Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF Comparison
Intel Core 5 330
Core Ultra 7 265KF
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF
The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF is the dominant performer in every recorded benchmark, decisively outperforming the Intel Core 5 330 across all 17 head-to-head tests. The Core 5 330 is a low-power mobile processor, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF is a high-end desktop chip, and the performance gap reflects this fundamental difference in design and target use case. The data confirms that the Core Ultra 7 265KF is the only choice for demanding workloads, while the Core 5 330 is suited for power-conscious mobile systems.
The Verdict
The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF wins every single head-to-head comparison. Its average benchmark score of 71910 places it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 330's average score of 18345 places it in the 72nd percentile. The Core Ultra 7 265KF is a desktop processor with 20 cores and 20 threads, a 5.50 GHz boost clock, and a 125W TDP, making it a high-performance part for serious computing tasks. The Core 5 330, by contrast, is a mobile chip with 6 cores and 6 threads, a 4.60 GHz boost clock, and a 15W TDP, designed for efficiency and portability.
The Core 5 330 is for systems where low power consumption is critical, such as thin and light laptops, given its 15W TDP and mobile market segment. The Core Ultra 7 265KF is for desktop users who need maximum multi-threaded performance for tasks like rendering, simulation, and heavy data processing. The performance delta is massive; in multi-core tests, the Core Ultra 7 265KF is roughly 73.6% faster than the Core 5 330, and in single-threaded PassMark tests it is still 17% faster. The Core 5 330 also includes integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU. The Core Ultra 7 265KF is the clear pick for performance, the Core 5 330 for mobile efficiency.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 71910, compared to the Intel Core 5 330's 18345.
Q: How does the Core Ultra 7 265KF compare to the Core 5 330 in Cinebench R23 multi-core?
A: The Core Ultra 7 265KF scores 49736 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core 5 330 scores 13150, a delta of -73.6% for the Core 5 330.
Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads.
Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock speed?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF has a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Core 5 330's 4.60 GHz.
Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?
A: No. The Intel Core 5 330 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF has no integrated graphics (N/A).
Q: What are the memory bandwidth capabilities of each processor?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF supports dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the Intel Core 5 330 supports single-channel memory with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.
Architecture Differences
The two processors are built for different market segments and have distinct architectures. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-S codename, and is part of the Core Ultra Series 2. It is a desktop processor with a 125W TDP and uses an Intel Socket 1851. The Intel Core 5 330 is based on the Wildcat Lake codename and is a mobile processor with a 15W TDP, using an Intel BGA 1516 socket. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the Core Ultra 7 265KF is fabricated by TSMC, while the Core 5 330 is fabricated by Intel. The Core Ultra 7 265KF has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the Core 5 330's transistor count and die size are not recorded.
The cache hierarchies differ substantially. 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 265KF has a 192 KB per-core L1 cache, a 3 MB per-core L2 cache, and a 30 MB shared L3 cache, providing significantly more cache capacity for high-performance workloads. The Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF supports DDR5 only. The Core 5 330 has a single-channel memory bus, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF has a dual-channel memory bus, which directly contributes to its higher memory bandwidth. Both processors do not support ECC memory.
Specification Differences
The specification sheets for the two CPUs show clear differences in almost every category. The Core Ultra 7 265KF has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The base clock of the Core Ultra 7 265KF is 3.90 GHz, and its boost clock is 5.50 GHz, while the Core 5 330 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The TDP is a major differentiator: the Core Ultra 7 265KF has a 125W TDP, while the Core 5 330 has a 15W TDP. The Core Ultra 7 265KF has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Core 5 330 does not, allowing overclocking on the desktop part.
The Core Ultra 7 265KF supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 5 330 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The memory support differs: the Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF supports DDR5 only. The Core Ultra 7 265KF has a dual-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the Core 5 330 has a single-channel bus and a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core 5 330 includes integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF has no integrated graphics. The Core Ultra 7 265KF is a desktop part, and the Core 5 330 is a mobile part. The Core Ultra 7 265KF was released on 2024-10-23, while the Core 5 330 has a release date of 2026-04-15. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 330 is $309, and for the Core Ultra 7 265KF it is $379.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Core Ultra 7 265KF wins all 17 head-to-head benchmarks, and the deltas are substantial. In the Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, the Core Ultra 7 265KF scores 5013, 20889, and 49736, respectively, while the Core 5 330 scores 1325, 5523, and 13150. The delta is consistently -73.6% for the Core 5 330 in these tests. Single-core Cinebench results show a similar pattern: the Core Ultra 7 265KF scores 707 in R15, 2948 in R20, and 7021 in R23, while the Core 5 330 scores 186, 779, and 1856, with deltas of -73.7% for R15 and -73.6% for R20 and R23.
PassMark tests show the largest gaps. In data compression, the Core Ultra 7 265KF scores 666589 versus 145287, a delta of -78.2%. Data encryption shows a delta of -77%, with scores of 48198 and 11076. Extended instructions and find prime numbers both show -76.5% deltas, with scores of 54513 vs 12808 and 486 vs 114. Floating point math and integer math both have -76.8% deltas, with scores of 189431 vs 43885 and 143351 vs 33258. The multi-thread test shows a -73.6% delta, with scores of 58518 and 15471. Physics shows a -66.9% delta, with scores of 3633 and 1201. Random string sorting has a -77.7% delta, with scores of 79735 and 17771. The smallest gap is in the PassMark single-thread test, where the Core Ultra 7 265KF scores 4928 versus the Core 5 330's 4088, a delta of -17%. The Core Ultra 7 265KF also records Geekbench scores of 22913 multi-core and 2759 single-core, tests that are not present in the Core 5 330's data.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF wins in every recorded workload category. Its 20 cores and 20 threads, combined with a 5.50 GHz boost clock and 30 MB L3 cache, deliver massive multi-threaded performance. It is the stronger option for Cinebench rendering tests, data compression and encryption tasks, extended instruction workloads, and all PassMark math and physics tests. The data indicates that this processor is designed for high-throughput desktop computing where the 125W TDP is acceptable. Its dual-channel memory and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth also support memory-intensive applications.
The Intel Core 5 330 has no benchmark wins in this comparison. However, its strengths lie in its specifications rather than raw performance. The 15W TDP makes it suitable for mobile devices where power efficiency is paramount. Its integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics means that a system using this chip does not require a separate GPU for basic display output. The support for LPDDR5X memory and the mobile BGA 1516 socket further confirm its role in portable systems. The Core 5 330's only comparative advantage in the data is its lower power envelope and integrated graphics, which are not performance metrics but are critical for its intended market segment.