Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

Intel Core 5 330 and Intel Core Ultra 5 338H are both active mobile processors from Intel, but they target different segments within the laptop market. The Core 5 330 is a 6-core part based on the Wildcat Lake design, while the Core Ultra 5 338H is a 12-core Panther Lake-H chip with a more robust feature set. Benchmark data shows the Core Ultra 5 338H holds a decisive lead across every recorded workload, with the gap ranging from a narrow 2.2% in single-thread tests to over 60% in prime number finding. The following analysis breaks down the architectural differences, head-to-head results, and specification variances that define this matchup.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins every multi-core benchmark in the database. Its lead is substantial, ranging from a 19.5% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core to a 62.5% lead in PassMark find prime numbers.

Q: How do the two compare in single-core tests?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H also wins all single-core tests, but by a much smaller margin. In PassMark single thread, the Ultra 5 scores 4180 against the Core 5's 4088, a delta of only 2.2%. The Cinebench R23 single-core gap is 9.2%.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads. Neither processor uses Hyper-Threading, so thread counts equal core counts.

Q: Which chip has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H has a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, while the Core 5 330 has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The base clock also favors the Ultra 5 at 1.90 GHz versus 1.50 GHz.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H supports dual-channel LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. The Core 5 330 uses single-channel memory with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, which is less than half the Ultra 5's capacity.

Q: Which processor has a higher overall benchmark percentile?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H sits in the 84th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 330 sits in the 72nd percentile. The average benchmark score for the Ultra 5 is 33989, compared to 18345 for the Core 5.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge significantly in their underlying design. The Intel Core 5 330 is built on the Wildcat Lake codename, representing the Core 5 generation. It uses a 3 nm process node manufactured by Intel. The Core Ultra 5 338H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, based on the Panther Lake architecture and the Panther Lake-H codename. It also uses a 3 nm process node from Intel, but the architectural lineage is distinct.

Core count is a primary differentiator. The Core 5 330 packs 6 cores, while the Core Ultra 5 338H doubles that to 12 cores. Both processors have thread counts equal to their core counts, so the Ultra 5 has twice the logical processing capacity. Cache hierarchies also differ. 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 338H lists its L1 cache as 192 KB per core and L2 cache as 2.5 MB per core, with a much larger 18 MB of shared L3 cache. This larger cache pool likely supports the additional cores and higher memory throughput.

Memory support is another major split. The Core 5 330 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but only on a single-channel memory bus, capping bandwidth at 59.7 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 338H supports only LPDDR5X, but uses a dual-channel bus, achieving 136.5 GB/s. PCIe capabilities also differ: the Core 5 330 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 338H uses Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are different as well, with the Core 5 330 featuring Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, versus the Core Ultra 5 338H's Arc B370 graphics solution. The sockets are incompatible: the Core 5 330 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 5 338H uses Intel BGA 2540.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with zero wins for the Core 5 330. The margins, however, vary widely by workload type. The closest contest is in PassMark single thread, where the Ultra 5 scores 4180 against the Core 5's 4088, a delta of just 2.2%. This indicates that for lightly threaded tasks, the two processors are nearly comparable. The Cinebench R23 single-core test shows a slightly larger gap of 9.2%, with scores of 2044 versus 1856.

Multi-threaded workloads tell a different story. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 5 scores 2504 against the Core 5's 1325, a deficit of 47.1% for the Core 5. The Cinebench R20 multi-core results are similar, with the Ultra 5 at 10213 and the Core 5 at 5523, a 45.9% gap. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test narrows the relative difference to 19.5%, with scores of 16331 and 13150 respectively. This suggests that the R23 workload scales differently across the two architectures, though the Ultra 5 still holds a significant edge.

PassMark tests reveal the widest margins. The find prime numbers test shows the Core 5 330 scoring 114 against the Ultra 5's 304, a massive 62.5% deficit. Integer math follows at 48.8% behind, with scores of 33258 versus 64934. Floating point math shows a 47.8% gap, scoring 43885 versus 84067. Data compression results in a 47.5% difference, with the Ultra 5 at 276539 and the Core 5 at 145287. Data encryption trails by 48.2%, with scores of 21367 versus 11076. Physics processing is another large gap at 55.5%, where the Core 5 scores 1201 and the Ultra 5 scores 2697. Random string sorting shows a 47.9% difference, and extended instructions a 46.4% gap.

The passmark multithread score reflects the overall multi-core capability, with the Ultra 5 at 28717 and the Core 5 at 15471, a 46.1% lead. These results consistently indicate that the Core Ultra 5 338H delivers roughly double the multi-threaded performance of the Core 5 330 in most workloads, with the exception of the Cinebench R23 test where the gap narrows. The single-thread results confirm that architectural clock speed differences are modest, but the additional cores of the Ultra 5 drive the large multi-core advantages.

Specification Differences

The recorded data shows several key specification differences between the two processors. Core count differs from 6 to 12, and thread count from 6 to 12. Base clock is 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 330 versus 1.90 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 338H. Boost clock is 4.60 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. Thermal design power (TDP) is 15 watts for the Core 5 330 and 25 watts for the Core Ultra 5 338H. Sockets are different: Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel BGA 2540. Process nodes are identical at 3 nm.

Cache configuration diverges in both size and description. The Core 5 330 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 338H lists 192 KB L1 per core and 2.5 MB L2 per core, with 18 MB shared L3. Memory support differs: DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Core 5 330, LPDDR5X only for the Ultra 5. Memory bus width is single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth is 59.7 GB/s versus 136.5 GB/s. PCIe generation and lane count differ: Gen 4 with 6 lanes versus Gen 5 with 4 lanes. Integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) versus Arc B370. Release dates differ, with the Ultra 5 launching earlier. The Core 5 330 has a launch MSRP of $309, while the Ultra 5 has no recorded launch MSRP. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark, with an average benchmark score of 33989 versus 18345 for the Core 5 330. Its 84th percentile ranking versus the 72nd percentile for the Core 5 330 confirms the overall positioning. The Ultra 5 also sits near the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H in the database, with a delta of just 0.3%, indicating it performs in a higher performance class. The Core 5 330, by contrast, sits near the Intel Core i3-14100 and Intel Core i3-13100, with deltas of 0.1% and 0.2% respectively, placing it in the entry-level mobile segment.

For single-threaded applications, the choice is less critical. The 2.2% delta in PassMark single thread means most everyday responsiveness will feel similar. However, for multi-threaded workloads, rendering, data compression, or physics calculations, the Core Ultra 5 338H delivers roughly double the performance. The 12 cores, larger L3 cache, and dual-channel memory bandwidth provide a substantial advantage. The Core 5 330, with its 6 cores and single-channel memory, is suited for lighter tasks where lower power draw at 15 watts is beneficial. The Core Ultra 5 338H consumes 25 watts, but the recorded data shows that power budget translates into significant performance gains. Systems using the Ultra 5 will require the BGA 2540 socket, while the Core 5 330 uses BGA 1516. The choice between the two depends on whether the workload demands the multi-threaded capacity of the Ultra 5 or the efficiency profile of the Core 5.