Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285H Comparison
Intel Core 5 330
Core Ultra 9 285H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285H
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The benchmark data shows a dominant performance profile for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H across every recorded test. The Core 5 330 trails in all 17 head-to-head comparisons, with the largest gaps appearing in heavily multithreaded workloads.
The single biggest margin is in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 9 285H scores 330 against 114 for the Core 5 330, a 65.5% advantage. This pattern repeats in integer math, where the Ultra 9 delivers 85922 versus 33258, a 61.3% lead, and in floating point math, where it posts 109190 against 43885, a 59.8% gap. These results indicate a substantial difference in raw computational throughput per clock and across the full processor.
Cinebench multicore tests show similarly large margins. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 9 285H scores 3177.5 versus 1325, a 58.3% difference. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 12201 against 5523, a 54.7% gap, and Cinebench R23 multicore shows 20781.5 against 13150, a 36.7% lead. The shrinking delta from R15 to R23 reflects the heavier load characteristics of the newer benchmark, but the Ultra 9 still maintains a commanding edge.
Single-core performance is closer but still favors the Ultra 9 285H. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 9 scores 2129.5 against 1856, a 12.8% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1722 versus 779, a 54.8% gap, while Cinebench R15 single-core shows 313 versus 186, a 40.6% difference. PassMark single-thread results show the smallest margin of all: 4415 versus 4088, a 7.4% lead for the Ultra 9. This suggests that for lightly threaded tasks, the architectural advantage of the Ultra 9 is less pronounced, though still clearly present.
Data-centric workloads reinforce the pattern. PassMark data compression shows 335859 for the Ultra 9 against 145287 for the Core 5, a 56.7% difference. Data encryption shows 26140 versus 11076, a 57.6% gap. Extended instructions show 26794 versus 12808, a 52.2% lead. Random string sorting shows 40931 versus 17771, a 56.6% difference. PassMark physics shows 2513 versus 1201, a 52.2% gap. The multithread aggregate score is 34171 for the Ultra 9 versus 15471 for the Core 5, a 54.7% difference.
The average benchmark score confirms the overall picture: the Ultra 9 285H averages 38312, while the Core 5 330 averages 18345, a 52.1% difference. The Core 5 330 sits in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 9 sits in the 86th percentile.
The Verdict
The data clearly distinguishes these two processors for different use cases. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H is the pick for any workload that scales with core count, memory bandwidth, or sustained compute. Its 16 cores and 16 threads, combined with dual-channel memory and a 45 W TDP, deliver benchmark results that are consistently 50% or more ahead of the Core 5 330 in multithreaded tests. The 36.7% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore is the smallest recorded multicore margin, but it remains substantial.
The Intel Core 5 330, with 6 cores and 6 threads, a single-channel memory bus, and a 15 W TDP, is a lower-power part that still holds its own in single-threaded workloads. The 7.4% gap in PassMark single-thread is modest, and its 1856 score in Cinebench R23 single-core is within 12.8% of the Ultra 9. For users prioritizing power efficiency over raw performance, the Core 5 330's lower TDP is a meaningful differentiator, though the data shows it cannot match the Ultra 9 in any recorded benchmark.
The nearest rivals for the Core 5 330 include the Intel Core i3-14100 (0.1% higher average score), Intel Core 7 360 (0.2% lower), Intel Core i3-13100 (0.2% lower), and Intel Core 3 305 (0.2% higher). The Ultra 9 285H's nearest rivals include the Intel Core 9 270H (0.1% lower), Intel Core i5-13600HX (0.1% higher), Intel Xeon w3-2525 (0.2% lower), and AMD Ryzen 7 250 (0.2% higher). These figures show both chips sit in tightly contested performance bands relative to their immediate competitors.
Architecture Differences
The two processors use different core architectures and manufacturing arrangements. The Core 5 330 is based on the Wildcat Lake design, while the Core Ultra 9 285H uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-H variant. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs: the Core 5 330 is produced by Intel, while the Ultra 9 285H is produced by TSMC.
The core counts diverge sharply. The Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads, also without hyperthreading, but with more than double the physical cores. The cache hierarchy reflects this difference. 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 9 285H 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 is particularly notable, with the Ultra 9 providing 3 MB per core versus 2.5 MB total for the Core 5.
Memory access is another major architectural split. The Core 5 330 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra 9 285H uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s. This bandwidth difference directly impacts memory-intensive workloads and helps explain the large gaps in data compression and encryption scores. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, but the Ultra 9 adds ECC memory support, which the Core 5 lacks.
PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 5 330 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 9 285H provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 5 330 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Ultra 9 285H uses Arc Graphics 140T.
Specification Differences
The following specifications differ between the two parts:
- Cores: 6 for the Core 5 330, 16 for the Ultra 9 285H
- Threads: 6 for the Core 5 330, 16 for the Ultra 9 285H
- Base clock: 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 330, 2.90 GHz for the Ultra 9 285H
- Boost clock: 4.60 GHz for the Core 5 330, 5.40 GHz for the Ultra 9 285H
- TDP: 15 W for the Core 5 330, 45 W for the Ultra 9 285H
- Socket: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 5 330, Intel BGA 2049 for the Ultra 9 285H
- Codename: Wildcat Lake for the Core 5 330, Arrow Lake-H for the Ultra 9 285H
- Foundry: Intel for the Core 5 330, TSMC for the Ultra 9 285H
- L2 cache: 2.5 MB total for the Core 5 330, 3 MB per core for the Ultra 9 285H
- L3 cache: 6 MB shared for the Core 5 330, 24 MB shared for the Ultra 9 285H
- Memory bus: Single-channel for the Core 5 330, dual-channel for the Ultra 9 285H
- Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s for the Core 5 330, 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 9 285H
- ECC memory: Not supported for the Core 5 330, supported for the Ultra 9 285H
- PCIe: Gen 4, 6 lanes for the Core 5 330, Gen 5, 8 lanes for the Ultra 9 285H
- Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) for the Core 5 330, Arc Graphics 140T for the Ultra 9 285H
- Part number: SAE3G for the Core 5 330, SRQAL for the Ultra 9 285H
- Release date: April 2026 for the Core 5 330, January 2025 for the Ultra 9 285H
- Launch MSRP: $309 for the Core 5 330, $651 for the Ultra 9 285H
The series field also differs: the Core 5 330 has no series designation, while the Ultra 9 285H is part of the Core Ultra Series 2.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads.
Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?
A: The largest gap is in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 9 285H scores 330 against 114 for the Core 5 330, a 65.5% difference.
Q: Are the single-core scores close?
A: The single-thread PassMark score shows the smallest margin, with the Ultra 9 285H at 4415 versus 4088 for the Core 5 330, a 7.4% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 12.8% gap.
Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?
A: Yes, both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X. However, the Core 5 330 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ultra 9 285H uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the Ultra 9 285H.
Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?
A: The Ultra 9 285H has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, compared to 4.60 GHz for the Core 5 330. The base clocks are 2.90 GHz and 1.50 GHz, respectively.
Q: What are the average benchmark scores?
A: The Core 5 330 averages 18345, while the Ultra 9 285H averages 38312. The Core 5 330 falls in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, and the Ultra 9 285H falls in the 86th percentile.