Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 256V Comparison

The Intel Core 5 330 and Intel Core Ultra 7 256V are both mobile processors built on a 3 nm process, yet they deliver sharply different performance profiles. The Core Ultra 7 256V wins 14 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the Core 5 330 takes 3 wins. The database shows that the Core Ultra 7 256V dominates in most compute tasks, but the Core 5 330 holds a narrow edge in one specific single-threaded workload and a decisive lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core. These results point to two distinct engineering approaches, one optimized for sustained multi-core rendering, the other for broad, consistent throughput across varied tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 256V is the clear winner in the majority of benchmark categories. It takes all three Cinebench R15 and R20 tests (multi-core and single-core each), plus the R23 single-core test. It also wins every PassMark test except for single-thread. The PassMark wins include data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, find prime numbers, floating point math, integer math, multithread, physics, and random string sorting. This breadth indicates the Core Ultra 7 256V excels in general-purpose computing, cryptography, mathematical workloads, and memory-intensive operations.

The Core 5 330 wins only three comparisons. Its most significant victory is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 13,150 against the Core Ultra 7 256V's 10,399, a 26.5% advantage. It also edges out the Core Ultra 7 256V in PassMark single-thread, scoring 4,088 versus 4,029, a narrow 1.5% margin. The same single-thread result appears twice in the database (as passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread), confirming the consistency of that outcome.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward: the Core 5 330 is the better choice for heavily threaded rendering workloads, specifically those modeled by Cinebench R23 multi-core. The Core Ultra 7 256V is better for almost everything else, including older Cinebench versions, all PassMark math and encryption tests, and single-core performance in most tests. The Core Ultra 7 256V also holds a higher overall percentile rank, sitting at the 75th percentile of all CPUs versus the Core 5 330's 72nd percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families and use different foundries. The Core 5 330 is a Wildcat Lake part, built on a 3 nm process at Intel. The Core Ultra 7 256V is a Lunar Lake part, also on a 3 nm process, but fabricated at TSMC. This foundry difference likely contributes to the distinct performance characteristics observed in the benchmarks.

Core counts differ as well. The Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 256V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither processor uses hyper-threading, so thread counts equal core counts. The Core Ultra 7 256V's additional two cores help explain its broad multi-threaded wins, although the Core 5 330's R23 multi-core result shows that core count alone does not determine every outcome.

Cache configurations also diverge significantly. The Core 5 330 has a 192 KB L1 cache, a 2.5 MB L2 cache, and a 6 MB shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 256V lists its L1 as 192 KB per core and its L2 as 2.5 MB per core, with a 12 MB shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 on the Core Ultra 7 256V translates to 20 MB total L2 across 8 cores, a substantial difference that likely aids its performance in data-heavy PassMark tests.

Memory support differs in both type and channel count. The Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 256V uses a dual-channel memory bus, though its memory type is listed as unknown and dependent on the motherboard. The dual-channel configuration gives the Core Ultra 7 256V a wider memory path, which may explain its strong showing in memory-intensive workloads like random string sorting and data compression.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 5 330 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 7 256V provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 5 330 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 7 256V uses Arc 140V. The Core Ultra 7 256V's Arc-class GPU is likely more capable, though the benchmark data does not include graphics tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single victory belongs to the Core 5 330 in Cinebench R23 multi-core. It scores 13,150 versus the Core Ultra 7 256V's 10,399, a 26.5% lead. This is the only multi-core test where the Core 5 330 wins, and the margin is substantial. In contrast, the Core Ultra 7 256V wins the other two multi-core Cinebench tests by wide margins: R15 multi-core shows a 16.3% advantage (1,583.5 versus 1,325), and R20 multi-core shows a 20.6% advantage (6,958 versus 5,523).

The largest victory for the Core Ultra 7 256V is in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 192 against the Core 5 330's 114, a 40.6% advantage. This test heavily stresses integer arithmetic and memory access patterns, areas where the Core Ultra 7 256V's 8 cores and larger cache appear to provide a clear edge. The Core Ultra 7 256V also wins PassMark floating point math by 25.1% (58,576 versus 43,885) and PassMark integer math by 23.3% (43,358 versus 33,258).

Single-core results are mixed. The Core Ultra 7 256V wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 34.9% (285.5 versus 186) and R20 single-core by 20.7% (982 versus 779). In R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 7 256V wins by just 1.1% (1,877.5 versus 1,856). However, the PassMark single-thread test goes the other way: the Core 5 330 wins by 1.5% (4,088 versus 4,029). This suggests the two processors have very similar single-core performance in modern workloads, with the Core Ultra 7 256V holding a slight edge in Cinebench and the Core 5 330 holding a slight edge in PassMark.

The Core Ultra 7 256V's PassMark multithread score is 19,530 versus the Core 5 330's 15,471, a 20.8% advantage. Its data compression score is 184,985 versus 145,287, a 21.5% advantage, and its data encryption score is 13,998 versus 11,076, a 20.9% advantage. Extended instructions favor the Core Ultra 7 256V by 18.1% (15,643 versus 12,808), and random string sorting favors it by 21% (22,481 versus 17,771). Physics simulation also favors the Core Ultra 7 256V by 24.7% (1,595 versus 1,201).

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the Core Ultra 7 256V is the stronger overall processor. It wins 14 of 17 comparisons, holds a higher average benchmark score (21,112 versus 18,345), and ranks at the 75th percentile versus the Core 5 330's 72nd. Its 8 cores, 12 MB shared L3 cache, and dual-channel memory bus give it advantages across PassMark's diverse workload suite. For users running data compression, encryption, mathematical calculations, or physics simulations, the Core Ultra 7 256V consistently delivers higher scores.

The Core 5 330 is not without its strengths. Its 26.5% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core is the largest margin in any test, and its 1.5% win in PassMark single-thread shows it can hold its own in certain single-threaded scenarios. The R23 result is particularly notable because it contradicts the general trend: despite having fewer cores, the Core 5 330 outperforms the Core Ultra 7 256V in this specific rendering workload. This could indicate different power management or clock behavior under sustained load, though the database does not provide wattage or thermal data.

The choice between these two processors depends entirely on the workload. For Cinebench R23-style multi-core rendering, the Core 5 330 is the better performer. For virtually any other measured task, including all PassMark tests and older Cinebench versions, the Core Ultra 7 256V delivers higher scores. The Core Ultra 7 256V also offers a more capable integrated GPU (Arc 140V versus Xe3 with 2 Xe cores), though no graphics benchmarks are recorded in this dataset. The Core 5 330 was released later (April 2026 versus September 2024) and has a launch MSRP of $309, while the Core Ultra 7 256V has no recorded launch price.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 256V has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: What is the largest performance difference between the two?

A: The Core Ultra 7 256V wins PassMark find prime numbers by 40.6% (192 versus 114). The Core 5 330 wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 26.5% (13,150 versus 10,399).

Q: Which processor is better for Cinebench R23 multi-core rendering?

A: The Intel Core 5 330, which scores 13,150 versus the Core Ultra 7 256V's 10,399, a 26.5% advantage.

Q: Which processor has a higher overall benchmark average?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 256V has an average benchmark score of 21,112, compared to 18,345 for the Intel Core 5 330.

Q: Do both processors use the same process node?

A: Yes, both are built on a 3 nm process, but the Core 5 330 is fabricated at Intel while the Core Ultra 7 256V is fabricated at TSMC.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 256V has a 12 MB shared L3 cache, double the 6 MB shared L3 cache of the Intel Core 5 330.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 330 | Intel Core Ultra 7 256V |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 6 | 8 |

| Threads | 6 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 17 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2833 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Lunar Lake |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2.5 MB | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | Unknown, depends on motherboard |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | Not recorded |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Arc 140V |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2024-09-23 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | Not recorded |

| Part Number | SAE3G | SRPMPSRPMZ |