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

Intel Core 5 330 and Intel Core Ultra 9 285T occupy opposite ends of Intel’s current product stack, and the benchmark data reflects a complete performance hierarchy. The Core 5 330 is a low-power mobile processor with 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285T is a high-end desktop part with 24 cores and 24 threads. Across every recorded benchmark, the Core Ultra 9 285T posts the higher score. The database shows zero wins for the Core 5 330 and 17 wins for the Core Ultra 9 285T. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 9 285T is 51310, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 330 averages 18345, good for the 72nd percentile. The performance gap is consistent and large, but the nature of the gap varies by workload type, ranging from a modest single-thread lead to a near-total dominance in integer math.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 285T wins in every measured category, but the margin of victory is not uniform. The smallest advantage appears in single-threaded PassMark tests. In passmark_single_thread, the Core Ultra 9 285T scores 4576 against 4088 for the Core 5 330, a delta of -10.7 percent from the perspective of the smaller chip. This is the closest contest in the entire head-to-head set. Single-core Cinebench results tell a similar story but with a larger gap: the Core Ultra 9 285T leads by roughly 61 percent in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests. That difference suggests the Core Ultra 9 285T’s higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz versus 4.60 GHz provides a meaningful per-thread advantage, though the exact contribution of clock speed versus architecture cannot be isolated from this data.

The Core Ultra 9 285T’s biggest wins come in heavily parallel workloads. PassMark integer math shows a delta of -74.9 percent, with the Core Ultra 9 285T scoring 132433 versus 33258. Floating point math is nearly as lopsided at -68.2 percent, with scores of 137923 and 43885. Find prime numbers shows a -67 percent delta, and data encryption shows -65.5 percent. These results align with the core count difference: 24 cores versus 6 cores gives the desktop part a 4x thread advantage, and the benchmark scores reflect that scaling in compute-intensive tasks. The Core 5 330 is not competitive in these areas, but its 15 watt TDP and mobile market segment indicate it is designed for efficiency-constrained environments rather than raw throughput.

For workloads that mix memory and compute, the Core Ultra 9 285T remains firmly ahead. PassMark multithread scores 39931 against 15471, a -61.3 percent delta. Data compression shows 384140 versus 145287, a -62.2 percent delta. Random string sorting follows the same pattern at -62.7 percent. Extended instructions show the smallest multi-thread gap at -53.4 percent, with scores of 27477 and 12808. The Core 5 330’s best relative showing outside single-thread tests is in extended instructions, which may reflect the efficiency of its Wildcat Lake architecture on instruction-level parallelism, but the absolute scores still favor the Core Ultra 9 285T by a wide margin.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design lineages. The Core 5 330 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is built on a 3 nm process at Intel. The Core Ultra 9 285T uses the Arrow Lake-S codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, and is also built on a 3 nm process, but at TSMC. Both use 3 nm lithography, so process geometry is not a differentiator. The Core Ultra 9 285T integrates 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 5 330 has no transistor or die size data recorded. The Core Ultra 9 285T is a desktop part with a 35 watt TDP, while the Core 5 330 is a mobile part with a 15 watt TDP. This 20 watt difference in thermal design power is modest compared to the 4x core count difference, indicating the Core Ultra 9 285T achieves high throughput per watt relative to its size.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. 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 285T 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 285T is larger than the entire L2 pool on the Core 5 330. The shared L3 on the Core Ultra 9 285T is six times the size of the Core 5 330’s total L3. This cache advantage directly supports the Core Ultra 9 285T’s lead in data compression and random string sorting, workloads that benefit from large working sets residing in cache.

Memory support also differs. The Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core Ultra 9 285T supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285T also supports ECC memory, while the Core 5 330 does not. PCIe connectivity separates the two further: the Core 5 330 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 9 285T provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics differ as well, with the Core 5 330 using Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores and the Core Ultra 9 285T using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Core Ultra 9 285T uses Socket 1851, while the Core 5 330 uses Intel BGA 1516, reflecting their desktop versus mobile form factors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Cinebench results establish a consistent pattern. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core Ultra 9 285T scores 3384 against 1325, a -60.8 percent delta. The single-core R15 test shows 477 versus 186, a -61 percent delta. Cinebench R20 multicore repeats the -60.8 percent delta with scores of 14100 and 5523. Single-core R20 shows 1990 versus 779, a -60.9 percent delta. Cinebench R23 multicore delivers 33573 versus 13150, again -60.8 percent, and single-core R23 shows 4739 versus 1856, also -60.8 percent. The consistency of the multicore deltas across all three Cinebench versions indicates the Core Ultra 9 285T’s advantage is stable across render workloads, neither improving nor degrading with newer benchmark versions. The single-core deltas are similarly stable, hovering around 61 percent across R15, R20, and R23.

PassMark tests reveal where the gap widens beyond the Cinebench baseline. Integer math is the largest delta at -74.9 percent, with the Core Ultra 9 285T scoring 132433 versus 33258. Floating point math follows at -68.2 percent, with 137923 versus 43885. Find prime numbers shows -67 percent, with 345 versus 114. Data encryption shows -65.5 percent, with 32061 versus 11076. These four workloads all exceed the roughly 61 percent delta seen in Cinebench multicore, suggesting the Core Ultra 9 285T’s advantage grows in compute patterns that stress arithmetic units and encryption pipelines rather than rendering algorithms.

Other PassMark tests land closer to the Cinebench baseline. Random string sorting shows -62.7 percent, with 47695 versus 17771. Data compression shows -62.2 percent, with 384140 versus 145287. PassMark multithread shows -61.3 percent, with 39931 versus 15471. Physics shows -57.7 percent, with 2842 versus 1201. Extended instructions shows the smallest multi-thread delta at -53.4 percent, with 27477 versus 12808. The single-thread PassMark test is the only benchmark below -50 percent, at -10.7 percent with scores of 4576 and 4088. The near-rival data for the Core 5 330 shows it trading positions with the Intel Core i3-14100 (0.1 percent delta), Intel Core 7 360 (-0.2 percent), Intel Core i3-13100 (-0.2 percent), and Intel Core 3 305 (0.2 percent). The Core Ultra 9 285T sits within 0.6 percent of the Intel Core i9-14900T and 1.1 percent of the Intel Core i7-13850HX, while trailing the Intel Core i9-13900F by -0.8 percent and leading the AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT by 1.2 percent.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T has 24 cores and 24 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 delta is in PassMark integer math, where the Core Ultra 9 285T scores 132433 versus 33258 for the Core 5 330, a -74.9 percent delta from the Core 5 330’s perspective.

Q: How close are the two in single-threaded performance?

A: The closest test is PassMark single_thread, where the Core Ultra 9 285T scores 4576 versus 4088, a -10.7 percent delta. Cinebench single-core tests show a larger gap of roughly 61 percent.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core Ultra 9 285T supports ECC memory, while the Core 5 330 does not.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor provide?

A: The Core 5 330 provides 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel bus, while the Core Ultra 9 285T provides 102.4 GB/s over a dual-channel bus.

Q: What are the release dates for these processors?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285T was released on 2025-01-06, and the Core 5 330 was released on 2026-04-15.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 330 | Intel Core Ultra 9 285T |

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

| Cores | 6 | 24 |

| Threads | 6 | 24 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 1.40 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.60 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 35 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Architecture | Not recorded | Arrow Lake |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die size | Not recorded | 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 | No | Yes |

| 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 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | $549 |

| Part number | SAE3G | SRQD3 |

The launch MSRP of the Core Ultra 9 285T is $549, and the Core 5 330 carries a launch MSRP of $309. Both processors are listed as active in production and have locked multipliers. The Core 5 330’s release date of 2026-04-15 places it after the Core Ultra 9 285T’s 2025-01-06 release. The Core 5 330’s nearest rival in average score is the Intel Core i3-14100 at a 0.1 percent delta, while the Core Ultra 9 285T’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i9-14900T at a 0.6 percent delta. The data shows the Core Ultra 9 285T is a top-tier desktop processor, while the Core 5 330 is a mobile chip whose closest competitors are lower-core-count desktop and mobile parts. The two share a manufacturer and a 3 nm process node but diverge on nearly every other specification.