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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K wins all 17 recorded comparisons against the Intel Core 5 330. The margin varies significantly by workload, but the direction is consistent across every single test.

The largest gaps appear in multi-threaded and throughput-oriented workloads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 9 285K scores 6494 against 1325 for the Core 5 330, a 79.6% advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 77% delta, with scores of 24003 and 5523 respectively. The R23 multi-core test narrows the relative gap slightly to 69.1%, but the absolute difference remains enormous: 42522 versus 13150.

PassMark workloads amplify the separation further. Data compression shows the Ultra 9 285K at 790052 versus 145287, an 81.6% lead. Integer math delivers a 80.7% delta (172379 against 33258), while floating point math sits at 80.4% (224324 versus 43885). Random string sorting records an 81.3% gap (94927 versus 17771). Data encryption shows 57745 against 11076, an 80.8% difference. Extended instructions follow at 79.4% (62277 versus 12808), and find prime numbers at 78.9% (541 versus 114). PassMark multi-thread shows a 77% delta, with 67260 against 15471. Physics testing yields a 69.5% gap (3938 versus 1201).

Single-threaded performance tells a similar story, but the margins are smaller. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the Ultra 9 285K at 2377 versus 1856, a 21.9% advantage. PassMark single-thread records 5087 versus 4088, a 19.6% gap. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 77% delta (3388 versus 779), and R15 single-core a 48.2% delta (359 versus 186). The smaller single-thread deltas compared to multi-thread deltas indicate that the Ultra 9 285K's advantage comes primarily from core count and parallel throughput rather than per-core efficiency alone, though its single-core lead is still substantial.

The Core 5 330 finds no wins in any recorded benchmark. Its percentile ranking of 72 versus the Ultra 9 285K's 96 confirms the placement gap. The average benchmark score tells the same story: 18345 for the Core 5 330 against 83807 for the Ultra 9 285K. In the database, the Core 5 330 sits within 0.2% of the Intel Core i3-14100, Intel Core 7 360, Intel Core i3-13100, and Intel Core 3 305, while the Ultra 9 285K trades positions within 1.5% of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, AMD EPYC 4584PX, AMD EPYC 9135, and AMD EPYC 7F72.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to different Intel families entirely. The Core 5 330 is a Wildcat Lake part in the Core 5 generation, while the Core Ultra 9 285K is an Arrow Lake-S part in the Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake architecture. Both use a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs: Intel fabricates the Core 5 330, while TSMC fabricates the Core Ultra 9 285K.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The Core 5 330 provides 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyper-threading evident in the thread count. The Core Ultra 9 285K provides 24 cores and 24 threads, a 4x core advantage. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 330 and 3.70 GHz for the Ultra 9 285K, with boost clocks of 4.60 GHz and 5.70 GHz respectively.

Cache hierarchies differ in structure as well as size. The Core 5 330 lists 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Ultra 9 285K lists 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The per-core L2 specification for the Ultra 9 285K, when scaled across 24 cores, represents a far larger aggregate cache pool, though the database records the values in different units for each part.

Memory support separates the two as well. The Core 5 330 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9 285K supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, nearly double the throughput. ECC memory is absent on the Core 5 330 but present on the Ultra 9 285K.

PCIe connectivity differs by generation and lane count. The Core 5 330 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Ultra 9 285K provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, a newer standard with more available lanes.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Core 5 330 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Ultra 9 285K uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The database does not include graphics benchmark scores for either part, so the comparison is limited to the architectural description.

The socket types are incompatible: the Core 5 330 uses Intel BGA 1516, a mobile socket, while the Ultra 9 285K uses Intel Socket 1851, a desktop socket. The market segments reflect this: the Core 5 330 is a mobile part, the Ultra 9 285K is a desktop part. The Core 5 330 has a locked multiplier, while the Ultra 9 285K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. The Ultra 9 285K also carries a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², figures the database does not record for the Core 5 330.

Power envelopes differ considerably, with the Core 5 330 rated at 15 W and the Ultra 9 285K at 125 W. The release dates are also distinct: the Core 5 330 launched on 2026-04-15, the Ultra 9 285K on 2024-10-23. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 330 is $309, and for the Ultra 9 285K it is $589.

The Verdict

The recorded data places these two processors in different performance strata without overlap. The Ultra 9 285K wins every benchmark in the comparison set, with multi-threaded deltas ranging from 69.1% to 81.6% and single-threaded deltas from 19.6% to 77%. The Core 5 330 does not win a single test.

The Core 5 330 is a 6-core, 6-thread mobile processor with a 15 W envelope, single-channel memory, PCIe Gen 4, and a locked multiplier. Its benchmark profile places it near the Intel Core i3-14100 and Intel Core 3 305 in average score, within 0.2% of both. It suits workloads where the 15 W power envelope and mobile socket are the binding constraints, and the data shows its performance class aligns with entry-level desktop i3 parts rather than flagship desktop silicon.

The Ultra 9 285K is a 24-core, 24-thread desktop processor with a 125 W envelope, dual-channel memory, PCIe Gen 5, ECC support, an unlocked multiplier, and a 96th percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in average score are the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, AMD EPYC 4584PX, AMD EPYC 9135, and AMD EPYC 7F72, a group that includes server-class parts. The 83807 average benchmark score places it over 4.5 times higher than the Core 5 330's 18345.

For workloads that use many cores, the choice is determined by the data: the Ultra 9 285K delivers 77% to 81.6% higher throughput in Cinebench multi-core and PassMark parallel tests. For single-threaded responsiveness, the Ultra 9 285K still leads by 19.6% to 48.2%, depending on the test. The Core 5 330 does not close the gap in any measured category.

The architectural differences reinforce the benchmark results. The Ultra 9 285K has 4x the cores, higher clocks, a larger L3 cache, dual-channel memory with nearly double the bandwidth, PCIe Gen 5, and ECC support. The Core 5 330 counters with a lower power envelope, a smaller physical footprint via BGA packaging, LPDDR5X support, and a later release date. The database does not record any benchmark where the Core 5 330's advantages translate into a performance win.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core 5 330 | Intel Core Ultra 9 285K |

|---|---|---|

| Series | null | Core Ultra Series 2 |

| Cores | 6 | 24 |

| Threads | 6 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 5.70 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 125 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | null | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Generation | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake) |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | null | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | null | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2.5 MB | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | false | true |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2024-10-23 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | $589 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | false | true |

| Part Number | SAE3G | SRQD5 |

The two parts share the same 3 nm process node and the same Intel manufacturer, but diverge on nearly every other specification field. The Ultra 9 285K leads in cores, threads, clocks, cache, memory bandwidth, PCIe generation and lanes, ECC support, and unlocked overclocking. The Core 5 330 leads in lower power envelope, LPDDR5X memory support, and a later release date.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmarks in the database?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core 5 330. The Core 5 330 records 0 wins.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: PassMark data compression shows the largest delta at 81.6%, with the Ultra 9 285K scoring 790052 versus 145287 for the Core 5 330.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Ultra 9 285K has 24 cores and 24 threads, a 4x core advantage.

Q: Do both processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: Both use a 3 nm process node. Intel fabricates the Core 5 330, while TSMC fabricates the Ultra 9 285K.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

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

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core 5 330 has an average benchmark score of 18345, placing it in the 72nd percentile. The Ultra 9 285K has an average score of 83807, placing it in the 96th percentile.