R23 multi-core 15628 versus 13150 (15.9%). Single-core Cinebench results are equally consistent: R15 at 222 versus 186 (16.2%), R20 at 926 versus 779 (15.9%), and R23 at 2206 versus 1856 (15.9%). This uniformity suggests a fundamental architecture advantage rather than a workload-specific fluke.

PassMark data compression favors the Ultra 5 by 17.7% (176554 vs 145287). Data encryption shows a 15.1% lead (13049 vs 11076). Extended instructions score 15451 versus 12808, a 17.1% difference. Floating-point math delivers 52774 versus 43885 (16.8%), and integer math 38765 versus 33258 (14.2%). The PassMark multi-thread test records 18375 versus 15471 (15.8%).

The Core 5 330's two wins are identical in nature: PassMark single-thread and PassMark singlethread both score 4088 versus 3893, a 5% margin. These are the only benchmarks where the Core 5 leads, and the delta is modest compared to the Ultra 5's typical 15-33% advantages.

Specification Differences

The Core Ultra 5 236V uses 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 5 330 uses 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clocks differ at 2.10 GHz for the Ultra 5 versus 1.50 GHz for the Core 5. Boost clocks are closer: 4.70 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. Thermal design power is 17 W for the Ultra 5 and 15 W for the Core 5.

Sockets differ entirely. The Core 5 330 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Ultra 5 uses Intel BGA 2833. These are not interchangeable. Memory support also diverges: the Core 5 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 5 lists memory support as dependent on the motherboard, uses a dual-channel bus, and has no recorded bandwidth figure in the database.

Cache configurations are structured differently. The Core 5 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Ultra 5 lists 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. The per-core L2 distinction means the Ultra 5's total L2 scales with its 8 cores, though the database does not provide a total L2 figure for either chip.

PCIe support differs: the Core 5 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes, while the Ultra 5 offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes. Integrated graphics also differ, with the Core 5 using Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) and the Ultra 5 using Arc 130V. Both are mobile segments, both are active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Release dates are far apart. The Ultra 5 launched on September 23, 2024, while the Core 5 has a release date of April 15, 2026. The Core 5 carries a launch MSRP of $309; the Ultra 5 has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Architecture Differences

The Core 5 330 is based on Wildcat Lake architecture, while the Ultra 5 236V uses Lunar Lake. Both are fabricated on a 3 nm process, but the foundries differ: Intel for the Core 5, TSMC for the Ultra 5. This could contribute to the performance differential, though the database does not provide transistor counts or die sizes to quantify the impact.

The Ultra 5 belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation, while the Core 5 is a Wildcat Lake generation part. The codename difference reflects a newer design lineage for the Ultra 5. The Ultra 5's memory bus is dual-channel versus single-channel for the Core 5, which likely explains the Ultra 5's advantages in memory-sensitive workloads like data compression and random string sorting.

Cache hierarchy differs in a notable way. The Core 5 lists L2 as a single 2.5 MB block, while the Ultra 5 lists L2 as 2.5 MB per core. With 8 cores, the Ultra 5's total L2 potentially reaches 20 MB, though the database does not confirm this sum. The L3 cache is larger on the Ultra 5: 8 MB shared versus 6 MB shared.

The Ultra 5's integrated graphics are branded Arc 130V, whereas the Core 5 uses Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The database does not provide graphics benchmark scores, so the impact on GPU-accelerated workloads cannot be quantified here.

The PCIe generation difference (Gen 5 on the Ultra 5 versus Gen 4 on the Core 5) suggests the Ultra 5 is designed for newer peripheral standards, though the lane count is lower at 4 versus 6.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 236V wins in rendering, simulation, and compute-heavy tasks. Cinebench R23 multi-core at 15628 versus 13150 indicates a 15.9% advantage in CPU rendering. PassMark physics at 1503 versus 1201 suggests faster simulation and game physics calculations. Data compression at 176554 versus 145287 points to better archive handling and file compression workloads.

The Ultra 5 also leads in encryption and security-related tasks. PassMark data encryption scores 13049 versus 11076, a 15.1% margin. Extended instructions at 15451 versus 12808 indicate stronger SIMD and vectorized workload performance. Floating-point math at 52774 versus 43885 (16.8%) and integer math at 38765 versus 33258 (14.2%) both favor the Ultra 5.

Prime number finding is decisively in the Ultra 5's favor: 171 versus 114, a 33.3% gap. This test often correlates with cryptographic and hashing workloads. Random string sorting at 21628 versus 17771 (17.8%) suggests the Ultra 5 handles data organization and database-style operations more efficiently.

The Intel Core 5 330 wins only in PassMark single-thread performance. Its score of 4088 versus 3893 (5% ahead) indicates an advantage for legacy applications that cannot use multiple cores. However, the Ultra 5 counters in Cinebench R23 single-core with 2206 versus 1856 (15.9% ahead), so the Core 5's single-thread win is specific to the PassMark methodology rather than universal.

For general productivity, the Ultra 5's PassMark multi-thread score of 18375 versus 15471 (15.8%) means faster responsiveness in multi-tasking scenarios. The Core 5's 6 cores and 6 threads versus the Ultra 5's 8 cores and 8 threads provide a structural basis for this advantage, as does the dual-channel memory bus on the Ultra 5.

The data does not show any workload category, other than the specific PassMark single-thread test, where the Core 5 330 outperforms the Ultra 5 236V.