Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V records an average benchmark score of 23219, while the Intel Core 5 330 records 18345. The Ultra 9 288V also sits at the 76th percentile among all CPUs, compared to the 72nd percentile for the Core 5 330.

Q: How does the Core 5 330 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: 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 in average score. Its average of 18345 is just 0.1% above the Core i3-14100 (18318) and 0.2% above the Core 3 305 (18302), while trailing the Core 7 360 (18374) by 0.2% and the Core i3-13100 (18380) by 0.2%.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each chip?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither processor supports hyperthreading, so thread counts equal core counts in both cases.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V boosts to 5.10 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 330 boosts to 4.60 GHz. The Ultra 9 288V also has a higher base clock at 3.30 GHz versus 1.50 GHz.

Q: How do the cache configurations differ?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V supports dual-channel LPDDR5X memory with 136.5 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V dominates the head-to-head comparison, winning 16 of the 17 recorded benchmarks. Its wins span single-threaded workloads, multi-threaded workloads, and specialized instruction tests. The largest advantages appear in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it leads by 38.3%, and in PassMark prime number finding, where it leads by 41.5%.

The Intel Core 5 330 wins exactly one benchmark: Cinebench R23 multi-core. In that test it scores 13150 against 10178 for the Ultra 9 288V, a 29.2% advantage. This single win indicates that the Core 5 330 has a specific strength in sustained multi-core rendering workloads as measured by Cinebench R23, despite losing the older Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests.

The division of wins suggests a split personality. The Ultra 9 288V is the better all-round performer across most standard workloads, including data compression, encryption, floating point math, integer math, and physics simulations. The Core 5 330 is a more specialized part that excels in the particular Cinebench R23 multi-core scenario.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families and production lines. The Intel Core 5 330 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V uses the Lunar Lake architecture and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ: Intel fabricates the Core 5 330, while TSMC fabricates the Ultra 9 288V.

The Core Ultra 9 288V uses the Intel BGA 2833 socket, while the Core 5 330 uses Intel BGA 1516. This means the two processors are not socket-compatible and cannot be swapped in the same motherboard design.

Cache architecture differs substantially. The Core 5 330 has its L1 and L2 cache configured as fixed capacities (192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2) with 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 288V lists L1 as 192 KB per core and L2 as 2.5 MB per core, with 12 MB of shared L3. The per-core L2 design on the Ultra 9 288V gives it a larger total L2 pool when all cores are active.

Memory support also differs. The Core 5 330 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X through a single-channel memory bus. The Ultra 9 288V supports only LPDDR5X but through a dual-channel bus, which more than doubles the memory bandwidth. The recorded data shows 59.7 GB/s for the Core 5 330 versus 136.5 GB/s for the Ultra 9 288V.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Core 5 330 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Ultra 9 288V provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics also differ: the Core 5 330 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Ultra 9 288V uses Arc 140V.

Both processors have locked multipliers, both are active production parts, and neither supports ECC memory. The Core 5 330 has a part number of SAE3G and a launch MSRP of $309. The Ultra 9 288V has a part number of SRPMSSRPMWQ5JTQ5JUQ5KW and no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several core specifications. The Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads; the Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 330 and 3.30 GHz for the Ultra 9 288V. Boost clocks are 4.60 GHz and 5.10 GHz respectively. TDP is 15 watts for the Core 5 330 and 30 watts for the Ultra 9 288V.

The socket differs: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 5 330, Intel BGA 2833 for the Ultra 9 288V. The foundry differs: Intel for the Core 5 330, TSMC for the Ultra 9 288V. The codename differs: Wildcat Lake versus Lunar Lake. The generation label differs: Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) versus Ultra 9 (Lunar Lake).

Cache capacities differ in L2 and L3. The Core 5 330 has 2.5 MB of L2 total and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 288V has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 12 MB of shared L3. L1 is listed as 192 KB total for the Core 5 330 and 192 KB per core for the Ultra 9 288V.

Memory support differs: DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Core 5 330, LPDDR5X only for the Ultra 9 288V. The memory bus is single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth is 59.7 GB/s versus 136.5 GB/s. PCIe support differs: Gen 4 with 6 lanes versus Gen 5 with 4 lanes. Integrated graphics differ: Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) versus Arc 140V.

Release dates differ. The Core 5 330 has a release date of 2026-04-15. The Ultra 9 288V has a release date of 2024-09-23. The launch MSRP of $309 applies to the Core 5 330 only; the Ultra 9 288V has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single benchmark gap is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Ultra 9 288V scores 301.5 against 186 for the Core 5 330, a 38.3% advantage. This is a substantial single-threaded performance lead that carries into other single-core tests, though the margins shrink in newer workloads.

In Cinebench R20, the Ultra 9 288V leads by 21.9% in both multi-core (7069 versus 5523) and single-core (997 versus 779). The R15 multi-core test shows a 16.3% lead for the Ultra 9 288V (1583 versus 1325). These results indicate that the Ultra 9 288V holds a consistent multi-core edge in the R15 and R20 versions of Cinebench.

The Cinebench R23 results flip the multi-core picture. The Core 5 330 wins R23 multi-core with 13150 versus 10178, a 29.2% margin. This is the only benchmark the Core 5 330 wins, and it is a large one. The R23 single-core test still goes to the Ultra 9 288V, 1950 versus 1856, a 4.8% margin.

PassMark tests favor the Ultra 9 288V across the board. Data compression shows 186521 versus 145287, a 22.1% lead. Data encryption shows 14141 versus 11076, a 21.7% lead. Extended instructions show 15613 versus 12808, an 18% lead. Prime number finding shows 195 versus 114, a 41.5% lead. Floating point math shows 59536 versus 43885, a 26.3% lead. Integer math shows 44019 versus 33258, a 24.4% lead.

The PassMark multithread score favors the Ultra 9 288V at 19810 versus 15471, a 21.9% lead. Physics simulation shows 1637 versus 1201, a 26.6% lead. Random string sorting shows 22622 versus 17771, a 21.4% lead. Single-thread performance in PassMark shows 4274 versus 4088, a 4.4% lead. The two PassMark single-thread tests are duplicates, both recording identical scores and identical deltas.

The average benchmark scores confirm the overall picture: 23219 for the Ultra 9 288V versus 18345 for the Core 5 330, a difference of roughly 26.6% in favor of the Ultra 9 288V.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V is the stronger processor for nearly every measured workload. It wins 16 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, records a higher average benchmark score (23219 versus 18345), and sits at a higher percentile among all CPUs (76th versus 72nd). Its dual-channel memory configuration provides 136.5 GB/s of bandwidth against 59.7 GB/s for the Core 5 330, which supports its advantages in memory-sensitive tests like data compression and random string sorting.

The Core 5 330 has a narrower appeal. Its single benchmark win, Cinebench R23 multi-core, is significant in magnitude (29.2% ahead), and its lower 15 watt TDP makes it the more power-efficient option on paper. For workloads that resemble Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 5 330 delivers a clear advantage. For everything else in the recorded data, the Ultra 9 288V is ahead.

The two processors also serve different platform generations. The Core 5 330 uses the BGA 1516 socket, a Wildcat Lake part fabricated by Intel, with PCIe Gen 4. The Ultra 9 288V uses the BGA 2833 socket, a Lunar Lake part fabricated by TSMC, with PCIe Gen 5. These platform differences matter more than raw benchmark scores for system designers choosing between them.

The data supports a clear conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V is the higher-performing processor across the vast majority of tests, with particular strength in single-threaded and memory-heavy workloads. The Intel Core 5 330 is the specialist choice for Cinebench R23 multi-core workloads and the lower-power option.