CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i3-7300T and Intel Core i5-3330 are separated by five years of architecture, yet benchmark results show they land in nearly the same performance class. The i3-7300T wins every single head-to-head test, but the margins are razor-thin, ranging from 0.8% to 1.0%. This is not a generational stomp; it is a statistical tie with a consistent, if small, edge for the newer part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The i3-7300T claims victory in all five Cinebench comparisons, making it the outright winner in this matchup. The largest advantage appears in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the i3-7300T scores 208 against the i5-3330's 206, a 1% delta. That is the widest gap of any test, but it is still a marginal lead. In multi-core workloads, the i3-7300T posts 1477 in Cinebench R20 versus 1464 for the i5-3330, again a 0.9% difference. The pattern holds in Cinebench R23: the i3-7300T scores 3519 multi-core and 496 single-core, while the i5-3330 manages 3486 and 492, respectively. The deltas here are 0.9% and 0.8%, the latter being the smallest edge in the entire set.

What makes these results striking is the hardware behind them. The i3-7300T uses only 2 cores and 4 threads, while the i5-3330 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Despite having half the physical cores, the i3-7300T's higher base clock of 3.50 GHz (versus 3.00 GHz, with a 3.20 GHz boost on the i5) and its newer Kaby Lake architecture compensate fully. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3-7300T scores 354 against 351, a 0.9% win. The average benchmark scores reflect this near-parity: the i3-7300T averages 1211, while the i5-3330 averages 1200. Both CPUs sit at the 34th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they occupy the same performance tier in the broader market.

The takeaway is clear: the i3-7300T is the faster chip, but not by a meaningful margin. Any single benchmark run could plausibly swing the other way. The consistency of the i3-7300T's wins, however, suggests its architectural advantages are real, if modest.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and nodes. The i3-7300T is built on Intel's 14 nm process under the Kaby Lake architecture, while the i5-3330 uses the older 22 nm Ivy Bridge design. This node shrink explains much of the i3-7300T's efficiency advantage, though it does not translate into a large performance lead in these tests.

The core counts diverge significantly: the i3-7300T has 2 cores and 4 threads (enabled by Hyper-Threading), while the i5-3330 has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, with no Hyper-Threading. L3 cache also differs: the i3-7300T has 4 MB shared, while the i5-3330 has 6 MB shared. Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. The i5-3330's larger L3 cache does not help it overcome the i3-7300T's clock speed and IPC advantages.

Memory support is a major split. The i3-7300T uses DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The i5-3330 uses DDR3, also dual-channel, but no bandwidth figure is listed. This means the i3-7300T has access to newer, faster memory technology, which can help in bandwidth-sensitive tasks. The i5-3330's die size is listed at 133 mm², while the i3-7300T's is not specified.

Integrated graphics differ as well: the i3-7300T pairs with Intel HD 630, while the i5-3330 has Intel HD 2500. Both use PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The i3-7300T has a TDP of 35 watts, less than half of the i5-3330's 77 watts. The i3-7300T is also listed as Active in production, while the i5-3330's production status is not provided. The i3-7300T was released in January 2017; the i5-3330 came out in September 2012. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, and both lack ECC memory support.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores?

A: The Intel Core i5-3330 has 4 cores, while the Intel Core i3-7300T has only 2 cores. However, the i3-7300T has 4 threads via Hyper-Threading, matching the i5-3330's thread count.

Q: Does the newer i3-7300T outperform the older i5-3330 in all benchmarks?

A: Yes. The i3-7300T wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, but the margins are tiny, ranging from 0.8% to 1.0%. For example, it scores 3519 versus 3486 in Cinebench R23 multi-core.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i3-7300T has an average benchmark score of 1211, while the i5-3330 averages 1200. Both sit at the 34th percentile of all CPUs, indicating they are in the same performance tier.

Q: What are the memory compatibility differences?

A: The i3-7300T supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The i5-3330 supports DDR3 memory, also dual-channel, though no bandwidth figure is listed.

Q: Which processor has a lower TDP?

A: The i3-7300T has a TDP of 35 watts, which is less than half of the i5-3330's 77 watts. This makes the i3-7300T notably more power-efficient.

Q: Are these processors pinned to different sockets?

A: Yes. The i3-7300T uses Intel Socket 1151, while the i5-3330 uses Intel Socket 1155. They are not interchangeable.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i3-7300T is the better processor. It wins 5 out of 5 head-to-head tests, and its average benchmark score of 1211 exceeds the i5-3330's 1200. The margins are small, but they are consistent across every workload tested. The i3-7300T achieves this with half the cores, a lower TDP of 35 watts versus 77 watts, and a smaller L3 cache of 4 MB versus 6 MB. The i3-7300T's 14 nm process, higher base clock of 3.50 GHz, and DDR4 memory support give it the edge. For a buyer choosing between these two, the i3-7300T is the logical pick on performance and efficiency grounds.

The i5-3330 is not without merit. Its 4 physical cores and 6 MB L3 cache are the kinds of specs that traditionally suggest multi-threaded strength, yet the benchmark results show it losing every multi-core test. The i3-7300T's 3519 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 3486 proves that newer architecture and higher clocks outweigh raw core count in these workloads. The i5-3330's only potential advantage is its 133 mm² die size, which is listed, but that is not a performance metric. Given the i3-7300T's lower power draw and newer platform, it is the superior choice in nearly every scenario.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ on several key specifications:

• Cores: 2 (i3-7300T) vs 4 (i5-3330)
• Threads: 4 (both)
• Base Clock: 3.50 GHz (i3-7300T) vs 3.00 GHz (i5-3330)
• Boost Clock: None (i3-7300T) vs 3.20 GHz (i5-3330)
• TDP: 35 W (i3-7300T) vs 77 W (i5-3330)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1151 (i3-7300T) vs Intel Socket 1155 (i5-3330)
• Process Node: 14 nm (i3-7300T) vs 22 nm (i5-3330)
• Die Size: Not listed (i3-7300T) vs 133 mm² (i5-3330)
• L3 Cache: 4 MB shared (i3-7300T) vs 6 MB shared (i5-3330)
• Memory Support: DDR4 (i3-7300T) vs DDR3 (i5-3330)
• Memory Bandwidth: 38.4 GB/s (i3-7300T) vs Not listed (i5-3330)
• Integrated Graphics: Intel HD 630 (i3-7300T) vs Intel HD 2500 (i5-3330)
• Release Date: 2017-01-02 (i3-7300T) vs 2012-09-02 (i5-3330)
• Part Number: SR35M (i3-7300T) vs SR0RQ (i5-3330)

Both share dual-channel memory buses, PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, ECC memory disabled, and locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-7300T wins everywhere that benchmarks matter. It takes all five Cinebench tests, including both single-core and multi-core variants. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it leads by 1%, and in Cinebench R23 single-core by 0.8%. Its multi-core wins are similarly consistent, with 0.9% leads in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. The i3-7300T also wins on efficiency, with a 35-watt TDP that makes it suitable for low-power builds, and its DDR4 memory support means it pairs with modern platforms.

The Intel Core i5-3330 has no benchmark wins to claim. Its 4 cores and larger 6 MB L3 cache are its best arguments, but the data does not back them up. It could be considered for legacy Socket 1155 systems where upgrading to an i3-7300T would require a new motherboard and RAM. In a pure performance comparison, however, the i5-3330 loses every round. The i3-7300T is the pick for anyone prioritizing speed, power efficiency, or modern memory support. The i5-3330 only makes sense if you are already invested in its older platform and cannot change sockets.