Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison
Intel Core 5 330
Core Ultra 9 285
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285
The Intel Core 5 330 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 occupy vastly different positions in the database. The Core 5 330 is a 6-core mobile part with a 15 W TDP, while the Core Ultra 9 285 is a 24-core desktop processor with a 65 W TDP. The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap across every benchmark, with the Core Ultra 9 285 winning all 17 head-to-head comparisons. This analysis breaks down the benchmark scores, specification differences, and architectural details for both processors.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75488, while the Intel Core 5 330 has an average score of 18345. The Core Ultra 9 285 sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 72nd percentile for the Core 5 330.
Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?
A: The Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48945 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core 5 330 scores 13150. This represents a 73.1% advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285.
Q: What is the difference in single-thread performance?
A: In the PassMark single-thread test, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4881 versus 4088 for the Core 5 330, a 16.2% difference. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 6909 compared to 1856 for the Core 5 330, a 73.1% difference.
Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 330 does not support ECC memory.
Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications?
A: The Core Ultra 9 285 has a dual-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Core 5 330 has a single-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.
Q: How do the nearest rivals compare to each processor?
A: The Core 5 330's average score of 18345 places it within 0.2% of the Intel Core 3 305 and 0.1% of the Intel Core i3-14100. The Core Ultra 9 285's average score of 75488 places it within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D and 0.2% of the AMD EPYC 4545P.
The Verdict
The data directs each processor toward a distinct audience. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the clear choice for workloads that demand maximum throughput. Its 24 cores and 24 threads, combined with a 5.60 GHz boost clock, deliver results that place it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The nearest rivals to the Core Ultra 9 285 are server and workstation processors from AMD, including the EPYC 8224P and EPYC 4545P, which shows the performance tier this chip occupies.
The Intel Core 5 330 serves a different purpose entirely. Its 6 cores, 6 threads, and 1.50 GHz base clock are paired with a 15 W TDP, indicating a design focused on efficiency rather than peak performance. The 72nd percentile ranking places it among mainstream mobile processors. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-14100 and Core i3-13100, which are entry-level desktop parts, and the Intel Core 3 305, another mobile option.
The average benchmark score tells the story clearly: 75488 for the Core Ultra 9 285 versus 18345 for the Core 5 330. The Core Ultra 9 285 is the appropriate selection for desktop builds where multi-threaded performance is the priority. The Core 5 330 is the appropriate selection for mobile systems where the 15 W TDP and integrated Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores fit a low-power design. The data shows no scenario where the Core 5 330 outperforms the Core Ultra 9 285, so the decision rests on platform and power requirements rather than performance capability.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The smallest margin appears in the PassMark single-thread test, where the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4881 against 4088 for the Core 5 330, a 16.2% advantage. This indicates that even in lightly threaded workloads, the desktop processor holds a meaningful lead.
The largest margin appears in PassMark integer math. The Core Ultra 9 285 scores 164869, while the Core 5 330 scores 33258, a 79.8% difference. Floating-point math shows a similar pattern: 194988 for the Core Ultra 9 285 versus 43885 for the Core 5 330, a 77.5% gap. These results reflect the substantial core count and clock speed differences between the two processors.
Cinebench results are consistent across all three versions. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4933 versus 1325, a 73.1% difference. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 20556 versus 5523, also a 73.1% difference. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 48945 versus 13150, again a 73.1% difference. Single-core results in Cinebench follow the same pattern: R15 shows 696 versus 186, R20 shows 2901 versus 779, and R23 shows 6909 versus 1856, each a 73.1% difference.
PassMark data compression favors the Core Ultra 9 285 by 75.9%, with scores of 602121 versus 145287. Data encryption shows a 76.4% advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285, scoring 46949 versus 11076. Extended instructions tests show a 71.8% gap, with 45357 versus 12808. Prime number finding shows 459 versus 114, a 75.2% difference. Random string sorting shows 73651 versus 17771, a 75.9% gap. The PassMark multithread test shows 56602 versus 15471, a 72.7% difference, and the physics test shows 3598 versus 1201, a 66.6% gap.
The passmark_singlethread test duplicates the passmark_single_thread result: 4881 versus 4088, a 16.2% difference. Across all workload types, from integer math to physics simulation, the Core Ultra 9 285 delivers scores that are consistently between 66.6% and 79.8% higher than the Core 5 330.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in nearly every recorded specification. The Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts match core counts.
Clock speeds differ substantially. The Core 5 330 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 285 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz.
Thermal design power differs by a wide margin. The Core 5 330 is rated at 15 W, while the Core Ultra 9 285 is rated at 65 W. The Core 5 330 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Intel Socket 1851.
Memory support differs in both type and configuration. The Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on the Core Ultra 9 285 but not on the Core 5 330.
PCIe capabilities differ significantly. The Core 5 330 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 9 285 provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.
The Core 5 330 is a mobile part released on 2026-04-15, while the Core Ultra 9 285 is a desktop part released on 2024-12-31. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 330 is $309. The launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 9 285 is $579. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.
The Core 5 330 integrates Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 9 285 integrates Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Core 5 330 has a part number of SAE3G, while the Core Ultra 9 285 has a part number of SRQD4.
Architecture Differences
The Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-S codename, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. The Core 5 330 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. Both processors are built on a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries. The Core Ultra 9 285 is fabricated by TSMC, while the Core 5 330 is fabricated by Intel.
The Core Ultra 9 285 has recorded transistor and die size data: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. No transistor count or die size data is recorded for the Core 5 330.
Cache configurations differ in structure and capacity. The Core 5 330 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 allocation on the Core Ultra 9 285 scales with its 24 cores, while the Core 5 330 uses a smaller total L2 pool.
The integrated graphics differ by generation and capability. The Core 5 330 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The production status for both processors is listed as Active.
The market segments reflect the intended platforms. The Core 5 330 targets mobile systems with its BGA socket and 15 W TDP. The Core Ultra 9 285 targets desktop systems with its LGA socket and 65 W TDP. The architectural choices, from core counts to cache hierarchies to memory channels, align with these different platform goals.