Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265T Comparison
Intel Core 5 330
Core Ultra 7 265T
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265T
Where Each One Wins
The benchmark split is absolute: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 5 330 does not record a single victory. This is not a close contest in any workload category. The Core Ultra 7 265T leads in every Cinebench iteration, every PassMark math and encryption test, and every memory-sensitive operation.
The most decisive gaps appear in integer-heavy and floating-point workloads. In PassMark integer math, the Core Ultra 7 265T scores 104943 against 33258 for the Core 5 330, a delta of 68.3%. Floating point shows a similar pattern: 129817 versus 43885, a 66.2% advantage. These are compute-bound tasks where the Core Ultra 7 265T's larger core count and higher boost clock produce outsized returns.
Data encryption is another clear separator. The Core Ultra 7 265T delivers 29687 in PassMark data encryption, while the Core 5 330 manages 11076, a 62.7% gap. The same holds for data compression: 370158 versus 145287, a 60.8% deficit for the Core 5 330. Prime number generation shows the largest relative difference of all tests, with the Core Ultra 7 265T scoring 322 against 114, a 64.6% lead.
The narrowest margin occurs in PassMark single-thread performance. The Core Ultra 7 265T scores 4338, and the Core 5 330 scores 4088, a 5.8% difference. This is the only benchmark where the Core 5 330 comes within striking distance, suggesting that its single-core architecture is competitive even though its multi-core output lags far behind.
Cinebench results reinforce the pattern. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 265T scores 31558 versus 13150 for the Core 5 330, a 58.3% gap. Single-core in R23 shows 4455 versus 1856, also 58.3%. The consistent 58% deltas across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 indicate a structural difference in throughput rather than a workload-specific quirk.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different Intel design families with distinct target segments. The Core 5 330 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation. It is built on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 7 265T uses the Arrow Lake-S codename, belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation, and is also on a 3 nm process but fabricated by TSMC. Both chips share the same process node, but the underlying designs diverge sharply.
Core counts tell the primary story. The Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyperthreading. The Core Ultra 7 265T has 20 cores and 20 threads. That is a 14-core difference, which explains the massive multi-threaded gaps. The Core 5 330 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 265T also starts at 1.50 GHz base but boosts to 5.30 GHz, a 0.70 GHz higher ceiling.
Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Core 5 330 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 265T has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The L3 difference alone is 5x in favor of the Core Ultra 7 265T. This larger cache pool directly benefits data compression and encryption workloads, where repeated data access patterns dominate.
Memory support also separates the two. The Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus, with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 265T supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s. That is a 71.5% bandwidth advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265T, which explains its superiority in random string sorting (44400 versus 17771, a 60% gap) and other memory-intensive tests.
PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Core 5 330 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 7 265T provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics are also distinct: the Core 5 330 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 7 265T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.
Socket and market segment reinforce the positioning. The Core 5 330 uses Intel BGA 1516 and is marked as a mobile processor. The Core Ultra 7 265T uses Intel Socket 1851 and is a desktop part. The Core Ultra 7 265T has a 35 W TDP versus 15 W for the Core 5 330, reflecting the desktop part's higher power envelope. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 7 265T carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die; the Core 5 330 does not have transistor or die size data recorded.
The Verdict
The recorded data points to a single conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T is the superior processor in every measured category. Its 20 cores, 30 MB of L3 cache, dual-channel memory, and 5.30 GHz boost clock produce benchmark results that the Core 5 330 cannot approach. The Core Ultra 7 265T ranks in the 90th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 330 sits at the 72nd percentile. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 7 265T is 47697, versus 18345 for the Core 5 330.
For users who need multi-core throughput, the choice is unambiguous. The Core Ultra 7 265T delivers 31558 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, more than double the Core 5 330's 13150. Data-heavy workloads such as compression, encryption, and integer math all favor the Core Ultra 7 265T by margins between 55% and 68%. Even single-thread performance, the Core 5 330's closest category, still goes to the Core Ultra 7 265T by 5.8%.
The Core 5 330 does have a role. Its 15 W TDP and mobile BGA socket make it suitable for thin-and-light systems where power draw is constrained. Its 6 cores and 6 threads handle light productivity tasks, and its single-thread score of 4088 in PassMark is respectable. But the data shows no workload where the Core 5 330 wins. Anyone selecting between these two parts on performance alone should choose the Core Ultra 7 265T.
The nearest rival data confirms the Core Ultra 7 265T's standing. It sits within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945, the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D, the AMD Ryzen 9 3900, and the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H. The Core 5 330, by contrast, trades within 0.2% of the Intel Core i3-14100, the Intel Core 7 360, the Intel Core i3-13100, and the Intel Core 3 305. These peer groups place the two chips in entirely different performance strata.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads.
Q: What is the boost clock difference?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T boosts to 5.30 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 330 boosts to 4.60 GHz. Both have a 1.50 GHz base clock.
Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T has 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 5 330 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.
Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T has 102.4 GB/s over a dual-channel bus. The Intel Core 5 330 has 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel bus.
Q: What is the largest benchmark gap between the two?
A: The largest gap is in PassMark integer math, where the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T leads by 68.3%. The smallest gap is in PassMark single-thread, at 5.8%.
Q: What are the launch MSRP values?
A: The Intel Core 5 330 has a launch MSRP of $309. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T has a launch MSRP of $384.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Cinebench suite shows a uniform pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 265T scores 3180 against 1325 for the Core 5 330, a 58.3% gap. Single-core R15 shows 449 versus 186, a 58.6% difference. Cinebench R20 multi-core delivers 13254 versus 5523, again 58.3%. Single-core R20 is 1871 versus 779, a 58.4% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core reaches 31558 versus 13150, 58.3%, and single-core R23 is 4455 versus 1856, also 58.3%. These consistent percentages across all three Cinebench versions indicate that the Core Ultra 7 265T scales its advantage proportionally regardless of render load.
PassMark integer math produces the most lopsided result. The Core Ultra 7 265T scores 104943, while the Core 5 330 scores 33258. That is a 68.3% deficit for the Core 5 330, the largest margin in the entire head-to-head set. Floating-point math follows closely: 129817 versus 43885, a 66.2% gap. These two tests highlight the raw arithmetic throughput difference between a 20-core desktop part and a 6-core mobile part.
Data encryption favors the Core Ultra 7 265T by 62.7%, with scores of 29687 and 11076. Data compression shows a 60.8% gap, at 370158 versus 145287. Prime number generation has a 64.6% delta, with 322 versus 114. Extended instructions yield a 55.2% gap, at 28609 versus 12808. Random string sorting is 60% apart, at 44400 versus 17771.
Physics simulation in PassMark shows a narrower but still decisive gap. The Core Ultra 7 265T scores 2391, and the Core 5 330 scores 1201, a 49.8% difference. This is the smallest multi-threaded margin in the dataset, suggesting that the physics workload does not scale perfectly with core count. PassMark multi-thread overall is 37084 versus 15471, a 58.3% gap.
The single-thread tests are the only area where the Core 5 330 remains competitive. PassMark single-thread shows 4338 for the Core Ultra 7 265T and 4088 for the Core 5 330, a 5.8% difference. The same numbers appear for the passmark_singlethread test, confirming the result. Despite the Core Ultra 7 265T's higher boost clock, the Core 5 330's single-core design keeps it within a small margin. This does not change the overall outcome, but it does indicate that the Core 5 330's per-core efficiency is not far behind the desktop part's.