Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265F Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a completely one-sided performance landscape. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, with the Intel Core 5 330 failing to secure a single victory in any test category. This is not a close contest by any measure.

The Core 5 330 sits in the 72nd percentile among all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 7 265F reaches the 93rd percentile. The average benchmark score for the Core 5 330 is 18,345, compared to 64,438 for the Core Ultra 7 265F. That places the Core Ultra 7 265F roughly 3.5 times higher in aggregate scoring.

The use-case split is straightforward. The Core Ultra 7 265F dominates both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. Its largest relative advantages appear in integer math, floating-point math, and prime number finding, which are compute-heavy parallel tasks. The Core 5 330, by contrast, shows no workload category where it outperforms the larger chip.

The Core 5 330 does have one notable trait: it is a mobile processor with integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe), while the Core Ultra 7 265F is a desktop part with no integrated graphics. For systems requiring an iGPU, the Core 5 330 holds a functional advantage, even though it loses every raw performance test.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 5,926 versus 1,856 for the Core 5 330, a delta of -68.7%. PassMark single-thread shows 4,750 versus 4,088, a smaller but still decisive -13.9% gap.

Q: How large is the multi-threaded performance gap?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265F leads by roughly 68.7% to 75.9% depending on the test. Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 41,980 versus 13,150. PassMark multi-thread scores 49,410 versus 15,471.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory?

A: No. The Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 265F supports DDR5 only, but uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are these processors on the same socket?

A: No. The Core 5 330 uses Intel BGA 1516, a mobile socket. The Core Ultra 7 265F uses Intel Socket 1851, a desktop socket.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Neither processor supports hyper-threading in the recorded data.

Q: Do either of these processors include integrated graphics?

A: The Core 5 330 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows the Core Ultra 7 265F winning every comparison, but the magnitude varies significantly by workload type.

The largest gap appears in PassMark integer math. The Core Ultra 7 265F scores 138,078 versus 33,258 for the Core 5 330, a delta of -75.9%. Floating-point math follows closely: 173,855 versus 43,885, a -74.8% difference. Prime number finding shows a -72.6% delta, with scores of 416 and 114.

Data compression and encryption also show wide margins. Compression scores 507,018 versus 145,287, a -71.3% delta. Encryption scores 39,468 versus 11,076, a -71.9% delta. Random string sorting shows 62,439 versus 17,771, a -71.5% delta.

The Cinebench suite shows consistent -68.7% deltas across all four tests: R15 multi-core (4,231 versus 1,325), R15 single-core (597 versus 186), R20 multi-core (17,631 versus 5,523), R20 single-core (2,488 versus 779), R23 multi-core (41,980 versus 13,150), and R23 single-core (5,926 versus 1,856). The single-core Cinebench delta is -68.8%, nearly identical to the multi-core figures.

PassMark multi-thread shows 49,410 versus 15,471, a -68.7% delta. Physics scores 3,172 versus 1,201, a -62.1% delta, which is the smallest multi-threaded gap in the dataset.

The narrowest overall margin is PassMark single-thread: 4,750 versus 4,088, a -13.9% delta. Extended instructions show 39,235 versus 12,808, a -67.4% delta.

The Core 5 330's closest rival in the database is the Intel Core i3-14100, with an average score difference of only 0.1%. Other near neighbors include the Intel Core 7 360 at -0.2%, the Intel Core i3-13100 at -0.2%, and the Intel Core 3 305 at +0.2%. This places the Core 5 330 firmly in entry-level desktop territory despite its mobile designation.

The Core Ultra 7 265F sits among much stronger competition. Its nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 at -0.3%, followed by the AMD EPYC 7343 at +0.4%, the AMD EPYC 4464P at -0.6%, and the Intel Core i9-13900KS at +0.6%. The Core Ultra 7 265F effectively trades blows with flagship desktop parts from the previous generation.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category.

Core and thread counts differ substantially: 6 cores and 6 threads for the Core 5 330 versus 20 cores and 20 threads for the Core Ultra 7 265F. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz versus 2.40 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.60 GHz versus 5.30 GHz.

Thermal design power differs by a wide margin: 15 watts for the Core 5 330 versus 65 watts for the Core Ultra 7 265F. The sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 1516 for the mobile part, Intel Socket 1851 for the desktop part.

Cache configurations differ at every level. The Core 5 330 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 265F lists 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3.

Memory support diverges: the Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 265F supports DDR5 only, with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

PCIe capabilities differ sharply. The Core 5 330 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 7 265F provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics are present only on the Core 5 330, which uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 7 265F lists N/A for integrated graphics.

Market segment and release dates also differ. The Core 5 330 is a mobile part released in 2026, while the Core Ultra 7 265F is a desktop part released in 2025. The Core 5 330 has a launch MSRP of $309. The Core Ultra 7 265F has a launch MSRP of $379.

Architecture Differences

The Core 5 330 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation. The Core Ultra 7 265F uses the Arrow Lake-S codename and belongs to the Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake) generation, part of the Core Ultra Series 2 family.

Both processors are built on a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries. The Core 5 330 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 7 265F is fabricated by TSMC. The Core Ultra 7 265F also has recorded transistor and die size data: 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die. No such data is recorded for the Core 5 330.

The Core Ultra 7 265F's architecture features per-core L1 and L2 cache, suggesting a different physical layout than the Core 5 330, whose L1 and L2 are listed without the per-core qualifier. The shared L3 cache also differs dramatically: 6 MB versus 30 MB.

Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers differ as well: SAE3G for the Core 5 330, SRQCV for the Core Ultra 7 265F.

The Verdict

The data supports only one conclusion for raw performance: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is in a different class entirely. Its 20 cores, higher clocks, dual-channel memory, and larger cache combine to produce wins across all 17 benchmark tests. The smallest margin, PassMark single-thread at -13.9%, still favors the Core Ultra 7 265F. The largest margins, in integer and floating-point math, exceed 74%.

The Intel Core 5 330 is a low-power mobile processor, with a 15 watt TDP, integrated Xe3 graphics, and a single-channel memory bus. Its performance profile aligns with entry-level systems where power efficiency and integrated graphics matter more than raw throughput. The 72nd percentile ranking and near-tie with the Intel Core i3-14100 confirm its position.

The Core Ultra 7 265F, by contrast, occupies the 93rd percentile and trades blows with the Intel Core i9-13900KS and AMD EPYC 7343. Its desktop socket, 65 watt TDP, and lack of integrated graphics indicate a processor designed for systems with discrete graphics and substantial cooling.

For workloads requiring maximum multi-threaded throughput, the Core Ultra 7 265F is the clear choice. For compact, low-power mobile systems with integrated graphics, the Core 5 330 serves a purpose the Core Ultra 7 265F cannot match. The Core 5 330's sole advantage lies in its iGPU and lower power envelope, not in any measured performance metric.