Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 258V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a clear statistical picture: the Intel Core Ultra 7 258V claims 14 benchmark wins against 3 for the Intel Core 5 330. The average benchmark score confirms this hierarchy, with the Ultra 7 258V at 20454 versus 18345 for the Core 5 330, a difference that places the Ultra 7 in the 74th percentile of all CPUs compared to the 72nd percentile for the Core 5.

The most striking result is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core 5 330 delivers 13150 against 10301 for the Ultra 7 258V, a 27.7% margin in favor of the Wildcat Lake part. This single result flips the expected narrative from the older Cinebench R15 and R20 tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 7 258V scores 1596.5 versus 1325 for the Core 5 330, a 17% advantage. The R20 multi-core test shows a similar pattern: 6739 for the Ultra 7 against 5523 for the Core 5, an 18% gap.

Single-core results are mostly close but favor the Ultra 7. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 1872 for the Ultra 7 versus 1856 for the Core 5, a marginal 0.9% edge. The older R15 and R20 single-core tests show larger gaps: 285 versus 186 in R15 (34.7% advantage) and 951 versus 779 in R20 (18.1% advantage). Interestingly, PassMark single-thread reverses this: the Core 5 330 scores 4088 against 4018 for the Ultra 7, a 1.7% win for the Wildcat Lake chip.

The PassMark suite otherwise heavily favors the Ultra 7 258V. Data compression shows 176686 for the Ultra 7 versus 145287 for the Core 5, an 17.8% gap. Data encryption delivers 13534 versus 11076 (18.2% advantage). Extended instructions score 14717 versus 12808 (13% edge). The largest single delta appears in find prime numbers, where the Ultra 7 reaches 185 against only 114 for the Core 5, a 38.4% margin. Floating point math shows 57372 versus 43885, a 23.5% advantage. Integer math follows with 42889 versus 33258, a 22.5% gap. Multi-thread performance in PassMark lands at 18887 for the Ultra 7 versus 15471 for the Core 5, an 18.1% difference. Physics tests show 1565 versus 1201, a 23.3% edge. Random string sorting completes the picture with 21580 versus 17771, a 17.7% advantage.

The Cinebench R23 multi-core result stands as an outlier, suggesting the Core 5 330's architecture handles that specific workload more efficiently, while the Ultra 7 258V dominates across nearly every other measured metric.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge on fundamental design choices. The Core 5 330 uses the Wildcat Lake codename with an Intel foundry at 3 nm, while the Ultra 7 258V belongs to the Lunar Lake architecture, also on 3 nm but fabricated by TSMC. Both are mobile parts with active production status.

Core counts differ: the Core 5 330 provides 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Ultra 7 258V offers 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither uses hyper-threading, so thread counts equal core counts. Clock speeds favor the Ultra 7 with a base clock of 2.20 GHz and boost of 4.80 GHz, against 1.50 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost for the Core 5 330. Thermal design power runs close: 15 W for the Core 5 versus 17 W for the Ultra 7.

Cache hierarchies show structural differences. The Core 5 330 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Ultra 7 258V lists 192 KB per core L1, 2.5 MB per core L2, and 12 MB shared L3. The per-core L2 specification on the Ultra 7 indicates a different cache distribution, and the L3 capacity doubles from 6 MB to 12 MB.

Memory support separates the two clearly. The Core 5 330 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 7 258V supports only LPDDR5X but over a dual-channel bus delivering 136.5 GB/s, more than double the bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs by generation and lane count. The Core 5 330 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes. The Ultra 7 258V uses Gen 5 with 4 CPU-only lanes. Integrated graphics also diverge: the Core 5 330 pairs with Intel Xe3 Graphics featuring 2 Xe cores, while the Ultra 7 258V integrates Arc 140V graphics.

Sockets differ: BGA 1516 for the Core 5 330 versus BGA 2833 for the Ultra 7 258V. Release dates place the Ultra 7 258V in September 2024, while the Core 5 330 arrives in April 2026. The Core 5 330 carries a launch MSRP of $309; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Ultra 7 258V.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V records an average benchmark score of 20454, compared to 18345 for the Intel Core 5 330. The Ultra 7 also sits in the 74th percentile of all CPUs, two points above the Core 5's 72nd percentile.

Q: Does the Core 5 330 win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes. The Core 5 330 wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 27.7% (13150 versus 10301) and PassMark single-thread by 1.7% (4088 versus 4018). The PassMark single-thread result appears twice in the database under slightly different test names but with identical scores.

Q: How large is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The biggest delta appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 7 258V scores 185 against 114 for the Core 5 330, a 38.4% advantage. This exceeds the 34.7% gap in Cinebench R15 single-core (285 versus 186) and the 27.7% margin the Core 5 330 holds in Cinebench R23 multi-core.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Core 5 330 supports single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ultra 7 258V supports dual-channel LPDDR5X with 136.5 GB/s. This more than doubles the available memory bandwidth for the Ultra 7.

Q: Do both processors share the same manufacturing process?

A: Both use a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. The Core 5 330 is fabricated by Intel, while the Ultra 7 258V uses TSMC. The architectures also differ: Wildcat Lake for the Core 5 330 and Lunar Lake for the Ultra 7 258V.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Ultra 7 258V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither processor enables simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts equal physical core counts.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core 5 330 | Intel Core Ultra 7 258V |

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

| 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 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 136.5 GB/s |

| 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 | None recorded |

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core Ultra 7 258V as the stronger overall performer. Its 14 wins out of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, higher average score (20454 versus 18345), and superior memory bandwidth (136.5 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s) establish a clear performance hierarchy. The Ultra 7 also reaches the 74th percentile of all CPUs, two points above the Core 5 330.

The Core 5 330 does not lack merit. Its 27.7% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core (13150 versus 10301) demonstrates that certain rendering workloads run substantially faster on the Wildcat Lake architecture. A 1.7% edge in PassMark single-thread (4088 versus 4018) shows competitive per-thread execution in that specific test.

The nearest rivals in the database contextualize both parts. The Core 5 330 sits within 0.2% of the Intel Core 7 360, Intel Core i3-13100, and Intel Core 3 305 in average score, and 0.1% ahead of the Core i3-14100. The Ultra 7 258V lands within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600, AMD Ryzen 5 8500G, AMD EPYC 9454P, and AMD EPYC 7713. These tight margins place both processors in competitive positions within their respective performance tiers.

For workloads relying on Cinebench R23 multi-core rendering, the Core 5 330 offers a measurable advantage. For nearly everything else measured, including compression, encryption, math operations, physics, and the older Cinebench R15 and R20 tests, the Ultra 7 258V delivers consistently higher scores. The Ultra 7's dual-channel memory and larger 12 MB L3 cache likely contribute to its broad superiority across the PassMark suite.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V wins in most measured categories. PassMark data compression (176686 versus 145287), data encryption (13534 versus 11076), extended instructions (14717 versus 12808), find prime numbers (185 versus 114), floating point math (57372 versus 43885), integer math (42889 versus 33258), multithread (18887 versus 15471), physics (1565 versus 1201), and random string sorting (21580 versus 17771) all favor the Lunar Lake chip. Cinebench R15 multi-core (1596.5 versus 1325), R15 single-core (285 versus 186), R20 multi-core (6739 versus 5523), R20 single-core (951 versus 779), and R23 single-core (1872 versus 1856) also go to the Ultra 7. This spans both older and newer Cinebench versions, plus the entire PassMark suite except single-thread.

The Intel Core 5 330 wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by a substantial 27.7% margin, suggesting its 6-core Wildcat Lake design with 6 MB shared L3 handles this specific rendering workload with unusual efficiency. The 1.7% PassMark single-thread win (4088 versus 4018) indicates the Core 5 330 also holds a slight edge for certain single-threaded integer operations, despite its lower 4.60 GHz boost clock compared to 4.80 GHz on the Ultra 7.

Use-case separation follows the benchmark pattern. Workloads similar to Cinebench R23 multi-core, such as long-duration rendering of complex scenes, should favor the Core 5 330. Divergence from that single test points toward the Ultra 7 258V. The Ultra 7's 8 cores, dual-channel memory with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth, and 12 MB L3 cache support a wider range of compute tasks, from data compression to physics simulation. The Core 5 330 offers a lower 15 W TDP against 17 W for the Ultra 7, which may matter for power-sensitive mobile designs, though the performance trade-off is steep across most benchmarks.