AMD Ryzen 3 5305G vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no shared benchmark results between the AMD Ryzen 3 5305G and the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H. The head-to-head comparison table is empty, with zero recorded wins for either processor. This means any direct numerical comparison must rely on the available benchmark data for the Intel part and the architectural specifications of the AMD part, rather than side-by-side test scores.

For the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H, the recorded Cinebench results show a clear performance profile. In Cinebench R15, the multi-core score reaches 2418, while the single-core score is 341. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core score jumps to 10076, and the single-core score is 1422. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score climbs to 23991, with a single-core score of 3387. These numbers indicate a strong scaling pattern across successive rendering workloads, with multi-core performance growing substantially as the test becomes more demanding.

The Passmark suite for the Intel part provides additional granularity. The multi-thread score is 28545, while the single-thread score is 4013. Integer math reaches 62070, floating-point math hits 82415, and extended instructions score 24542. Data compression scores 280340, data encryption scores 21291, and random string sorting scores 34402. The find prime numbers test records a notably lower score of 299, while the physics test scores 2682. The average benchmark score for the Intel part is 34485, placing it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

The AMD Ryzen 3 5305G has no benchmark entries in the database, so its performance can only be inferred from its specifications: 4 cores, 8 threads, a base clock of 4.00 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. Its percentile versus all CPUs is listed at 50, which suggests mid-pack positioning, but without recorded scores, direct numerical comparisons are impossible.

The Verdict

The data shows a stark contrast between the two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has a substantial benchmark presence, with an average score of 34485 and a 84th percentile ranking. Its nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core i7-13700HX with an average score of 34554 (a delta of -0.2 percent relative to the Ultra 5), the Intel Core i5-13450HX at 34333 (0.4 percent ahead of the Ultra 5), the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X at 34260 (0.7 percent ahead), and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 at 34222 (0.8 percent ahead). These deltas are all within one percent, indicating that the Ultra 5 336H performs in a tightly clustered band around these established desktop and mobile processors.

The AMD Ryzen 3 5305G, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark scores and a median percentile ranking. Its specification sheet shows a desktop-oriented part with 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel part is a mobile processor with 16 cores and 16 threads. The core count difference alone suggests that in multi-threaded workloads, the Intel part would likely dominate, though no direct measurements exist to confirm this. The single-core story is less clear from the data, as the AMD part's boost clock of 4.20 GHz is close to the Intel part's 4.60 GHz, but again, no benchmark numbers are available for the AMD side.

From the recorded data, the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H is the only processor with measurable performance, and its scores place it in the upper tier of the database. The AMD Ryzen 3 5305G appears as a lower-tier desktop chip based on its percentile and lack of benchmarks, but the absence of test results means any verdict must be hedged. The database indicates that users seeking verified multi-core performance would look to the Intel part, while the AMD part remains an unmeasured quantity.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 3 5305G have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The database lists no benchmark entries for the AMD Ryzen 3 5305G, with an average benchmark score of zero and zero wins in head-to-head comparisons.

Q: What is the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H's best multi-core score?

A: The highest recorded multi-core score for the Intel part is 23991 in Cinebench R23, followed by 10076 in Cinebench R20 and 2418 in Cinebench R15.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel part's average score of 34485 is 0.2 percent below the Intel Core i7-13700HX, 0.4 percent above the Intel Core i5-13450HX, 0.7 percent above the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, and 0.8 percent above the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 5305G has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 5305G uses a 7 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H uses a 3 nm process from Intel.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 5305G supports DDR4 memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The AMD Ryzen 3 5305G has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ notably: the AMD part runs at 4.00 GHz, while the Intel part runs at 1.90 GHz. Boost clocks also differ: 4.20 GHz for the AMD part versus 4.60 GHz for the Intel part. Thermal design power shows a significant gap, with the AMD part rated at 65 watts and the Intel part at 25 watts.

The sockets are completely different: the AMD part uses AMD Socket AM4, while the Intel part uses Intel BGA 2540. The AMD part has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel part does not. Process nodes differ as well: 7 nm for AMD versus 3 nm for Intel. The AMD part comes from TSMC, while the Intel part comes from Intel's own foundry. The AMD part has a transistor count of 10,700 million and a die size of 180 mm², while the Intel part has no recorded transistor count or die size.

Cache configurations diverge sharply. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of L3 cache. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support differs: the AMD part uses DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, while the Intel part uses DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. PCIe support also differs: the AMD part has Gen 3 with 16 lanes, while the Intel part has Gen 5 with 12 lanes.

The integrated graphics differ as well: the AMD part features Radeon Vega 6, while the Intel part features Intel Xe3 Graphics. The market segments are different, with the AMD part designated for desktop and the Intel part for mobile. Release dates also differ: the AMD part was released in February 2025, while the Intel part was released in January 2026. The part numbers are distinct: 100-000001802 for AMD and SA4RD for Intel.

Architecture Differences

The architectural foundations of the two processors reflect different design philosophies and technology generations. The AMD Ryzen 3 5305G is based on Zen 3 architecture under the codename Cezanne, belonging to the Ryzen 3 generation. It uses a 7 nm process node fabricated by TSMC, with a transistor count of 10,700 million and a die size of 180 mm². The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of L3. The memory controller supports DDR4 in a dual-channel configuration, delivering 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth. PCIe connectivity is Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H is built on Panther Lake architecture under the codename Panther Lake, belonging to the Ultra 5 generation. It uses a 3 nm process node fabricated by Intel, with no recorded transistor count or die size. The cache hierarchy is substantially larger: 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The memory controller supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in a dual-channel configuration, delivering 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. PCIe connectivity is Gen 5 with 12 lanes from the CPU.

The core count difference reflects a fundamental architectural divergence: the AMD part uses 4 cores with simultaneous multithreading to reach 8 threads, while the Intel part uses 16 physical cores with no multithreading, resulting in 16 threads. The Intel part's lower base clock of 1.90 GHz likely reflects power management for mobile operation, while its higher boost clock of 4.60 GHz allows for short bursts of high performance. The AMD part's higher base clock of 4.00 GHz and lower boost clock of 4.20 GHz suggest a more consistent, sustained performance profile for desktop use.

The integrated graphics architectures also differ: the AMD part uses Radeon Vega 6, while the Intel part uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. Both processors lack ECC memory support. The production status for both is listed as Active, indicating ongoing availability.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the recorded data, the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H wins in every measurable benchmark category, simply because it is the only processor with benchmark entries. Its multi-core scores in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 demonstrate strong scaling across rendering workloads. Its Passmark results show particular strength in data compression (280340), integer math (62070), and floating-point math (82415), while the find prime numbers test (299) and physics test (2682) represent relative weak points.

The AMD Ryzen 3 5305G, with no benchmark scores, cannot claim a recorded win in any category. Its specifications suggest potential advantages in specific scenarios, but the data does not confirm them. The higher base clock of 4.00 GHz compared to the Intel part's 1.90 GHz could indicate an advantage in lightly threaded tasks that depend on sustained clock speeds, but no measurements exist to verify this. The 65 watt TDP, while higher than the Intel part's 25 watt rating, suggests a desktop part designed for consistent operation without the power constraints of mobile hardware.

The market segments hint at intended use cases: the AMD part targets desktops with a socketed AM4 platform, while the Intel part targets mobile systems with a BGA socket. Users requiring a replacement or upgrade for an existing AM4 desktop system would find the AMD part compatible with that ecosystem. Users seeking a mobile processor with high multi-core throughput would find the Intel part's 16 cores and 84th percentile ranking compelling. The Intel part's memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, more than double the AMD part's 51.2 GB/s, suggests an advantage in memory-intensive workloads, though again, no direct comparison exists.

The nearest rival data for the Intel part places it within one percent of several established processors, indicating that its performance is competitive with a broad range of desktop and mobile chips. The AMD part's 50th percentile ranking, without any benchmark scores, leaves its competitive position undefined. The data ultimately shows a clear picture for the Intel part and an incomplete picture for the AMD part, with the former delivering verified performance and the latter remaining an unmeasured quantity in the database.