Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents an unambiguous split: the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins every single recorded test. Across 17 head-to-head comparisons, the Core 5 330 records zero victories. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus dominates in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads, with its smallest advantage appearing in single-thread tests and its largest advantages in heavily parallelized tasks.

For single-threaded performance, the Ultra 9 290HX Plus leads by a modest but consistent margin. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2356 versus 1856 for the Core 5 330, a 21.2% advantage. The PassMark single-thread test shows a narrower gap: 4951 versus 4088, a 17.4% difference. These results indicate the Ultra 9's higher boost clock of 5.50 GHz, compared to 4.60 GHz on the Core 5 330, translates into a measurable but not overwhelming single-core advantage.

Multi-threaded workloads reveal the true separation between these processors. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus delivers 39684 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core 5 330 manages 13150, a 66.9% deficit. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the gap grows to 73.9% (21198 versus 5523). The largest multi-threaded deltas appear in PassMark integer math, where the Ultra 9 scores 164839 against 33258, a 79.8% advantage, and floating-point math, where it reaches 201773 versus 43885, a 78.3% lead.

The Core 5 330 is a 6-core, 6-thread processor with a 15 W TDP, positioning it for efficient, light-duty mobile systems. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread part with a 55 W TDP, clearly aimed at high-performance mobile workstations and gaming laptops. The benchmark results confirm this positioning: the Ultra 9 is the definitive choice for compute-intensive tasks, while the Core 5 330's role is limited to power-constrained scenarios where its much lower thermal envelope matters more than raw throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design lineages. The Core 5 330 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename within the Core Ultra Series 2 and Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-HX) generation. Both are fabricated on a 3 nm process node, but they differ in foundry: the Core 5 330 is produced by Intel, whereas the Ultra 9 290HX Plus is manufactured by TSMC.

Core counts differ dramatically. The Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads with no hyper-threading, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. This 4x core advantage explains most of the multi-threaded performance gap. Clock speeds also favor the Ultra 9: a 2.70 GHz base clock and 5.50 GHz boost versus 1.50 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost on the Core 5 330.

Cache hierarchies reflect the different design goals. The Core 5 330 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9's larger L3 pool (36 MB versus 6 MB) supports its many cores and high-thread-count workloads.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports only DDR5 but uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9 also includes ECC memory support, which the Core 5 330 lacks.

PCIe capabilities differ substantially. The Core 5 330 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. This gives the Ultra 9 significantly more bandwidth for discrete GPUs and high-speed storage.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 330 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe units, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Ultra 9's GPU is far more capable, though neither part is designed primarily for integrated graphics in demanding gaming scenarios.

The Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Core 5 330 is locked. The Ultra 9 also has a larger die at 243 mm² with 17,800 million transistors; the Core 5 330's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive wins for the Ultra 9 290HX Plus occur in multi-threaded and data-heavy workloads. PassMark integer math shows the largest gap at 79.8% (164839 versus 33258). Floating-point math follows closely at 78.3% (201773 versus 43885). Data compression and data encryption both show 77.9% advantages for the Ultra 9 (658724 versus 145287 and 50008 versus 11076, respectively). Random string sorting also shows a 77.9% gap (80327 versus 17771).

Cinebench multi-core results reinforce this pattern. The R15 multi-core test shows a 77.8% advantage for the Ultra 9 (5981 versus 1325). R20 multi-core shows 73.9% (21198 versus 5523). R23 multi-core shows 66.9% (39684 versus 13150). These results consistently indicate roughly a 3x to 4.5x performance lead for the Ultra 9 in heavily threaded rendering workloads.

The find prime numbers test shows a 78% advantage (519 versus 114). Extended instructions show 75% (51290 versus 12808). PassMark multi-thread shows 74% (59439 versus 15471). Physics simulation shows 64.5% (3387 versus 1201).

Single-threaded gaps are smaller but still favor the Ultra 9. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 45.3% (340 versus 186). R20 single-core shows 74% (2992 versus 779). R23 single-core shows 21.2% (2356 versus 1856). PassMark single-thread shows 17.4% (4951 versus 4088). The R20 single-core result is an outlier compared to the other single-thread tests, likely reflecting workload-specific differences in how the two architectures handle that particular benchmark.

The Ultra 9 290HX Plus sits at the 95th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 79574. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-14900KF (0.3% higher score), AMD EPYC 7413 (0.6% higher), Intel Core i9-14900K (0.6% lower), and Intel Xeon w5-2565X (1.4% higher). The Core 5 330 sits at the 72nd percentile with an average score of 18345, placing it near the Intel Core i3-14100 (0.1% higher), Intel Core 3 305 (0.2% higher), Intel Core 7 360 (0.2% lower), and Intel Core i3-13100 (0.2% lower).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: What is the performance gap in multi-threaded workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 39684 versus 13150 for the Core 5 330, a 66.9% advantage. PassMark integer math shows a 79.8% gap (164839 versus 33258).

Q: How do the single-thread scores compare?

A: The Ultra 9 290HX Plus leads by 17.4% in PassMark single-thread (4951 versus 4088) and by 21.2% in Cinebench R23 single-core (2356 versus 1856).

Q: Do both processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: Both use a 3 nm process node, but the Core 5 330 is fabricated by Intel while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus is fabricated by TSMC.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each support?

A: The Core 5 330 has a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports ECC memory. The Core 5 330 does not.

The Verdict

The data strongly favors the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus for any user prioritizing performance. It wins all 17 recorded benchmarks, delivers over 3x the multi-core performance in most tests, and carries a boost clock 0.90 GHz higher than the Core 5 330. Its 24 cores, 36 MB of L3 cache, dual-channel memory, Gen 5 PCIe, and ECC support position it as a high-end mobile part suitable for demanding rendering, simulation, and data processing tasks.

The Intel Core 5 330, by contrast, is a low-power 15 W part with 6 cores, 6 MB of L3, single-channel memory, and Gen 4 PCIe. Its only advantages are a much lower TDP (15 W versus 55 W), lower base clock (1.50 GHz versus 2.70 GHz), and support for LPDDR5X memory. The Core 5 330 also has a recorded launch MSRP of $309, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus has no launch MSRP in the database.

For users who need maximum compute throughput in a mobile chassis, the Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the only rational choice based on recorded data. For users who require minimal power draw and can accept substantially lower performance, the Core 5 330 fills that niche. There is no benchmark category where the Core 5 330 outperforms the Ultra 9 290HX Plus.

The Ultra 9 290HX Plus's average benchmark score of 79574 places it in the 95th percentile, comparable to desktop flagship processors like the Core i9-14900K and i9-14900KF. The Core 5 330's average score of 18345 places it in the 72nd percentile, comparable to entry-level desktop chips like the Core i3-14100 and Core i3-13100. These percentile rankings contextualize the head-to-head results: the Ultra 9 competes in a different performance class entirely.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 330 | Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus |

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

| Cores | 6 | 24 |

| Threads | 6 | 24 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.60 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 55 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2114 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-HX Refresh |

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

| Process node | 3 nm | 3 nm |

| 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 |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part number | SAE3G | SADSS |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | Not recorded |

| Release date | 2026-04-15 | 2026-03-16 |