Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H. Across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the Core Ultra 9 386H records the higher score, with the Intel Core 5 330 failing to claim a single win. This is not a close contest by any measure. The Core Ultra 9 386H sits at the 88th percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 330 sits at the 72nd percentile. That 16-point percentile gap translates into a 58.9% average benchmark score advantage for the Ultra 9 386H (43210 vs. 18345).

The use-case split is therefore straightforward: the Core Ultra 9 386H is the processor for any workload that benefits from raw compute throughput, whether single-threaded or heavily parallel. Its 16 cores and 16 threads, dual-channel memory bus, and larger cache pool give it decisive advantages in multi-threaded rendering, data compression, encryption, and floating-point math. The Core 5 330, with 6 cores and 6 threads, a single-channel memory bus, and a smaller L3 cache, cannot match that throughput in any measured category.

The Core 5 330 does have one structural edge: it is a lower-power part with a 15 TDP versus the Ultra 9 386H's 25 TDP. For systems where thermal headroom and battery life are the primary constraints, the Core 5 330's smaller footprint is a legitimate design consideration. However, in pure benchmark performance, the database shows no scenario where the Core 5 330 wins. Even in the closest comparison, the single-thread PassMark test, the Ultra 9 386H leads by 3.1%. The Core 5 330's closest rivals in the database are the Intel Core i3-14100, Intel Core 3 305, Intel Core 7 360, and Intel Core i3-13100, all with average scores within 0.2% of its own. That places it firmly in entry-level mobile territory. The Ultra 9 386H, by contrast, ranks alongside the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385, AMD Ryzen AI 9 465, Intel Core i9-12900, and Intel Core i9-12900KF, all within 0.9% of its average score. That is a desktop-class performance envelope in a mobile socket.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins every multi-core benchmark in the database. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 20547 versus 13150 for the Intel Core 5 330, a 36% lead. In PassMark multi-thread, it scores 35399 versus 15471, a 56.3% lead.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: The Ultra 9 386H leads in all single-thread tests, but the margin shrinks compared to multi-core. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 9 386H scores 2071.5 versus 1856, a 10.4% lead. In PassMark single-thread, the lead is just 3.1% (4218 vs. 4088).

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading, so thread count equals core count for both.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The Core Ultra 9 386H uses a dual-channel memory bus and delivers 115.2 GB/s. The Core 5 330 uses a single-channel bus and delivers 59.7 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory.

Q: Which processor has the larger cache?

A: The Core Ultra 9 386H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache and 2.5 MB of L2 per core. The Core 5 330 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache and 2.5 MB of total L2. The Ultra 9 386H also specifies 192 KB of L1 per core, while the Core 5 330 lists 192 KB total L1.

Q: Which processor uses a newer PCIe generation?

A: The Core Ultra 9 386H uses PCIe Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The Core 5 330 uses PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single margin appears in PassMark find prime numbers. The Core Ultra 9 386H scores 341 versus the Core 5 330's 114, a 66.6% deficit for the smaller chip. That test is heavily dependent on integer arithmetic and cache behavior, and the Ultra 9 386H's 18 MB L3 cache plus dual-channel memory clearly dominates. The next largest gap is in PassMark integer math, where the Ultra 9 386H scores 87284 versus 33258, a 61.9% lead. Floating-point math follows at 108527 versus 43885, a 59.6% gap. Data encryption shows a 59.2% lead (27150 vs. 11076), data compression 58.8% (352365 vs. 145287), and random string sorting 57.8% (42135 vs. 17771).

The Cinebench suite tells a similar story. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 9 386H scores 3223 versus 1325, a 58.9% lead. In R20 multi-core, it scores 12820 versus 5523, a 56.9% lead. The R23 multi-core gap narrows to 36% (20547 vs. 13150), but that remains a substantial margin. Single-core Cinebench results are closer: R15 single-core shows a 38.7% lead (303.5 vs. 186), R20 single-core shows a 56.9% lead (1809 vs. 779), and R23 single-core shows a 10.4% lead (2071.5 vs. 1856). The R23 single-core gap is the smallest in the Cinebench family, indicating that the Core 5 330's boosted single-core clock of 4.60 GHz is competitive against the Ultra 9 386H's 4.90 GHz boost, but the larger cache and dual-channel memory still tip the balance.

The PassMark physics test shows a 60.3% lead (3028 vs. 1201), and the extended instructions test shows a 56% lead (29138 vs. 12808). The narrowest margin in the entire dataset is PassMark single-thread, where the Ultra 9 386H leads by just 3.1% (4218 vs. 4088). That result indicates that for lightly threaded applications with low memory pressure, the two processors are nearly equivalent. Every other benchmark shows at least a 10% gap, and most show gaps between 36% and 67%.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every physical and electrical specification. The Intel Core 5 330 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket. They are not socket-compatible. The Core 5 330 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 386H has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 386H runs at a higher base clock by 0.60 GHz and a higher boost clock by 0.30 GHz.

Thermal design power differs: the Core 5 330 is rated at 15 TDP, the Core Ultra 9 386H at 25 TDP. That 10 TDP gap reflects the Ultra 9 386H's larger core count and higher clock envelope. Memory support is identical in type (DDR5, LPDDR5X), but the memory bus differs: the Core 5 330 is single-channel, the Core Ultra 9 386H is dual-channel. Memory bandwidth reflects that: 59.7 GB/s for the Core 5 330 versus 115.2 GB/s for the Core Ultra 9 386H. Neither processor supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core 5 330 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 9 386H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics differ in naming. The Core 5 330 carries Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe), while the Core Ultra 9 386H carries Intel Xe3 Graphics without a core count specification in the database. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The release dates differ: the Core 5 330 was released on 2026-04-15, while the Core Ultra 9 386H was released on 2026-01-04. The Core 5 330 has a launch MSRP of $309; the Core Ultra 9 386H has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 330 is built on the Wildcat Lake codename, with the generation listed as "Core 5 (Wildcat Lake)". The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is built on the Panther Lake architecture, with the codename also listed as Panther Lake and the generation as "Ultra 9 (Panther Lake-H)". Both are fabricated on a 3 nm process node at Intel's foundry. The Core Ultra 9 386H is part of the Core Ultra Series 3, a naming distinction the Core 5 330 lacks.

Core counts diverge sharply: the Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither part uses hyper-threading, so the thread count equals the core count. Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Core 5 330 lists 192 KB of L1 cache total, 2.5 MB of L2 cache total, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 386H lists 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core versus total distinction is critical: with 16 cores, the Ultra 9 386H's aggregate L1 and L2 capacity is far larger, and the L3 cache is three times the size of the Core 5 330's.

The integrated graphics differ in implementation. The Core 5 330 explicitly lists "Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe)", indicating a specific execution unit count. The Core Ultra 9 386H simply lists "Intel Xe3 Graphics" without a unit count in the database. The Core Ultra 9 386H's PCIe Gen 5 support with 12 lanes marks a generation ahead of the Core 5 330's PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes. Both processors are marked as Active in production status and target the mobile market segment. The part numbers differ (SAE3G for the Core 5 330, SA4R5Q9EH for the Core Ultra 9 386H). The architecture gap, combined with the dual-channel memory controller and larger cache, explains why the Core Ultra 9 386H maintains a dominant lead across every benchmark category in the database.