Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 266V Comparison
Intel Core 5 330
Core Ultra 7 266V
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 266V
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The benchmark data delivers a decisive verdict: the Intel Core Ultra 7 266V wins 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core 5 330 secures only 2 victories. The average benchmark score for the Ultra 7 266V is 23297, placing it in the 76th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 330 averages 18345, landing in the 72nd percentile. The overall performance gap is substantial, with the Ultra 7 266V holding a 21.3% advantage in average benchmark score.
The most lopsided result appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 7 266V scores 191 against the Core 5 330's 114, a 40.3% difference. This suggests a significant advantage in integer-heavy, single-threaded mathematical workloads. The physics test also shows a wide gap, with the Ultra 7 266V scoring 1608 versus 1201, a 25.3% deficit for the Core 5 330.
Cinebench results consistently favor the Ultra 7 266V across all versions and workload types. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Ultra 7 266V scores 16544 while the Core 5 330 manages 13150, a 20.5% difference. Single-core performance shows the same pattern: the Ultra 7 266V scores 2335 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 1856 for the Core 5 330, also a 20.5% gap. The consistency of this 20.5% delta across R15, R20, and R23, in both single and multicore tests, indicates a uniform architectural advantage rather than workload-specific strengths.
PassMark's data compression test shows the Ultra 7 266V at 187050 against 145287 for the Core 5 330, a 22.3% advantage. Data encryption favors the Ultra 7 266V by 19.9%, with scores of 13822 and 11076. Extended instructions testing shows a 19.6% lead for the Ultra 7 266V, scoring 15928 versus 12808. Floating point math results show a 22.9% advantage for the Ultra 7 266V, scoring 56923 against 43885. Integer math follows with a 20% lead, 41558 versus 33258. Multithread performance shows the Ultra 7 266V at 19461 against 15471, a 20.5% gap. Random string sorting completes the sweep with a 22.4% advantage, 22905 versus 17771.
The single exception to this pattern appears in PassMark's single-thread test, where the Core 5 330 scores 4088 against the Ultra 7 266V's 3943, a 3.7% lead. This result appears twice in the benchmark set, confirming the Core 5 330's modest advantage in this specific measurement. Notably, this contradicts the Cinebench single-core results, where the Ultra 7 266V leads by 20.5%. The discrepancy suggests the PassMark single-thread test measures a different aspect of single-threaded performance, possibly including memory subsystem behavior or instruction-level parallelism that favors the Core 5 330's design.
The nearest rivals in the database place both processors in similar company. The Core 5 330 sits within 0.2% of the Intel Core 7 360 and Intel Core i3-13100, and within 0.1% of the Intel Core i3-14100 and Intel Core 3 305. The Ultra 7 266V sits within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H, within 0.2% of the Intel Core i9-11900F, within 0.3% of the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V, and within 0.6% of the AMD EPYC 4124P. These proximity values show both processors performing in established performance tiers, with the Ultra 7 266V occupying a higher tier overall.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 266V has an average benchmark score of 23297, while the Intel Core 5 330 averages 18345. The Ultra 7 266V also holds a higher percentile ranking at 76 versus 72 for the Core 5 330.
Q: Does the Core 5 330 win any benchmark comparisons?
A: Yes, the Core 5 330 wins the PassMark single-thread test with a score of 4088 against 3943 for the Ultra 7 266V, a 3.7% advantage. This result appears in two separate entries for the same test.
Q: How large is the performance gap in Cinebench R23 multicore?
A: The Ultra 7 266V scores 16544 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the Core 5 330 scores 13150. This represents a 20.5% advantage for the Ultra 7 266V.
Q: What is the largest performance difference between the two processors?
A: The largest difference is in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 7 266V scores 191 and the Core 5 330 scores 114. This is a 40.3% advantage for the Ultra 7 266V.
Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?
A: The Core 5 330 sits within 0.2% of the Intel Core 7 360, within 0.2% of the Intel Core i3-13100, within 0.1% of the Intel Core i3-14100, and within 0.2% of the Intel Core 3 305. The Ultra 7 266V sits within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H, within 0.2% of the Intel Core i9-11900F, within 0.3% of the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V, and within 0.6% of the AMD EPYC 4124P.
Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 266V has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Ultra 7 266V also has higher base and boost clocks at 2.20 GHz and 5.00 GHz respectively, compared to 1.50 GHz and 4.60 GHz for the Core 5 330.
Where Each One Wins
The benchmark data shows the Intel Core Ultra 7 266V as the dominant performer across nearly every workload category. Its advantages span multi-threaded rendering, mathematical computations, data compression, encryption, and physics simulations. The consistent 20% to 22% lead across Cinebench and most PassMark tests indicates a processor that delivers broadly superior performance for demanding computational tasks.
The Ultra 7 266V's win in data compression (187050 versus 145287) and encryption (13822 versus 11076) makes it the stronger choice for workloads involving file archiving, database operations, or any encrypted data handling. Its advantage in floating point math (56923 versus 43885) and extended instructions (15928 versus 12808) similarly positions it well for scientific computing, financial modeling, and multimedia processing. The physics test result (1608 versus 1201) suggests better performance in simulation and game physics workloads.
The Core 5 330's single win in PassMark's single-thread test (4088 versus 3943) indicates a specific strength in lightly threaded, latency-sensitive applications. This 3.7% advantage could translate to faster response times in everyday productivity tasks, web browsing, or legacy software that relies on single-threaded execution. However, this victory is narrow compared to the Ultra 7 266V's sweeping leads elsewhere.
For users running multi-threaded productivity suites, content creation tools, or data processing pipelines, the Ultra 7 266V offers clearly superior performance. The consistency of its 20% plus advantages across diverse benchmarks suggests that most modern workloads will benefit from its architecture. The Core 5 330's single-thread win, while notable, does not compensate for the substantial multicore deficits.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in several fundamental specifications. The Core 5 330 uses 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Ultra 7 266V uses 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clock speeds differ significantly: 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 330 versus 2.20 GHz for the Ultra 7 266V. Boost clocks also favor the Ultra 7 266V at 5.00 GHz versus 4.60 GHz.
Thermal design power shows a modest difference, with the Core 5 330 rated at 15 TDP and the Ultra 7 266V at 17 TDP. The two processors use different sockets: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 5 330 and Intel BGA 2833 for the Ultra 7 266V. Memory support differs, with the Core 5 330 supporting DDR5 and LPDDR5X in single-channel configuration, while the Ultra 7 266V supports LPDDR5X in dual-channel configuration. This results in a memory bandwidth difference: 59.7 GB/s for the Core 5 330 versus 136.5 GB/s for the Ultra 7 266V.
PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core 5 330 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes, while the Ultra 7 266V offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes. Integrated graphics differ substantially: the Core 5 330 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Ultra 7 266V uses Arc 140V graphics. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers.
The Core 5 330 has a launch MSRP of $309, while the Ultra 7 266V has no recorded launch MSRP. Release dates differ, with the Core 5 330 released in April 2026 and the Ultra 7 266V released in September 2024.
Architecture Differences
The two processors represent different architectural approaches despite both being built on a 3 nm process node. The Core 5 330 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation, manufactured by Intel. The Ultra 7 266V uses the Lunar Lake architecture, belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation, and is manufactured by TSMC.
Cache configurations differ substantially. The Core 5 330 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 7 266V has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 cache allocation on the Ultra 7 266V, combined with double the shared L3 cache, provides a significant memory hierarchy advantage.
The integrated graphics architectures differ fundamentally. The Core 5 330 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Ultra 7 266V uses Arc 140V graphics. This difference indicates a more capable GPU solution on the Ultra 7 266V, though benchmark data for graphics performance is not recorded.
Memory architecture shows a clear distinction: the Core 5 330 uses a single-channel memory bus, while the Ultra 7 266V uses dual-channel. This doubles the theoretical memory bandwidth in the Ultra 7 266V's favor, 136.5 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s. The PCIe implementation also differs, with the Core 5 330 offering Gen 4 connectivity and the Ultra 7 266V offering Gen 5 connectivity.
The Verdict
The recorded data points to the Intel Core Ultra 7 266V as the superior processor for nearly all workloads. Its 15 wins against 2 for the Core 5 330, combined with a 21.3% higher average benchmark score, establishes clear performance leadership. The Ultra 7 266V's advantages in Cinebench multicore and single-core tests, PassMark multithread, data compression, encryption, floating point and integer math, physics, and random string sorting all exceed 19%, with most landing near 20.5%.
The Core 5 330's sole benchmark win in PassMark single-thread testing (4088 versus 3943) provides a narrow 3.7% advantage in that specific measurement. This suggests the Core 5 330 may offer better responsiveness in certain single-threaded applications, but the broader Cinebench single-core results contradict this, showing the Ultra 7 266V ahead by 20.5%.
The Ultra 7 266V's architectural advantages in the database support its benchmark dominance. Its 8 cores versus 6, higher base and boost clocks, dual-channel memory with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth versus 59.7 GB/s, larger shared L3 cache at 12 MB versus 6 MB, and per-core L2 cache allocation all contribute to its performance profile. The Arc 140V integrated graphics also represent a more capable GPU solution than the Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores.
The Core 5 330, with its lower TDP of 15 versus 17, may appeal in scenarios where power efficiency is paramount. Its single-channel memory configuration and smaller cache hierarchy suggest a simpler, potentially more power-conscious design. However, the benchmark data does not include power measurements, so this remains speculative.
For users prioritizing computational throughput in multi-threaded workloads, content creation, data processing, or scientific computing, the Ultra 7 266V is the clear choice from the data. Its consistent 20% plus performance advantages across diverse benchmarks, higher percentile ranking at 76 versus 72, and superior memory bandwidth make it the stronger all-around processor. The Core 5 330's single-thread win, while real, does not offset the Ultra 7 266V's comprehensive dominance in the recorded measurements.