Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark record is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 5 330 does not take a single victory in any of the measured workloads. The magnitude of the lead varies considerably by workload, from a modest single-thread edge to overwhelming multi-thread and math-oriented margins.

Looking at Cinebench results first, the Ultra 5 245HX dominates the multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 5 scores 32,358 against the Core 5's 13,150, a 59.4% advantage. The same 59.4% delta appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Ultra 5 posts 13,590 versus 5,523. The R15 multi-core test shows the same pattern: 3,261 for the Ultra 5 versus 1,325 for the Core 5, again a 59.4% gap. These consistent deltas indicate a fixed structural advantage in multi-threaded throughput rather than workload-specific behavior.

Single-core Cinebench results tell a similar story. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 5 scores 4,568 against 1,856 for the Core 5, a 59.4% difference. The R20 single-core test shows 1,918 versus 779, also 59.4%. The R15 single-core result is 460 versus 186, a 59.6% delta. The near-identical percentages across single and multi-core Cinebench tests suggest the Ultra 5's clock speed and architecture advantages scale uniformly across both single-threaded and multi-threaded render workloads.

PassMark results reveal where the gap widens and narrows. The smallest margin is in single-thread performance: the Ultra 5 scores 4,481 against 4,088 for the Core 5, only 8.8% ahead. This is the closest contest in the entire dataset. The data indicates that in lightly threaded, clock-bound tasks, the Core 5 is comparatively competitive, though still behind.

The widest margins appear in math-heavy tests. PassMark find prime numbers shows the Ultra 5 at 359 versus 114 for the Core 5, a 68.2% advantage. Floating point math goes to the Ultra 5 by 63.7%, with scores of 120,735 and 43,885. Integer math follows closely at 63.9%, with 92,150 versus 33,258. Data compression shows a 63% gap, 393,071 versus 145,287, and random string sorting is 62.7% apart, 47,616 versus 17,771. Data encryption is 63.1% in favor of the Ultra 5, 30,022 versus 11,076.

PassMark extended instructions show a 59% delta, 31,212 versus 12,808. The PassMark multi-thread score is 38,069 versus 15,471, a 59.4% gap, matching the Cinebench multi-core pattern. The physics test has the smallest multi-core margin at 52.5%, with the Ultra 5 scoring 2,526 against 1,201.

The average benchmark scores place the two processors far apart in the overall database. The Ultra 5 245HX holds an average benchmark score of 48,287, putting it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 330 averages 18,345, which lands in the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 5 are the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A at 48,201, the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 at 48,171, and the AMD EPYC 4345P at 48,470, all within 0.4% either direction. The Core 5's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-14100 at 18,318 and the Intel Core 3 305 at 18,302, with deltas around 0.2%.

The Verdict

The data supports only one conclusion for performance: the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX is in a different performance tier. It wins every recorded benchmark, and in multi-threaded workloads it leads by roughly 59% or more across both Cinebench and PassMark suites. The single-thread gap is smaller but still consistent, at 8.8% in PassMark and 59.4% in Cinebench R23.

The Core 5 330 does have one advantage in the record: its only launch MSRP is $309, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Ultra 5 245HX. Beyond that pricing field, no measured performance metric favors the Core 5. The Core 5 also carries a 15 TDP against the Ultra 5's 55 TDP, which indicates a much lower power envelope, though no direct power consumption measurements are in the dataset.

The percentile ranking reinforces the gap. The Ultra 5 sits at the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 sits at the 72nd. For workloads that demand maximum throughput, whether in rendering, math, or data processing, the Ultra 5 is the clear pick based on every recorded measurement. The Core 5 may be appropriate for scenarios where the lower 15 TDP envelope is a priority, as the data shows it consumes less power by specification, but it cannot match the Ultra 5 in any performance test.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 3 nm process node but are built by different foundries. The Core 5 330 is fabricated by Intel, while the Ultra 5 245HX is fabricated by TSMC. This is a notable distinction in the manufacturing record.

The Core 5 330 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation. The Ultra 5 245HX uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-HX codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2 and the Ultra 5 generation. The Ultra 5 is the only one with a listed transistor count: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. No transistor or die size data is recorded for the Core 5.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 5 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The Ultra 5 has 14 cores and 14 threads, also without hyperthreading. The Ultra 5 more than doubles the core count, which explains much of its multi-threaded advantage.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Core 5 lists L1 cache at 192 KB total, L2 at 2.5 MB, and L3 at 6 MB shared. The Ultra 5 lists L1 at 192 KB per core, L2 at 3 MB per core, and L3 at 24 MB shared. The per-core L2 allocation on the Ultra 5 is substantially larger, and the shared L3 is four times the size of the Core 5's.

Memory support also differs. The Core 5 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 5 supports DDR5 only, but over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs by generation and lane count. The Core 5 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes. The Ultra 5 uses Gen 5 with 20 CPU-only lanes, offering both a newer generation and more lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Ultra 5 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 48 execution units. The sockets differ: the Core 5 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Ultra 5 uses Intel BGA 2114. The Ultra 5 has an unlocked multiplier; the Core 5 does not.

Clock speeds are recorded at 1.50 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost for the Core 5, compared to 3.10 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost for the Ultra 5. The Ultra 5 carries both a higher base and higher boost clock.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX averages 48,287, while the Intel Core 5 330 averages 18,345. The Ultra 5 sits in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 72nd percentile for the Core 5.

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

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 5 scores 32,358 against 13,150 for the Core 5, a 59.4% advantage. PassMark multi-thread shows 38,069 versus 15,471, also a 59.4% gap.

Q: Is the Core 5 330 competitive in single-threaded workloads?

A: It is closer but still behind. PassMark single-thread shows the Ultra 5 at 4,481 versus 4,088 for the Core 5, an 8.8% gap. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap is 59.4%, with scores of 4,568 and 1,856.

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

A: The Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Ultra 5 245HX has 14 cores and 14 threads. Neither processor uses hyperthreading.

Q: Do the two processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: Both are on a 3 nm node, but the Core 5 330 is fabricated by Intel, and the Ultra 5 245HX is fabricated by TSMC.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: The Ultra 5 has 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB of L2 per core. The Core 5 has 6 MB of shared L3 and 2.5 MB of L2 total. The Ultra 5 also lists L1 at 192 KB per core, while the Core 5 lists 192 KB total.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each support?

A: The Core 5 supports single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth and accepts DDR5 or LPDDR5X. The Ultra 5 supports dual-channel DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The Ultra 5 245HX wins every workload category in the dataset. The largest margins are in prime number computation at 68.2%, integer math at 63.9%, floating point math at 63.7%, and data encryption at 63.1%. These workloads benefit most from the Ultra 5's combination of more cores, higher clocks, and larger cache.

Data compression favors the Ultra 5 by 63%, and random string sorting by 62.7%. Extended instruction workloads show a 59% gap. The Cinebench render tests, both single and multi-core, cluster around 59.4% to 59.6% in favor of the Ultra 5. The physics test shows the smallest multi-core margin at 52.5%.

The single-thread PassMark test is the closest comparison, with the Ultra 5 leading by only 8.8%. This indicates that in lightly threaded tasks that depend heavily on raw clock speed, the Core 5's 4.60 GHz boost clock is relatively competitive against the Ultra 5's 5.10 GHz, though still trailing.

The Core 5 330 does not post a single winning score. Its advantages are limited to specification-level attributes: a 15 TDP compared to 55 TDP, support for LPDDR5X memory in addition to DDR5, and a recorded launch MSRP of $309 with no equivalent figure for the Ultra 5. For workloads that are bound by the 15 W power envelope, such as fanless or ultra-portable designs, the Core 5's lower TDP is the only recorded specification that favors it. No benchmark in the database shows it ahead.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification field. Core count and threading show the largest structural difference: 6 cores and 6 threads for the Core 5 330 versus 14 cores and 14 threads for the Ultra 5 245HX. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 and 3.10 GHz for the Ultra 5. Boost clocks are 4.60 GHz and 5.10 GHz respectively. The TDP is 15 watts for the Core 5 and 55 watts for the Ultra 5.

Sockets differ: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 5, Intel BGA 2114 for the Ultra 5. The Core 5 uses the Wildcat Lake codename with no listed architecture name, while the Ultra 5 uses the Arrow Lake architecture under the Arrow Lake-HX codename. Both are on a 3 nm process, but Intel fabricates the Core 5 while TSMC fabricates the Ultra 5. The Ultra 5 has a recorded transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm²; no such figures exist for the Core 5.

Cache specifications differ in both size and presentation. The Core 5 lists L1 at 192 KB, L2 at 2.5 MB, and L3 at 6 MB shared. The Ultra 5 lists L1 at 192 KB per core, L2 at 3 MB per core, and L3 at 24 MB shared. Memory support shows the Core 5 accepting DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s, while the Ultra 5 accepts DDR5 only over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s. Neither supports ECC.

PCIe capabilities differ by generation and lane count: Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes for the Core 5, Gen 5 with 20 CPU-only lanes for the Ultra 5. Integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores for the Core 5 and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 48 execution units for the Ultra 5. The Ultra 5 has an unlocked multiplier; the Core 5 does not. Release dates differ, with the Ultra 5 released in January 2025 and the Core 5 in April 2026. The Core 5 has a launch MSRP of $309, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Ultra 5.