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

The Intel Core 5 330 and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H are two mobile processors from Intel aimed at distinctly different performance tiers. The data shows a wide gap between them, with the Core Ultra 7 265H dominating across every recorded benchmark. The Core 5 330, built on the Wildcat Lake platform, offers a more modest set of specifications, while the Core Ultra 7 265H, part of the Arrow Lake-H series, brings a significantly higher core count and faster clock speeds. This analysis breaks down the architectural differences, benchmark results, and specification deltas based solely on the recorded measurements.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H boosts to 5.30 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 330 boosts to 4.60 GHz.

Q: How do their benchmark averages compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H has an average benchmark score of 41621, placing it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 330 has an average score of 18345, placing it in the 72nd percentile.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H has 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 5 330 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 5 330 does not.

Q: What is the memory bus configuration for each?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H uses a dual-channel memory bus. The Intel Core 5 330 uses a single-channel memory bus.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different architectural approaches within Intel’s mobile lineup. The Intel Core 5 330 is based on the Wildcat Lake codename, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H uses the Arrow Lake-H codename under the Arrow Lake architecture. Both are manufactured on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs: the Core 5 330 is produced by Intel, whereas the Core Ultra 7 265H is produced by TSMC. This distinction in fabrication may contribute to differences in power efficiency and thermal behavior, though the recorded data does not specify those parameters.

Core and thread counts show a substantial divergence. The Core 5 330 features 6 cores and 6 threads, indicating no hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 7 265H features 16 cores and 16 threads, also without hyper-threading, but with nearly three times the physical core count. This directly impacts multi-threaded workloads, as the benchmark results confirm.

Cache hierarchies also differ significantly. The Core 5 330 has a 192 KB L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 265H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 allocation on the Core Ultra 7 265H is larger, and the total L3 cache is four times that of the Core 5 330. This larger cache footprint can reduce memory latency and improve performance in cache-sensitive applications.

Memory support is similar in type, as both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory. However, the memory bus widths differ. The Core 5 330 operates on a single-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core Ultra 7 265H operates on a dual-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. This nearly doubles the theoretical memory bandwidth available to the Core Ultra 7 265H, which is relevant for memory-intensive tasks.

PCIe support also differs. The Core 5 330 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 7 265H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The newer PCIe generation and additional lanes on the Core Ultra 7 265H allow for faster connectivity to peripherals such as GPUs and NVMe storage.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 330 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 7 265H includes Arc Graphics 140T, a higher-tier integrated solution. The recorded data does not include graphics benchmarks, so the practical impact remains unquantified here, but the naming indicates a more capable GPU on the Core Ultra 7 265H.

The release dates and sockets also separate the two. The Core 5 330 was released on 2026-04-15 and uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket. The Core Ultra 7 265H was released on 2025-01-12 and uses the Intel BGA 2049 socket. The Core 5 330 has a launch MSRP of $309, while the Core Ultra 7 265H has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a consistent and substantial advantage for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H across all 17 recorded tests. The Core 5 330 does not win a single head-to-head comparison. The margins vary from modest in single-threaded tests to very large in multi-threaded and math-heavy workloads.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core Ultra 7 265H scores 2989 against the Core 5 330’s 1325, a difference of 55.7%. The single-core R15 test shows the Core Ultra 7 265H at 307 versus 186, a 39.4% lead. These results indicate that the Core Ultra 7 265H delivers roughly double the multi-core rendering performance and a significant single-core advantage.

Cinebench R20 results follow a similar pattern. The multicore test gives the Core Ultra 7 265H a score of 12131, compared to the Core 5 330’s 5523, a 54.5% gap. The single-core R20 test shows 1712 versus 779, also a 54.5% gap. This consistency across R15 and R20 suggests that the performance ratio is stable across different rendering workloads.

Cinebench R23 narrows the gap slightly in relative terms. The multicore score for the Core Ultra 7 265H is 19940, while the Core 5 330 scores 13150, a 34.1% difference. The single-core R23 test gives 2080 versus 1856, a 10.8% difference. The smaller single-core delta here suggests that the Core 5 330’s single-core performance is closer to the Core Ultra 7 265H in this particular test, though still behind.

PassMark tests show larger deltas in several categories. Data compression scores are 334711 for the Core Ultra 7 265H versus 145287 for the Core 5 330, a 56.6% gap. Data encryption shows 26005 versus 11076, a 57.4% gap. Extended instructions yield 26805 versus 12808, a 52.2% gap. These results indicate that the Core Ultra 7 265H handles compute-heavy workloads with substantially more throughput.

The find prime numbers test shows the largest relative gap. The Core Ultra 7 265H scores 335, while the Core 5 330 scores 114, a 66% difference. Floating point math also shows a wide gap: 109123 versus 43885, a 59.8% difference. Integer math follows with 85479 versus 33258, a 61.1% difference. These math-oriented tests highlight the raw computational advantage of the higher core count and higher boost clocks.

Multithreaded PassMark scores are 34027 for the Core Ultra 7 265H versus 15471 for the Core 5 330, a 54.5% gap. Physics scores are 2497 versus 1201, a 51.9% gap. Random string sorting shows 40742 versus 17771, a 56.4% gap. Single-thread PassMark scores are closer, with the Core Ultra 7 265H at 4334 versus the Core 5 330 at 4088, a 5.7% gap. This single-thread result is the smallest relative difference in the entire dataset, indicating that the two processors are more comparable on a per-core basis.

Specification Differences

The specification tables reveal several key differences beyond the architectural split. The Core Ultra 7 265H has a higher base clock of 2.20 GHz compared to the Core 5 330’s 1.50 GHz. The boost clock is also higher on the Core Ultra 7 265H at 5.30 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. These clock advantages contribute to the performance gap observed in the benchmarks.

Thermal design power differs as well. The Core 5 330 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Core Ultra 7 265H has a TDP of 28 watts. This higher TDP on the Core Ultra 7 265H allows for more sustained performance under load, though it may also imply higher cooling requirements. The recorded data does not include thermal or power measurements, so this remains an inference from the TDP specification.

Memory bandwidth is another differentiating factor. The Core 5 330 offers 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth over a single-channel bus. The Core Ultra 7 265H offers 102.4 GB/s over a dual-channel bus. This bandwidth advantage is significant for workloads that stream large datasets, such as compression or encryption, where the benchmark deltas exceed 56%.

ECC memory support is present only on the Core Ultra 7 265H. This feature is often relevant for reliability-critical applications, though the benchmark data does not directly measure its impact.

PCIe capabilities differ in generation and lane count. The Core 5 330 uses Gen 4 with 6 lanes, while the Core Ultra 7 265H uses Gen 5 with 8 lanes. The higher generation and additional lanes provide more headroom for high-bandwidth peripherals.

The part numbers also differ, with the Core 5 330 listed as SAE3G and the Core Ultra 7 265H listed as SRQAQ. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported on either part.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H wins in every single benchmark category. There are no tests where the Intel Core 5 330 achieves a higher score. This makes the use-case split straightforward: the Core Ultra 7 265H is the preferred processor for all workloads measured in this dataset.

The Core 5 330, however, may still serve a distinct role in specific system configurations. Its lower TDP of 15 watts suggests it is suited for fanless or passively cooled designs, where thermal constraints are tighter than what the 28-watt Core Ultra 7 265H allows. The single-channel memory bus and smaller cache also point to a more streamlined platform that may be easier to integrate into compact motherboards with the Intel BGA 1516 socket.

For workloads that rely heavily on multi-core throughput, such as video rendering, data compression, or encryption, the Core Ultra 7 265H delivers scores that are often more than double those of the Core 5 330. The Cinebench R15 multicore result shows a 55.7% gap, and the PassMark multithread result shows a 54.5% gap. These are the kinds of tasks where the 16-core configuration provides a decisive advantage.

For single-threaded applications, the gap narrows considerably. The PassMark single-thread test shows only a 5.7% difference, and the Cinebench R23 single-core test shows a 10.8% difference. In these scenarios, the Core 5 330 is much closer in performance, though still behind. This suggests that for lightly threaded workloads, such as basic office tasks or web browsing, the Core 5 330 can perform adequately despite its lower core count and clock speeds.

The data also shows that the Core Ultra 7 265H sits in a higher performance percentile overall. Its 88th percentile ranking versus the Core 5 330’s 72nd percentile confirms that the Core Ultra 7 265H is positioned among faster processors in the database. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 7 265H include the Intel Core 7 251TE, Intel Core i7-14650HX, Intel Core i7-12850HX, and AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, with average scores all within 0.6% of 41621. The Core 5 330’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-14100, Intel Core 7 360, Intel Core i3-13100, and Intel Core 3 305, with average scores within 0.2% of 18345.

In summary, the benchmark data consistently favors the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H across all recorded tests. The Core 5 330 remains a viable option for systems where power draw and thermal output are prioritized over raw performance, but the recorded measurements leave no ambiguity about which processor delivers higher scores.