CPU Comparison

# Intel Core 3 305 vs AMD EPYC 9274F

The AMD EPYC 9274F dominates this comparison with a perfect 6-0 sweep in head-to-head Cinebench tests, yet both processors land at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs and post nearly identical average benchmark scores (18,189 for AMD vs 18,302 for Intel). This creates a curious paradox: the EPYC 9274F is a 24-core, 48-thread server monster, while the Core 3 305 is a 6-core, 6-thread mobile chip, but their overall benchmark averages align within 0.6%. The data suggests these chips serve entirely different workloads, with the EPYC's raw throughput overshadowing the Core 3's efficiency-focused design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results tell a story of overwhelming AMD supremacy across every test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9274F scores 62,884 against the Core 3 305's 13,123, a delta of -79.1% for Intel. The single-core R23 test shows a similar gap: 8,877 for AMD versus 1,852 for Intel, again a -79.1% difference. This pattern repeats precisely across all six benchmarks, with the delta hovering at -79.1% or -79.2% in every case.

Breaking down the individual tests reveals consistent scaling. Cinebench R15 multicore: EPYC scores 6,338, Intel manages 1,322 (-79.1%). R15 single-core: 894 vs 186 (-79.2%). R20 multicore: 26,411 vs 5,511 (-79.1%). R20 single-core: 3,728 vs 777 (-79.2%). The single-core deltas are marginally larger (-79.2%) than multi-core (-79.1%), suggesting the EPYC's architecture squeeze out slightly more per-thread performance relative to its multi-thread advantage.

What's striking is that despite these enormous per-test margins, the average benchmark score for the EPYC (18,189) nearly matches the Core 3 (18,302). This occurs because the Core 3 305 has 17 benchmark entries in its dataset, including PassMark tests like data compression (146,857), floating point math (42,284), and integer math (32,295), while the EPYC only lists six Cinebench scores. The Core 3's PassMark results inflate its average, masking the AMD chip's dominance in rendering workloads.

The nearest rivals for each chip underscore their divergent positioning. The Core 3 305 sits within 0.4% of the Intel Core i3-14100, Intel Core 5 330, Intel Core 7 360, and AMD Ryzen 5 2600E. The EPYC 9274F's closest competitors are Intel Core 5 315, Intel Core i7-9700, Intel Core i7-1365U, and AMD Ryzen 7 5700U, all within 0.1%. Neither chip's rivals include the other, confirming they occupy different performance tiers despite similar aggregate scores.

FAQ

Q: Why does the EPYC 9274F win every Cinebench test by roughly 79%?

A: The EPYC 9274F has 24 cores and 48 threads compared to the Core 3 305's 6 cores and 6 threads. Across all six Cinebench tests, R15, R20, and R23 in both single and multi-core, the delta ranges from -79.1% to -79.2%, indicating the AMD chip delivers roughly 4.8x the performance in every rendering scenario.

Q: How can the average benchmark scores be nearly identical if the EPYC wins every head-to-head test?

A: The Core 3 305 has 17 benchmark entries, including PassMark tests where it scores highly (data compression at 146,857, floating point at 42,284). The EPYC 9274F only has six Cinebench scores. When averaged across all entries, the Core 3's PassMark results bring its average to 18,302, versus 18,189 for the EPYC, a difference of only 0.6%.

Q: Do both processors occupy the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both sit at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs. This is surprising given the EPYC's massive core count advantage, but the percentile reflects the full benchmark suite each chip was tested on, not just their head-to-head Cinebench results.

Q: What memory configurations do these chips support?

A: The Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC 9274F supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, roughly 7.7x the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has ECC memory support?

A: The EPYC 9274F supports ECC memory, while the Core 3 305 does not. The AMD chip also offers 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), compared to the Intel chip's 6 PCIe Gen 4 lanes.

Q: When were these processors released?

A: The EPYC 9274F launched on November 9, 2022, while the Core 3 305 has a release date of April 15, 2026. The Intel chip is newer by over three years.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9274F wins every rendering and compute-intensive scenario represented in the Cinebench suite. Its 24 cores and 48 threads deliver 62,884 in R23 multi-core, making it the clear choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, scientific simulation, and any workload that scales across many threads. The 256 MB shared L3 cache and twelve-channel DDR5 memory with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth further advantage data-heavy server workloads. The EPYC also wins on single-core performance, scoring 8,877 in R23 single-core versus 1,852 for the Core 3, a 4.8x advantage that benefits lightly-threaded applications too.

The Core 3 305's wins are confined to its PassMark results, where it shows relative strength in specific tasks. Its data compression score of 146,857 and extended instructions score of 13,543 suggest capable integer and SIMD performance for a mobile chip. The floating point math score of 42,284 and integer math of 32,295 indicate balanced general-purpose performance. However, these PassMark numbers have no direct EPYC comparison in the head-to-head data, so we cannot definitively claim the Core 3 wins any category against the AMD chip.

The Core 3 305's true advantage lies in its mobile design: 15 W TDP, integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics, and single-channel memory in a compact BGA package. The EPYC 9274F's 320 W TDP and SP5 socket make it unsuitable for portable systems. For battery-powered laptops and compact devices, the Core 3 is the only viable option of the two.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ dramatically: the EPYC 9274F has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clocks also diverge, the EPYC runs at 4.05 GHz base versus 1.50 GHz for the Core 3, though both boost to 4.30 GHz. TDP differs by an order of magnitude: 320 W for the AMD chip versus 15 W for the Intel chip.

Memory configurations are entirely different. The EPYC supports DDR5 across a twelve-channel bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory. The Core 3 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC. PCIe capabilities also contrast sharply: the EPYC offers 128 Gen 5 lanes, while the Core 3 provides 6 Gen 4 lanes.

The Core 3 305 includes integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe core), whereas the EPYC 9274F has no integrated graphics. Market segments differ, Mobile for Intel, Server/Workstation for AMD. Socket types are incompatible: Intel BGA 1516 versus AMD Socket SP5. The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $3060, while the Core 3's launch MSRP is $309.

Architecture Differences

The Core 3 305 uses Intel's Wildcat Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process at Intel's foundry. It features 6 cores with 192 KB L1 cache, 2.5 MB L2 cache, and 6 MB shared L3 cache. The chip belongs to the Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) generation and uses the part number SAE3L.

The EPYC 9274F is based on AMD's Zen 4 architecture with the Genoa codename, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 24 cores with 64 KB L1 cache per core, 1 MB L2 cache per core, and 256 MB shared L3 cache. The chip contains 52,560 million transistors across 8x 72 mm² dies, making it a multi-die server processor. It belongs to the EPYC 9004 series and EPYC (Zen 4 (Genoa)) generation, with part number 100-100000794.

The process node difference (3 nm Intel versus 5 nm TSMC) gives the Core 3 a manufacturing advantage, but the EPYC compensates with vastly more silicon area and cache. The EPYC's 256 MB L3 cache is 42.7x larger than the Core 3's 6 MB. Neither chip offers 3D V-Cache. Both have locked multipliers.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear performance hierarchy: the AMD EPYC 9274F is overwhelmingly faster in every Cinebench test, winning by roughly 79% across the board. Its 24 cores, 48 threads, 256 MB L3 cache, and twelve-channel memory make it the definitive choice for server workloads, heavy rendering, and multi-threaded computation. The EPYC also holds the single-core advantage, so there is no scenario in the head-to-head data where the Core 3 305 outperforms it.

However, the Core 3 305's 15 W TDP, integrated graphics, and mobile socket make it the only practical option for portable devices. Its 3 nm process and modern architecture deliver respectable PassMark results, particularly in data compression (146,857) and floating point math (42,284), for a 6-core mobile chip. The launch MSRP of $309 for the Core 3 versus $3060 for the EPYC further separates their intended markets.

The 72nd percentile ranking for both chips is a statistical artifact of their different benchmark datasets, not an indication of comparable performance. Anyone choosing between these two based on the head-to-head results should select the EPYC 9274F without hesitation, assuming their system can accommodate a 320 W server processor with a twelve-channel memory infrastructure. The Core 3 305 exists for a different purpose entirely: efficient, mobile computing where the EPYC's power and size requirements are impossible to meet.