Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL Comparison

The Intel Core 5 330 and Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL occupy different positions in the mobile and desktop processor landscape. The data in the database shows two chips with distinct design philosophies, one aimed at efficiency and the other at raw throughput, though benchmark coverage is uneven between them.

The Verdict

The recorded data presents an asymmetric comparison. The Intel Core 5 330 has a full suite of benchmark results across Cinebench and Passmark tests, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. This absence of measurements for the Ultra 7 means the quantitative verdict relies entirely on the Core 5 330’s performance profile and the architectural specifications of both parts.

For users selecting a processor strictly from the available data, the Intel Core 5 330 is the only option with verified performance numbers. Its average benchmark score of 18345 places it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, which indicates strong overall performance for its class. The nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core i3-14100 with an average score of 18318, placing the Core 5 330 a marginal 0.1 percent ahead. The Intel Core 7 360 scores 18374, putting the Core 5 330 0.2 percent behind that part. The Intel Core i3-13100 also scores 18380, again 0.2 percent ahead of the Core 5 330. The Intel Core 3 305 scores 18302, with the Core 5 330 0.2 percent ahead. These deltas are tiny, all within a fraction of a percent, meaning the Core 5 330 performs essentially on par with a cluster of mid-range Intel processors.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL, lacking any recorded benchmarks and holding a 50th percentile ranking with an average score of zero, cannot be evaluated on measured performance. The verdict for this chip must be based on its specifications alone. It offers a higher core count, a higher boost clock, a larger cache, and dual-channel memory support, all of which suggest superior multi-threaded capability in theory, but the database contains no measurements to confirm this.

The practical choice depends on workload context. For a lightweight mobile system where the single-channel memory bus and 15 watt TDP of the Core 5 330 align with constrained power budgets, that processor has verified results. For a desktop system requiring maximum parallel throughput, the Core Ultra 7 155HL presents a more capable specification sheet, but its lack of measured data leaves its actual performance unverified.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations. The Intel Core 5 330 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation, built on a 3 nm process node by Intel. The Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL uses the Meteor Lake architecture, specifically the Meteor Lake-PS codename, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 1 generation, built on a 7 nm process node, also by Intel. This process node difference is substantial, with the Core 5 330 using a significantly smaller transistor geometry.

Core and thread counts differ sharply. The Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads, indicating no hyper-threading support. The Core Ultra 7 155HL has 16 cores and 22 threads, which implies a hybrid arrangement of performance and efficiency cores, with some cores contributing extra threads. This structural difference suggests the Ultra 7 is designed for heavily parallel workloads.

Cache hierarchies diverge considerably. 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 7 155HL lists 112 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core cache figures for the Ultra 7 scale with its 16 cores, giving it a much larger total cache footprint, particularly the 24 MB shared L3 cache compared to the 6 MB on the Core 5 330.

Memory architecture also separates the two. The Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 155HL supports DDR5 memory dependent on the motherboard, over a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The dual-channel configuration gives the Ultra 7 a theoretical memory bandwidth advantage of 29.9 GB/s over the Core 5 330.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 330 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 7 155HL uses Arc Xe-LPG with 128 execution units. The 128 EU configuration represents a significantly larger graphics engine, though no graphics benchmarks are recorded for either processor.

Platform connections differ. The Core 5 330 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket, a mobile package, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL uses Intel Socket 1851, a desktop socket. The Core 5 330 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU, while the Ultra 7 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes. The Core 5 330 is classified as a mobile segment part, while the Ultra 7 is classified as a desktop segment part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, which is 0.20 GHz higher than the Intel Core 5 330’s boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The base clocks are closer, with the Core 5 330 at 1.50 GHz and the Ultra 7 at 1.40 GHz.

Q: How do the core counts compare between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL has 16 cores and 22 threads, while the Intel Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Ultra 7 offers 10 additional cores and 16 additional threads, indicating a design focused on parallel processing capacity.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL has a TDP of 45 watts. The Ultra 7 draws three times the thermal budget of the Core 5 330, which aligns with its desktop classification and higher core count.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core 5 330 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 7 provides four times the L3 cache capacity.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 supports a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL supports a dual-channel memory bus with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth, a difference of 29.9 GB/s in favor of the Ultra 7.

Q: Are there any recorded benchmark scores for the Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL?

A: The database contains no benchmark scores for the Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL. Its average benchmark score is recorded as zero, and it has no nearest rivals listed. The Intel Core 5 330, by contrast, has 17 recorded benchmark scores across Cinebench and Passmark tests.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification. The Intel Core 5 330 uses a 3 nm process node, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL uses a 7 nm node. Core counts are 6 versus 16, and thread counts are 6 versus 22. The base clock of the Core 5 330 is 1.50 GHz versus 1.40 GHz on the Ultra 7, while the boost clock is 4.60 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. The TDP is 15 watts versus 45 watts.

The socket types differ completely: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 5 330 and Intel Socket 1851 for the Ultra 7. The codenames differ, Wildcat Lake versus Meteor Lake-PS, and the generations differ, Core 5 versus Ultra 7. The Core Ultra 7 has a series designation, Core Ultra Series 1, while the Core 5 330 has no series listed.

Cache configurations differ in both size and description. The Core 5 330 lists L1 cache as 192 KB, L2 as 2.5 MB, and L3 as 6 MB shared. The Ultra 7 lists L1 as 112 KB per core, L2 as 2 MB per core, and L3 as 24 MB shared. Memory support differs: the Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Ultra 7 supports DDR5 dependent on the motherboard. Memory bus width differs, single-channel versus dual-channel, and memory bandwidth differs, 59.7 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. PCIe lane counts differ, 6 lanes versus 8 lanes, both Gen 4. Integrated graphics differ, Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores versus Arc Xe-LPG with 128 EU. Market segments differ, mobile versus desktop. Release dates differ, with the Core 5 330 released later than the Ultra 7. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 330 is $309, and the launch MSRP for the Ultra 7 is $438. Part numbers differ, SAE3G versus SRN2Z. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries between the Intel Core 5 330 and the Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL. The head-to-head benchmark field is empty, and the wins counters for both processors are zero. This means there are no direct comparative measurements available.

The Intel Core 5 330 does have its own benchmark suite, which can be examined for absolute performance. In Cinebench R15, the Core 5 330 scores 1325 in multicore and 186 in single-core. In Cinebench R20, it scores 5523 in multicore and 779 in single-core. In Cinebench R23, it scores 13150 in multicore and 1856 in single-core. These Cinebench results show a consistent pattern: the multicore scores are roughly seven to eight times the single-core scores, which is notable given the processor has only 6 cores and 6 threads. The scaling from single to multi-threaded performance appears limited by the lack of hyper-threading and the single-channel memory bus.

Passmark results for the Core 5 330 cover a range of workloads. Data compression scores 145287, data encryption scores 11076, extended instructions score 12808, find prime numbers scores 114, floating point math scores 43885, integer math scores 33258, multithread scores 15471, physics scores 1201, random string sorting scores 17771, and single thread scores 4088. The single thread score appears twice in the database under slightly different test names, both recording 4088. The physics score of 1201 stands out as relatively low compared to the multithread score of 15471, suggesting the processor handles integer and floating point workloads better than physics simulations.

The average benchmark score for the Core 5 330 is 18345, which places it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals, the Core i3-14100, Core 7 360, Core i3-13100, and Core 3 305, all have average scores within a narrow band from 18302 to 18380. The Core 5 330 sits within this band, with deltas of 0.1 percent above the i3-14100, 0.2 percent below the Core 7 360, 0.2 percent below the i3-13100, and 0.2 percent above the Core 3 305. These results confirm the Core 5 330 performs at the level of a solid mid-range processor, despite its low TDP and mobile orientation.

For the Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL, the absence of benchmark data means no head-to-head comparison can be made on measured performance. The database records its percentile as 50 and its average score as zero, which reflects missing data rather than actual performance. The Ultra 7 has no nearest rivals listed, further confirming the lack of derived comparative metrics.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 330 wins in areas related to efficiency and verified performance. Its 15 watt TDP is one-third of the Ultra 7’s 45 watt TDP, making it the clear choice for thermally constrained systems. Its 3 nm process node indicates a more advanced manufacturing technology, which typically contributes to lower power consumption and higher transistor density. Its single-channel memory bus, while narrower, consumes less power and is sufficient for its 6-core configuration. The Core 5 330 has verified benchmark scores across 17 tests, giving it a documented performance profile that the Ultra 7 lacks. Its mobile market segment and BGA 1516 socket position it for compact laptops and embedded devices. The launch MSRP of $309 is lower than the Ultra 7’s $438, though pricing is noted here only as a recorded specification.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL wins in theoretical capacity and platform features. Its 16 cores and 22 threads provide more than double the core count and more than triple the thread count of the Core 5 330. Its 24 MB of L3 cache is four times the 6 MB on the Core 5 330. Its dual-channel memory bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth offers 50 percent more memory bandwidth than the Core 5 330’s 59.7 GB/s. Its 4.80 GHz boost clock exceeds the Core 5 330’s 4.60 GHz by 0.20 GHz. Its Arc Xe-LPG integrated graphics with 128 execution units vastly outnumber the 2 Xe cores on the Core 5 330. Its desktop socket, Socket 1851, and desktop market segment indicate a platform designed for larger cooling solutions and higher sustained power delivery. The 45 watt TDP supports sustained multi-core workloads that would overwhelm the 15 watt mobile part.

The data suggests a clear split: the Core 5 330 wins for mobile efficiency with measured results, while the Ultra 7 wins for desktop multi-threading capacity with unverified specifications. The lack of benchmark data for the Ultra 7 is the critical gap in this comparison. Without measured scores, the 16-core processor’s theoretical advantages remain projections. The Core 5 330, despite its smaller core count, has proven its performance level through the recorded Cinebench and Passmark results, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs and within 0.2 percent of several comparable Intel parts.