Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX Comparison

The Intel Core 5 330 and Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX represent two distinct corners of Intel's mobile lineup. The data reveals a massive performance gulf between these two processors, with the Ultra 9 285HX winning all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Core 5 330, a low-power Wildcat Lake part, is positioned for efficiency-focused systems, while the Core Ultra 9 285HX, an Arrow Lake-HX flagship, targets maximum performance. The benchmark results quantify a chasm that extends across every category, from single-core responsiveness to heavily threaded workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking results appear in multi-core tests, where the Core Ultra 9 285HX delivers scores that dwarf the Core 5 330. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 9 scores 5656.5 against 1325 for the Core 5, a delta of -76.6% for the smaller chip. Cinebench R20 multicore shows a similar pattern: 20236 versus 5523, a -72.7% difference. Cinebench R23 multicore narrows the gap slightly but still shows the Ultra 9 at 36429.5 versus 13150, a -63.9% margin. These numbers indicate that the Ultra 9 285HX has roughly three times the multi-core throughput in these rendering workloads.

The single-core tests tell a different story, one of smaller but still decisive margins. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the Ultra 9 at 2187.5 versus 1856, a -15.2% delta. PassMark single-thread results are closer still: 4618 versus 4088, a -11.5% gap. The Ultra 9 still wins, but the efficiency-oriented Core 5 330 holds its ground better here than in any other test category.

The PassMark suite reveals the breadth of the Ultra 9's dominance. Integer math shows the largest proportional gap, with the Ultra 9 scoring 155076 against 33258, a -78.6% delta. Floating-point math follows at 194998 versus 43885 (-77.5%). Data encryption shows 48567 versus 11076 (-77.2%), and data compression shows 631885 versus 145287 (-77%). Extended instructions deliver 49148 versus 12808 (-73.9%). Even the smallest PassMark wins, physics at 3476 versus 1201 (-65.4%) and random string sorting at 77196 versus 17771 (-77%), reinforce the pattern. The data indicates the Ultra 9 285HX is not just faster, it is categorically faster across every measured workload.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a 3 nm process node, but the similarities end there. The Core 5 330 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 9 285HX uses the Arrow Lake architecture, codenamed Arrow Lake-HX, and is fabricated by TSMC. The Ultra 9's die is measured at 243 mm² and contains 17,800 million transistors; the database records no die size or transistor count for the Core 5 330.

Core counts diverge sharply. The Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The Core Ultra 9 285HX has 24 cores and 24 threads, also without hyperthreading but with four times the physical core count. Base clocks reflect their respective power targets: 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 330 versus 2.80 GHz for the Ultra 9. Boost clocks show 4.60 GHz versus 5.50 GHz.

Cache configurations differ in structure and capacity. The Core 5 330 has 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 285HX lists L1 as 192 KB per core, L2 as 3 MB per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The per-core L2 allocation on the Ultra 9 is particularly noteworthy, as it gives each core a large private cache that likely contributes to the benchmark advantages.

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 Ultra 9 285HX supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s. The Ultra 9 also supports ECC memory, while the Core 5 330 does not. PCIe connectivity follows the same tiering: Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes for the Core 5 330, Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes for the Ultra 9.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 330 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Ultra 9 285HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Ultra 9 also has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Core 5 330 is locked. The power envelope tells a clear story: 15 W TDP for the Core 5 330, 55 W for the Ultra 9.

The Verdict

The benchmark data leaves no ambiguity. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX wins every single recorded comparison, 17 out of 17. Its average benchmark score of 76155 places it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 330's average of 18345 lands in the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 9 include the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX at -0.1% delta and the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D at +0.5% delta, placing it in elite company. The Core 5 330's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i3-14100 at +0.1% and the Intel Core i3-13100 at -0.2%, show it competing in a far lower performance tier.

The Core Ultra 9 285HX is the clear choice for workloads that demand heavy multi-threading, large data throughput, and maximum responsiveness. Its 24 cores, 36 MB of shared L3 cache, and dual-channel memory bandwidth support this role. The Core 5 330, with its 15 W TDP, single-channel memory, and 6 cores, appears suited to systems where power draw and thermal output take priority over raw performance. The data does not suggest any scenario where the Core 5 330 outpaces the Ultra 9 in performance, only contexts where its efficiency profile may be preferable.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285HX scores 36429.5 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the Core 5 330 scores 13150, a -63.9% delta for the Core 5 330.

Q: Do both processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are built on a 3 nm process node. However, the Core 5 330 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 9 285HX is fabricated by TSMC.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 330 does not.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285HX has a dual-channel memory bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 5 330 has a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has an unlocked multiplier?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel Core 5 330 does not.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 285HX wins in every benchmark category recorded. Its largest advantages appear in integer math, where it leads by -78.6%, and floating-point math, where it leads by -77.5%. Data compression and encryption also show deltas around -77%, indicating strong performance in data-heavy tasks. Cinebench multicore tests show margins between -63.9% and -76.6%, confirming dominance in rendering and content creation workloads.

The Core 5 330's relative strengths appear only in comparison to its own scores. Its smallest deficit is in PassMark single-thread at -11.5%, followed by Cinebench R23 single-core at -15.2%. These results suggest that in lightly threaded, short-duration tasks, the gap narrows considerably. The Core 5 330 also carries a 15 W TDP, which implies significantly lower power consumption than the Ultra 9's 55 W TDP, though the database records no direct power efficiency measurements.

For users prioritizing battery life and low thermal output in a compact mobile system, the Core 5 330's profile is attractive. For anyone running multi-threaded applications, large data sets, or demanding creative software, the Ultra 9 285HX's benchmark results make it the only choice between these two. The Core 5 330's performance percentile of 72 is respectable, but the Ultra 9's 95th percentile placement reflects its position near the top of the CPU hierarchy.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification. The Core 5 330 uses 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Ultra 9 285HX uses 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz versus 2.80 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.60 GHz versus 5.50 GHz. TDP is 15 W versus 55 W. Sockets differ: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 5 330, Intel BGA 2114 for the Ultra 9.

Cache sizes diverge substantially. The Core 5 330 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Ultra 9 285HX has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. Memory support shows DDR5 and LPDDR5X on the Core 5 330 versus DDR5 only on the Ultra 9. Memory bus width is single-channel versus dual-channel, and bandwidth is 59.7 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is absent on the Core 5 330 and present on the Ultra 9. PCIe is Gen 4 with 6 lanes versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 with 2 Xe cores versus Arc Xe-LPG with 64 execution units. The Ultra 9 has an unlocked multiplier; the Core 5 330 does not. Release dates also differ, with the Ultra 9 launching earlier and the Core 5 330 listed at a later date.