Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Processor N250 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core 5 330 and Intel Processor N250 occupy very different positions in the mobile processor stack. The database shows a clear performance gap between the two, driven by differences in core count, clock speeds, and manufacturing process.

The Intel Core 5 330 delivers a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 13150 points. The Intel Processor N250 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, which means a direct numerical comparison cannot be made for any individual test. However, the Core 5 330's single-core Cinebench R23 result of 1856 points, combined with its 6 cores and 6 threads, places it firmly in a higher performance tier.

In PassMark tests, the Core 5 330 achieves a multithread score of 15471 and a single-thread score of 4088. Its integer math score of 33258 and floating point math score of 43885 further illustrate its computational strength. The N250, with 4 cores and 4 threads, lacks any recorded results, so the data cannot confirm its performance in these workloads.

The Core 5 330's average benchmark score of 18345 places it at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-14100 with an average score of 18318 (a delta of 0.1%), the Intel Core 7 360 at 18374 (delta of -0.2%), and the Intel Core i3-13100 at 18380 (delta of -0.2%). These margins are extremely tight, indicating the Core 5 330 performs within a fraction of a percent of these established desktop-class parts.

The N250 sits at the 50th percentile, a full 22 percentile points lower than the Core 5 330. With no average benchmark score recorded, the database cannot quantify the gap in absolute terms, but the percentile ranking alone demonstrates a substantial difference in overall capability.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 330 is the clear winner in compute-heavy tasks. Its Cinebench R20 multicore score of 5523 and R15 multicore score of 1325 indicate strong sustained performance across rendering and content creation workloads. The PassMark physics score of 1201 and data compression score of 145287 show that the chip handles simulation and data processing tasks effectively.

The Core 5 330 also leads in security and encryption workloads, recording 11076 in PassMark data encryption and 12808 in extended instructions. Its random string sorting score of 17771 and prime number finding score of 114 round out a well-balanced performance profile.

The N250 has no recorded benchmark wins in the database. Its advantage lies elsewhere: a TDP of 6 watts versus the Core 5 330's 15 watts. This makes the N250 the more power-efficient option for fanless designs and battery-focused ultra-portable systems. Its base clock of 0.10 GHz, which is unusually low, allows the chip to idle at very low power, though the boost clock of 3.80 GHz provides on-demand performance when needed.

The Core 5 330's boost clock of 4.60 GHz gives it a 0.80 GHz advantage in maximum frequency. In single-threaded workloads, this higher ceiling, combined with the newer 3 nm process node, explains its PassMark single-thread score of 4088. The N250's 10 nm process node is two generations older, which limits its clock-for-clock efficiency.

Architecture Differences

The Core 5 330 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is built on Intel's 3 nm process node. It features 6 cores and 6 threads, a configuration that omits Hyper-Threading but provides two more physical cores than the N250. Its cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3.

The N250 uses the Twin Lake architecture, built on a 10 nm process node. It has 4 cores and 4 threads, with 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. While both chips have 6 MB of L3, the Core 5 330's larger L2 and per-core L1 allocation give it a caching advantage in data-heavy workloads.

Memory support differs significantly. The Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a single-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The N250 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, also single-channel, but with only 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core 5 330 offers 55% more memory bandwidth, which directly benefits memory-sensitive applications such as compression and encryption.

PCIe connectivity also sets the two apart. The Core 5 330 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the N250 offers Gen 3 with 9 CPU lanes. The newer PCIe generation on the Core 5 330 doubles the per-lane bandwidth, which matters for NVMe storage and discrete GPU connectivity.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 330 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, a modern architecture that supports current media codecs. The N250 uses UHD Graphics 730, an older design. Neither chip supports ECC memory. The Core 5 330 has a launch MSRP of $309, while the N250 has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Core 5 330 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the N250 uses Intel BGA 1264. These are incompatible sockets, meaning the two processors cannot be swapped in the same motherboard. Both are active production parts, with the Core 5 330 released in April 2026 and the N250 in January 2025.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core 5 330 than the Intel Processor N250 in multi-core workloads?

A: The Core 5 330 records a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 13150. The N250 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, so a percentage difference cannot be calculated. The Core 5 330's 6 cores versus the N250's 4 cores, combined with its higher boost clock, indicate a substantial advantage.

Q: Which processor uses less power?

A: The Intel Processor N250 has a TDP of 6 watts, while the Intel Core 5 330 has a TDP of 15 watts. The N250 is designed for lower power consumption, making it suitable for fanless and battery-optimized systems.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the N250 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5. The Core 5 330 also has higher memory bandwidth at 59.7 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s for the N250.

Q: Are the two processors interchangeable?

A: No. The Core 5 330 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the N250 uses the Intel BGA 1264 socket. They are physically incompatible and require different motherboards.

Q: What is the single-thread performance of the Core 5 330?

A: The Core 5 330 achieves a PassMark single-thread score of 4088 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1856. Its boost clock of 4.60 GHz contributes to these results. The N250 has no recorded single-thread benchmark scores.

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

A: The Core 5 330's average benchmark score of 18345 is within 0.2% of the Intel Core i3-14100 (18318), Intel Core 7 360 (18374), Intel Core i3-13100 (18380), and Intel Core 3 305 (18302). These margins are negligible in real-world terms.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core 5 330 is the higher-performance part by every measurable metric in the database. Its 6 cores, 4.60 GHz boost clock, 3 nm process node, and 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth position it as a capable mobile processor for demanding workloads. Its percentile ranking of 72 versus the N250's 50 confirms this gap, as does its average benchmark score of 18345 compared to the N250's lack of recorded scores.

The Intel Processor N250 serves a different purpose. Its 6 watt TDP makes it the appropriate choice for systems where power efficiency takes priority over raw performance. The 10 nm process node and 3.80 GHz boost clock are modest by comparison, but the chip's low idle power, indicated by its 0.10 GHz base clock, suits always-on and thermally constrained designs.

Users requiring sustained multi-core performance, faster memory access, or modern graphics should choose the Core 5 330. The data shows it competes directly with established Core i3 parts, landing within 0.2% of the Core i3-14100, Core i3-13100, Core 7 360, and Core 3 305 in average benchmark score. Users prioritizing minimal power draw and passive cooling should select the N250, accepting the trade-off in computational throughput. The two processors target distinct market segments, and the benchmark results reflect that separation clearly.