Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a lopsided comparison. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 5 330 manages only 2 wins. The margin of victory for the Ultra X7 is consistently large across both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the Ultra X7 368H demonstrates a commanding lead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra X7 scores 28,221 against the Core 5 330's 13,150, a delta of -53.4% from the perspective of the Core 5. Single-core performance in the same test shows a similar gap: 3,984 versus 1,856, also a -53.4% delta. The pattern holds in Cinebench R20, where the Ultra X7 records 11,852 multi-core and 1,673 single-core, compared to 5,523 and 779 for the Core 5 330. The older Cinebench R15 test confirms this trend, with the Ultra X7 posting 2,844 multi-core and 401 single-core, against 1,325 and 186.

PassMark results reinforce the dominance of the Ultra X7 in compute-heavy tasks. In floating-point math, the Ultra X7 delivers 105,681 points versus 43,885, a -58.5% delta. Integer math shows an even larger gap: 88,083 against 33,258, or -62.2%. The find prime numbers test produces the widest relative margin, with the Ultra X7 scoring 321 versus 114, a delta of -64.5%. Data encryption follows at 25,228 versus 11,076 (-56.1%), while data compression shows 312,927 versus 145,287 (-53.6%). Extended instructions testing yields 25,669 versus 12,808 (-50.1%), the narrowest relative deficit among the PassMark sub-tests. Multithread performance records 32,956 versus 15,471 (-53.1%), and physics simulation scores 2,857 versus 1,201 (-58%).

The two wins for the Intel Core 5 330 come in the PassMark single-thread tests. The Core 5 scores 4,088 in both passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread, while the Ultra X7 scores 4,005 in both. This yields a 2.1% advantage for the Core 5, a modest but consistent lead in these specific tests. Notably, this outcome contrasts sharply with the Cinebench R23 single-core result, where the Ultra X7 leads by over 53%. The discrepancy between these two single-thread measurements suggests different workload characteristics within each benchmark suite.

The average benchmark score places the Ultra X7 at 40,518, while the Core 5 330 sits at 18,345. The percentile ranking versus all CPUs in the database is 87th for the Ultra X7 and 72nd for the Core 5. In the nearest rivals comparison, the Core 5 330 sits within 0.2% of the Intel Core 3 305, Intel Core i3-14100, Intel Core 7 360, and Intel Core i3-13100, indicating it is a mid-pack performer. The Ultra X7 368H, by contrast, is within 0.2% of the Intel Core 7 253PE, Intel Core 5 223PE, AMD Ryzen 9 7940H, and Intel Xeon 6507P, placing it in substantially higher-performing company.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge significantly in their fundamental design. The Intel Core 5 330 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the "Core 5 (Wildcat Lake)" generation. It features 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyper-threading. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is based on the Panther Lake architecture, specifically the Panther Lake-H generation, and offers 16 cores and 16 threads. This core count difference directly explains much of the multi-threaded performance gap.

Clock speeds also favor the Ultra X7. The Core 5 330 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Ultra X7 runs at 2.00 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. The higher base clock contributes to sustained workload performance, while the higher boost clock aids bursty single-thread tasks. Thermal design power differs as well: the Core 5 is rated at 15W, while the Ultra X7 is rated at 25W, reflecting the additional cores and higher clocks.

Cache hierarchies are markedly different. The Core 5 330 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra X7 offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The per-core L2 allocation on the Ultra X7 scales with its 16 cores, yielding a substantially larger total cache footprint. The larger L3 cache on the Ultra X7 reduces latency for frequently accessed data across all cores.

Memory support also separates the two. The Core 5 330 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, while the Ultra X7 supports only LPDDR5X. More importantly, the memory bus differs: the Core 5 uses a single-channel configuration with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Ultra X7 uses dual-channel memory with 153.6 GB/s. This is a decisive difference for memory-bound workloads, as the Ultra X7 has over 2.5 times the memory bandwidth.

PCIe connectivity is another point of divergence. The Core 5 330 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes, while the Ultra X7 offers Gen 5 with 4 CPU-only lanes. The newer PCIe generation on the Ultra X7 provides higher per-lane bandwidth, though it has fewer lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 5 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Ultra X7 uses the Arc B390, a more capable GPU solution.

Both processors use a 3 nm process node and are fabricated by Intel. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 5 330 launches with an MSRP of $309 and has a release date of April 15, 2026, while the Ultra X7 has no recorded launch MSRP and released on January 4, 2026, earlier by several months. Both use different sockets: the Core 5 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Ultra X7 uses Intel BGA 2540, meaning they are not socket-compatible.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins in nearly every measurable workload category. For multi-threaded rendering, the Cinebench multi-core results show a consistent 53.4% lead across R15, R20, and R23. This makes it the clear choice for video rendering, 3D modeling, and batch photo processing. The data encryption and compression results indicate strong performance in archiving and security-related tasks, with leads of 56.1% and 53.6% respectively. The extended instructions result, showing a 50.1% advantage, points to better support for vectorized and specialized instruction workloads. The physics and floating-point math scores, with deltas of 58% and 58.5%, suggest superior performance in scientific computing and physics simulation.

The Ultra X7 also wins in the PassMark multithread test by 53.1%, reinforcing its dominance in any workload that can utilize more than 6 threads. Its 16 cores provide flexibility for parallel processing across many concurrent tasks. The random string sorting test, which measures memory access patterns and sorting algorithms, shows a 53.3% lead, benefiting from the dual-channel memory and larger cache.

The Intel Core 5 330 has exactly one meaningful win category: the PassMark single-thread test. Its score of 4,088 edges out the Ultra X7's 4,005 by 2.1%. This indicates that for purely single-threaded, non-vectorized integer workloads, the Core 5 can slightly outperform the more expensive Ultra X7. However, this advantage does not extend to the Cinebench single-core tests, where the Ultra X7 leads by 53.4 to 53.6%. The discrepancy suggests that the Core 5's single-thread win is workload-specific, possibly related to how the PassMark test handles branch prediction or cache access patterns.

For users running lightweight applications, office productivity, or basic web browsing, the Core 5 330's single-thread advantage may offer marginally snappier response in certain scenarios. The 2.1% delta, however, is small in absolute terms and unlikely to be perceptible in daily use. The Core 5's lower TDP of 15W versus 25W also makes it more suitable for fanless or passively cooled designs, though this is not directly measured in the benchmark scores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H scores 28,221 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Core 5 330 scores 13,150. The Ultra X7 leads by 53.4%.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 330 win any benchmark against the Ultra X7?

A: Yes, the Core 5 330 wins the PassMark single-thread tests, scoring 4,088 versus 4,005 for the Ultra X7, a 2.1% advantage.

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

A: The Intel Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The Core 5 330 uses single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra X7 uses dual-channel memory with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the thermal design power rating for each?

A: The Core 5 330 has a TDP of 15W, while the Ultra X7 368H has a TDP of 25W.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Ultra X7 368H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 6 MB of shared L3 cache on the Core 5 330.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is the overwhelmingly stronger processor. It wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests, and its victories are substantial, often exceeding 50% margins. The 16-core configuration, dual-channel memory, and higher clock speeds combine to deliver more than double the average benchmark score: 40,518 versus 18,345. The Ultra X7 also sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database, compared to the 72nd percentile for the Core 5 330.

The Intel Core 5 330 remains a viable option specifically for scenarios where its 2.1% single-thread PassMark lead matters, and where the lower 15W TDP is a priority. Its smaller 6-core, 6-thread configuration and 59.7 GB/s single-channel memory bandwidth limit its performance in multi-threaded and memory-intensive applications. For users whose workloads are dominated by single-threaded integer operations and who require minimal power draw, the Core 5 330 has a narrow edge. For nearly all other purposes, including rendering, encryption, compression, physics simulation, and any parallel workload, the Ultra X7 368H is the superior choice based on the recorded measurements.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 330 | Intel Core Ultra X7 368H |

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

| Cores | 6 | 16 |

| Threads | 6 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 15W | 25W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H) |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 3 nm |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | LPDDR5X |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

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

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Arc B390 |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | null |

| Part Number | SAE3G | SA4R7Q9EJ |