Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Core 5 330 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is decisively one-sided. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus records the higher score, giving it a 17 to 0 win tally. The margins, however, vary considerably depending on the workload type.

The largest discrepancy appears in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 607 against the Core 5 330's 186, a delta of -69.4%. Multi-core results follow a similar pattern: Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 4305 versus 1325 (-69.2%), Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 17941 versus 5523 (-69.2%), and Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 42718 versus 13150 (-69.2%). These consistent deltas across the Cinebench suite indicate that the performance gap scales uniformly with thread count in rendering workloads.

PassMark results reinforce the multi-core dominance. Data compression scores 553155 for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus against 145287 for the Core 5 330, a delta of -73.7%. Integer math shows 123030 versus 33258 (-73%), floating point math shows 159824 versus 43885 (-72.5%), and extended instructions show 42880 versus 12808 (-70.1%). The find prime numbers test delivers the widest relative gap at -74.8%, with scores of 452 and 114 respectively.

The narrowest margin appears in PassMark single-thread testing, where the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 4698 against 4088, a delta of only -13%. This is still a clear win, but it reveals that the Core 5 330's single-core efficiency is comparatively close to its larger sibling. The physics test shows the smallest gap among multi-threaded workloads at -62.3%, with scores of 3183 and 1201.

The average benchmark score tells the same story: the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus averages 66159, while the Core 5 330 averages 18345. In the database percentile rankings, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 330 sits at the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals for each processor also differ markedly in tier. The Core 5 330's closest competitors are the Intel Core i3-14100 (average score 18318, delta 0.1%), the Intel Core 3 305 (18302, delta 0.2%), and the Intel Core 7 360 (18374, delta -0.2%). The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, by contrast, sits alongside the Intel Core 9 273PQE (66099, delta 0.1%), the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (65914, delta 0.4%), and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus (66855, delta -1%). These rival groupings confirm that the two processors occupy entirely different performance tiers.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge sharply in their underlying designs. The Intel Core 5 330 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs: the Core 5 330 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is fabricated by TSMC.

Core and thread counts present a major structural difference. The Core 5 330 offers 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning it has no simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus offers 18 cores and 18 threads, also without multithreading, but with three times the physical core count. This explains much of the multi-core benchmark gap, since each core operates as a single thread in both designs.

Cache hierarchies are also distinct. The Core 5 330 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The L3 allocation alone is five times larger on the Core Ultra part, which supports more active data for heavy multi-threaded workloads.

Memory architecture differs as well. The Core 5 330 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, delivering 115.2 GB/s. The Core Ultra part also supports ECC memory, while the Core 5 330 does not. PCIe capability follows the same pattern: the Core 5 330 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics are present on the Core 5 330 in the form of Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics, as indicated by the "F" in its naming convention. The Core 5 330 is a mobile-segment part using the Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is a desktop part using Intel Socket 1851. The Core 5 330's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus lists 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die.

Clock speeds reinforce the performance gap. The Core 5 330 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The Core Ultra part also has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 5 330 does not. Thermal design power differs substantially, with the Core 5 330 rated at 15 W and the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus rated at 125 W.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the stronger processor in every measured benchmark. Its 93rd percentile ranking versus the Core 5 330's 72nd percentile places it firmly in a higher performance class. The average benchmark score of 66159 versus 18345 represents a 3.6x gap in aggregate performance. The nearest rival comparisons confirm this positioning: the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus trades blows with the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D and the Intel Core 9 273PQE, while the Core 5 330 sits alongside entry-level Core i3 parts.

The Core 5 330, however, is not without its own strengths in the context of its design goals. As a mobile processor with a 15 W TDP, it targets low-power systems where the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus's 125 W TDP would be unsuitable. The Core 5 330 also includes integrated graphics, which the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus lacks entirely. For a system that needs a CPU with onboard display output and minimal power draw, the Core 5 330 is the only viable option between the two.

The single-thread delta of -13% in PassMark is the closest the Core 5 330 comes to matching the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. This suggests that per-core architectural efficiency is relatively comparable, and the massive multi-core gap stems primarily from the 18-core versus 6-core count difference.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification field. Core count: 6 versus 18. Thread count: 6 versus 18. Base clock: 1.50 GHz versus 4.20 GHz. Boost clock: 4.60 GHz versus 5.30 GHz. TDP: 15 W versus 125 W. Socket: Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel Socket 1851. Codename: Wildcat Lake versus Arrow Lake Refresh. Foundry: Intel versus TSMC.

Cache differences are pronounced. L1 cache is listed as 192 KB on the Core 5 330 versus 192 KB per core on the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. L2 cache is 2.5 MB versus 3 MB per core. L3 cache is 6 MB shared versus 30 MB shared. Memory support is DDR5 and LPDDR5X versus DDR5 only. Memory bus is single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth is 59.7 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. ECC memory support is absent on the Core 5 330 and present on the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus.

PCIe generation and lane count differ: Gen 4 with 6 lanes versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics are present on the Core 5 330 as Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has none. Market segment is mobile versus desktop. The multiplier is locked on the Core 5 330 and unlocked on the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. Release dates differ: the Core 5 330 launched on 2026-04-15, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus launched on 2026-03-10. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 330 is $309, and the launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is $184.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores, while the Intel Core 5 330 has 6 cores. Both processors have the same number of threads as cores, so the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus also has 18 threads versus 6 threads.

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

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 42718 against the Core 5 330's 13150, a delta of -69.2%. PassMark multi-thread shows 50146 versus 15471, a delta of -69.1%.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 330 does not support ECC memory.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus does not include integrated graphics.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Core 5 330 delivers 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel memory bus, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus delivers 115.2 GB/s over a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: How do the two processors rank in the database?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus ranks in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 330 ranks in the 72nd percentile. Their average benchmark scores are 66159 and 18345, respectively.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins every recorded benchmark, but the magnitude of each win defines its best use cases. Rendering and compute-heavy workloads see the largest advantages. Cinebench R23 multi-core, Cinebench R20 multi-core, and Cinebench R15 multi-core all show deltas near -69.2%, which points to content creation, 3D rendering, and video encoding as areas where the Core Ultra part dominates. PassMark integer math and floating point math deltas of -73% and -72.5% reinforce suitability for scientific computing and financial modeling.

Data-oriented workloads also favor the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus heavily. Data compression scores 553155 versus 145287 (-73.7%), random string sorting scores 67209 versus 17771 (-73.6%), and data encryption scores 41292 versus 11076 (-73.2%). These results indicate strong performance in database operations, file archiving, and encryption tasks. The find prime numbers delta of -74.8% is the largest in the entire comparison, further supporting computationally intensive algorithmic workloads.

The Core 5 330's narrowest deficit is in PassMark single-thread, where it trails by only -13%. This indicates that for lightly threaded tasks such as basic office productivity, web browsing, and legacy application compatibility, the Core 5 330 performs relatively closer to the Core Ultra part. Its 15 W TDP and integrated graphics make it suitable for fanless or low-power mobile designs where the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus's 125 W TDP and lack of display output would disqualify it entirely. The Core 5 330 also supports LPDDR5X memory, which is common in compact mobile platforms.

The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus's unlocked multiplier, Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes, and dual-channel memory with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth make it the appropriate choice for desktop systems that prioritize throughput and overclocking. The Core 5 330, with its Gen 4 PCIe and 6 lanes, targets mobile platforms that do not require high-bandwidth expansion. The production status of both processors is listed as active, so both remain available in the database for their respective segments.