Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255H Comparison

The Intel Core 5 330 and the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H are two mobile processors with distinctly different design goals. The Core 5 330 is a 6-core, 6-thread part built on Intel’s 3 nm process, while the Core Ultra 7 255H is a 16-core, 16-thread part also on a 3 nm node but with a different architecture. The recorded data shows a clear split in performance characteristics, with the Core Ultra 7 255H dominating in most workloads but the Core 5 330 taking a notable win in one specific rendering test. The benchmark results indicate that the choice between these two processors depends heavily on the intended workload, with the Core Ultra 7 255H offering broad multi-threaded superiority and the Core 5 330 showing a surprising advantage in a specific Cinebench version.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H as the stronger overall processor for most demanding tasks. It wins 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, including every PassMark test and most Cinebench tests. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 7 255H is 33537, placing it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 5 330 has an average benchmark score of 18345, which places it in the 72nd percentile. That gap, roughly 83% in average score, shows a substantial performance tier difference.

For users focused on heavily threaded workloads such as video encoding, 3D rendering, data compression, or scientific computing, the Core Ultra 7 255H is the clear choice. Its 16 cores and 16 threads provide a massive advantage in parallel tasks. The Core 5 330, with only 6 cores and 6 threads, cannot match that level of parallel throughput.

However, the Core 5 330 has a specific strength that cannot be ignored. In the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, it scores 13150 compared to the Core Ultra 7 255H’s 9240, a 42.3% advantage. This is a significant outlier in the data, as the Core Ultra 7 255H wins the other multi-core tests. Users running Cinebench R23 specifically may find the Core 5 330 to be the better option, despite its lower core count. The single-core results are nearly identical, with the Core 5 330 scoring 1856 and the Core Ultra 7 255H scoring 1843 in Cinebench R23 single-core, a 0.7% difference.

The Core Ultra 7 255H also has a higher boost clock at 5.10 GHz compared to 4.60 GHz, and a higher base clock at 2.00 GHz compared to 1.50 GHz. The TDP is also higher on the Core Ultra 7 255H at 28 watts versus 15 watts, which reflects its higher performance ceiling and power draw. The Core 5 330 has a launch MSRP of $309, while the Core Ultra 7 255H has no recorded launch price in the database.

For users who need the fastest possible multi-threaded performance across a wide range of applications, the Core Ultra 7 255H is the data-backed choice. For users who specifically rely on Cinebench R23 multi-core performance, the Core 5 330 presents a compelling case, as it delivers a 42.3% higher score in that test.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural families. The Core 5 330 is based on the Wildcat Lake codename, part of the Core 5 generation. The Core Ultra 7 255H is based on the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-H, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries. The Core 5 330 is manufactured by Intel, while the Core Ultra 7 255H is manufactured by TSMC.

The core configurations differ significantly. The Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning it does not use simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores and 16 threads, also without simultaneous multithreading. This gives the Core Ultra 7 255H a 10-core advantage in raw parallel capacity.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 5 330 has a total L1 cache of 192 KB, an L2 cache of 2.5 MB, and an L3 cache of 6 MB shared. The Core Ultra 7 255H has an L1 cache of 192 KB per core, an L2 cache of 3 MB per core, and a shared L3 cache of 24 MB. The larger per-core L2 and the 24 MB shared L3 on the Core Ultra 7 255H provide a substantial advantage in data-intensive workloads that benefit from larger on-die storage.

Memory support is another differentiator. Both processors support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory. The Core 5 330 uses a single-channel memory bus with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core Ultra 7 255H uses a dual-channel memory bus with a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. That 42.7 GB/s difference in theoretical bandwidth favors the Core Ultra 7 255H in memory-bound tasks. The Core Ultra 7 255H also supports ECC memory, while the Core 5 330 does not.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Core 5 330 offers PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 7 255H offers PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 7 255H’s Gen 5 interface and higher lane count allow for faster connectivity to compatible devices such as storage and discrete GPUs.

The integrated graphics also differ. The Core 5 330 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 7 255H uses Arc Graphics 140T. The recorded data does not include graphics benchmark scores, so a direct comparison of iGPU performance cannot be made from the database.

The sockets are different as well. The Core 5 330 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 7 255H uses Intel BGA 2049. These are not interchangeable platforms. The release dates differ, with the Core Ultra 7 255H released in January 2025 and the Core 5 330 released in April 2026.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a dominant performance profile for the Core Ultra 7 255H, but with a notable exception in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The Core Ultra 7 255H wins the Cinebench R15 multi-core test with a score of 1515 versus 1325, a 12.5% advantage. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 251 versus 186, a 25.9% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 255H scores 6381 versus 5523, a 13.4% advantage. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 900 versus 779, also a 13.4% advantage.

The Cinebench R23 results flip the script. In multi-core, the Core 5 330 scores 13150 versus the Core Ultra 7 255H’s 9240, a 42.3% win for the Core 5 330. This is the largest single delta of any test in the database for these two processors. In single-core, the Core 5 330 scores 1856 versus 1843, a 0.7% win. This suggests that the Core 5 330’s Wildcat Lake architecture has a specific efficiency advantage in this particular rendering workload, despite having fewer cores.

PassMark results are uniformly in favor of the Core Ultra 7 255H. In data compression, it scores 298850 versus 145287, a 51.4% advantage. In data encryption, it scores 23395 versus 11076, a 52.7% advantage. In extended instructions, it scores 23755 versus 12808, a 46.1% advantage. In find prime numbers, it scores 303 versus 114, a 62.4% advantage. In floating point math, it scores 98796 versus 43885, a 55.6% advantage. In integer math, it scores 77975 versus 33258, a 57.3% advantage. In multithread, it scores 30703 versus 15471, a 49.6% advantage. In physics, it scores 2254 versus 1201, a 46.7% advantage. In random string sorting, it scores 36058 versus 17771, a 50.7% advantage. In single-thread, it scores 4317 versus 4088, a 5.3% advantage.

The single-thread PassMark result is the closest of the PassMark tests, with only a 5.3% difference. This indicates that the Core 5 330 is competitive in lightly threaded tasks, even though the Core Ultra 7 255H still takes the win. The largest PassMark delta is in find prime numbers at 62.4%, which highlights the Core Ultra 7 255H’s strength in integer-heavy, parallel workloads.

The database also shows the nearest rivals for each processor. The Core 5 330 sits between the Intel Core i3-14100 and the Intel Core 7 360 in average score, with deltas of 0.1% and -0.2% respectively. The Core Ultra 7 255H sits near the AMD Ryzen 5 240 with a 0% delta, and the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS with a -0.4% delta. These rival comparisons place both processors in competitive mid-range and upper-mid-range mobile segments.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 scores 13150 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 42.3% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H’s score of 9240.

Q: Which processor performs better in PassMark integer math?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H scores 77975 in PassMark integer math, which is 57.3% higher than the Intel Core 5 330’s score of 33258.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 has a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has a dual-channel memory bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Intel Core 5 330 has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 330 does not.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H wins in the vast majority of recorded workloads. It is the better choice for tasks that scale with core count and memory bandwidth. Its 16 cores, 16 threads, dual-channel memory bus, and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth make it well suited for data compression, encryption, integer math, floating point math, and physics simulations. The PassMark results all favor the Core Ultra 7 255H by margins ranging from 5.3% in single-thread to 62.4% in find prime numbers. Its 24 MB shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache provide ample on-die storage for data-heavy applications.

The Core Ultra 7 255H also wins the Cinebench R15 and R20 tests, both multi-core and single-core. Its higher base clock of 2.00 GHz and boost clock of 5.10 GHz contribute to its lead in these older rendering tests. The processor’s PCIe Gen 5 support with 20 lanes also makes it a better fit for systems with high-bandwidth peripherals.

The Intel Core 5 330 wins in a narrower set of conditions. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13150 is 42.3% higher than the Core Ultra 7 255H’s 9240, making it the preferred processor for users who rely specifically on that benchmark. The single-core Cinebench R23 result also favors the Core 5 330, albeit by a slim 0.7% margin. This suggests that the Wildcat Lake architecture has a particular efficiency in the R23 workload that does not carry over to other tests.

The Core 5 330 also has a much lower TDP at 15 watts versus 28 watts. This makes it a better candidate for power-sensitive designs, though the database does not include battery life or thermal measurements. Its single-channel memory bus and smaller cache hierarchy mean it will trail in memory-intensive tasks, but its 3 nm Intel process and 6-core design may offer efficiency advantages in light workloads.

In summary, the Core Ultra 7 255H is the processor for broad multi-threaded performance. The Core 5 330 is the processor for a specific Cinebench R23 workload and for power-constrained systems. The data shows a clear winner in overall average score, but the Core 5 330’s R23 result prevents a total sweep.