Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245 Comparison

The Intel Core 5 330 and Intel Core Ultra 5 245 occupy distinct positions in the Intel lineup, with the former built for mobile efficiency and the latter aimed at desktop performance. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, with the Core Ultra 5 245 winning all 17 head-to-head comparisons. This analysis examines where each processor holds an advantage, the architectural differences behind the scores, and what the recorded measurements indicate for different use cases.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 330 does not win a single benchmark comparison in the database. Every recorded test, from Cinebench rendering to PassMark arithmetic workloads, favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 245. The closest margin appears in single-threaded PassMark tests, where the Core Ultra 5 245 scores 4394 against 4088 for the Core 5 330, a 7% difference. This small gap in single-thread performance suggests the Core 5 330’s Wildcat Lake architecture delivers competitive per-core efficiency despite its lower power envelope.

The Core Ultra 5 245 dominates in multi-threaded and throughput-oriented workloads. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core Ultra 5 245 scores 32924 versus 13150 for the Core 5 330, a 60.1% advantage. PassMark multithread results show 38706 against 15471, a 60% difference. The largest deltas appear in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 5 245 leads by 68.8% (365 versus 114), and in data compression, where the gap reaches 63.8% (400942 versus 145287).

For single-core Cinebench tests, the Core Ultra 5 245 maintains a consistent 60.1% to 60.3% lead across R15, R20, and R23 versions. This consistency across rendering workloads indicates the desktop chip’s higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz, compared to 4.60 GHz for the mobile part, translates directly into per-thread performance gains.

The Core 5 330’s only advantage lies in its power characteristics. With a 15 W TDP versus 65 W for the Core Ultra 5 245, the mobile processor draws significantly less power. The database does not record thermal or battery life measurements, but the TDP figures alone suggest the Core 5 330 is designed for sustained operation in thin-and-light systems, while the Core Ultra 5 245 targets performance-oriented desktop builds.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge at nearly every architectural level. The Core 5 330 uses Wildcat Lake architecture built on Intel’s 3 nm process, while the Core Ultra 5 245 uses Arrow Lake architecture, also on a 3 nm node but fabricated by TSMC. The Core Ultra 5 245 contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die; the database lists no transistor or die size data for the Core 5 330.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 245 has 14 cores and 14 threads. Neither processor supports Hyper-Threading, as thread counts equal core counts for both. The Core 5 330 operates at a 1.50 GHz base clock with a 4.60 GHz boost, while the Core Ultra 5 245 starts at 3.50 GHz base and reaches 5.10 GHz boost.

Cache hierarchies reflect the performance gap. The Core 5 330 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 245 provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The desktop chip’s L3 cache is four times larger, which explains part of its advantage in data-heavy workloads like compression and encryption.

Memory support creates another divide. The Core 5 330 uses a single-channel memory bus with DDR5 and LPDDR5X support, delivering 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 245 uses a dual-channel DDR5 configuration with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. This 71.5% bandwidth advantage for the Core Ultra 5 245 feeds its higher core count and larger cache. The Core Ultra 5 245 also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Core 5 330.

Platform connectivity differs. The Core 5 330 uses Intel BGA 1516 socket with PCIe Gen 4 and 6 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 5 245 uses Intel Socket 1851 with PCIe Gen 5 and 20 CPU lanes. The desktop platform offers both a newer PCIe standard and more than three times the lane count. Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 5 330 carries Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 5 245 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU.

Market positioning and release timing separate the two further. The Core 5 330 is a mobile processor released on 2026-04-15 with a launch MSRP of $309. The Core Ultra 5 245 is a desktop processor released on 2025-01-06 with a launch MSRP of $270. The Core 5 330 belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation, while the Core Ultra 5 245 belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 and Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) generation.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates a clear performance hierarchy. The Core Ultra 5 245 achieves an average benchmark score of 48995, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 330 scores 18345 on average, placing it in the 72nd percentile. The Core Ultra 5 245 sits alongside AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (0.4% faster), AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (0.5% faster), Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (0.6% slower), and Intel Core i5-14600K (0.8% slower) in the database’s nearest rivals. The Core 5 330’s nearest rivals include Intel Core i3-14100 (0.1% faster), Intel Core 7 360 (0.2% faster), Intel Core i3-13100 (0.2% faster), and Intel Core 3 305 (0.2% slower).

For workloads that demand multi-threaded throughput, rendering, encryption, or data compression, the Core Ultra 5 245 is the unambiguous choice. Its 14 cores, larger cache, dual-channel memory, and higher clocks deliver 60% or greater advantages across most recorded tests. Desktop users running Cinebench, PassMark multithread, or integer math workloads will see substantial performance gains with the Core Ultra 5 245.

The Core 5 330 is positioned for a different environment. Its 15 W TDP, single-channel memory, and mobile socket target laptops and compact systems where power efficiency takes precedence over raw performance. The 7% gap in single-thread PassMark scores shows the Core 5 330’s per-core architecture is not far behind, but the platform constraints limit its overall throughput. Users who require battery operation, fanless designs, or minimal thermal output would favor the Core 5 330, while those who need maximum compute performance would select the Core Ultra 5 245.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the Intel Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Neither processor supports additional threads per core.

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

A: In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core Ultra 5 245 scores 32924 versus 13150 for the Core 5 330, a 60.1% difference. In single-core, the Core Ultra 5 245 scores 4648 versus 1856, also a 60.1% difference.

Q: What memory configurations do these processors support?

A: The Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 245 supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and includes ECC memory support.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245 has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, four times larger than the 6 MB shared L3 cache on the Core 5 330.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds?

A: The Core 5 330 boosts to 4.60 GHz from a 1.50 GHz base clock. The Core Ultra 5 245 boosts to 5.10 GHz from a 3.50 GHz base clock.

Q: How do the processors compare in PassMark single-thread tests?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245 scores 4394 in PassMark single-thread, while the Core 5 330 scores 4088, a 7% difference. This is the closest recorded margin between the two processors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 5 245 wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The most significant victories occur in Cinebench tests, where the desktop chip maintains a consistent 60.1% to 60.3% advantage across all three versions. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core Ultra 5 245 scores 3318 against 1325, a 60.1% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 468 versus 186, a 60.3% gap. Cinebench R20 multicore delivers 13828 versus 5523, and single-core delivers 1952 versus 779, both at 60.1% differences. Cinebench R23 follows the same pattern with 32924 versus 13150 in multicore and 4648 versus 1856 in single-core.

PassMark workloads reveal where the architectural differences matter most. Data compression shows the largest absolute gap: 400942 for the Core Ultra 5 245 versus 145287, a 63.8% difference. Data encryption follows at 30236 versus 11076, a 63.4% gap. Extended instructions tests show 33304 versus 12808, a 61.5% difference. Find prime numbers produces the largest percentage gap at 68.8%, with scores of 365 and 114. Floating point math delivers 120548 versus 43885, a 63.6% difference, while integer math shows 91187 versus 33258, a 63.5% gap.

The multithread test records 38706 versus 15471, a 60% difference. Physics tests show 2569 versus 1201, a 53.3% gap, the smallest multi-threaded margin in the PassMark suite. Random string sorting delivers 49140 versus 17771, a 63.8% difference. Single-thread tests show the tightest competition: 4394 versus 4088, a 7% gap. The two PassMark single-thread entries (passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread) record identical scores and deltas.

The percentile data reinforces the separation. The Core Ultra 5 245 ranks in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 330 ranks in the 72nd percentile. Average benchmark scores show 48995 versus 18345, a 62.6% difference that aligns with the individual test deltas. The nearest rivals for each processor confirm their market positions: the Core Ultra 5 245 competes with desktop chips like the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, while the Core 5 330 trades blows with lower-tier desktop parts like the Intel Core i3-14100.

The consistency of the deltas across Cinebench and PassMark suggests the Core Ultra 5 245’s advantage comes from a combination of higher core count, larger cache, faster memory bandwidth, and higher clock speeds. The 7% single-thread PassMark gap indicates the Wildcat Lake core design in the Core 5 330 is competitive on a per-thread basis, but the 14-core Arrow Lake chip’s platform advantages create the large multi-threaded margins.