AMD Ryzen 3 8300G vs Intel Core 3 305 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two processors into clearly different use-case territories. The Intel Core 3 305 wins 14 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the AMD Ryzen 3 8300G takes only 3. That is not a close overall margin, but the AMD victories are concentrated in specific workloads that matter for certain buyers.

The Intel part dominates the Cinebench suite entirely. Across R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core tests, the Core 3 305 leads by a consistent 7.3% to 7.5%. That means for rendering, 3D modeling, or any task that scales across CPU cores, the Intel chip is the safer pick. The multi-core Cinebench R23 result of 13123 against 12217 is a solid 7.4% advantage, and the single-core score of 1852 against 1724 shows Intel also has the edge in lightly threaded work.

The Intel part also runs away with several PassMark sub-tests. The biggest gap is in prime number finding, where Intel scores 115 versus AMD's 47, a massive 144.7% difference. Floating point math also favors Intel heavily at 42284 versus 25336, a 66.9% lead. Physics simulation shows a similar pattern at 1233 versus 755, a 63.3% advantage. Data encryption goes to Intel at 11019 versus 9115 (20.9% ahead), and extended instruction workloads see Intel lead by 9.6% with 13543 versus 12354. Even the general multi-thread PassMark score favors Intel at 15439 versus 14018, a 10.1% gap.

Where does the AMD Ryzen 3 8300G win? The three AMD victories are all in specific algorithm types. Data compression goes to AMD at 158952 versus 146857, a 7.6% lead. Integer math is a clear AMD win at 40534 versus 32295, a 20.3% advantage. Random string sorting also favors AMD at 19013 versus 17623, a 7.3% edge. These are not synthetic corners; they map to real workloads like file archiving, database operations, and certain types of data processing. If your daily driver involves compression tools or integer-heavy calculations, the AMD chip has a measurable edge.

The overall average benchmark scores are nearly identical. The Intel Core 3 305 sits at 18302, while the AMD Ryzen 3 8300G sits at 18169. Both processors land in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. That means for general mixed workloads, the two are effectively peers, but the distribution of strengths is very different. Intel wins broadly with smaller margins in most tests, while AMD wins narrowly but with a very large margin in integer math.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different design philosophies and foundries. The Intel Core 3 305 is built on a 3 nm process at Intel, while the AMD Ryzen 3 8300G uses a 4 nm process at TSMC. Intel's part is a mobile segment chip on the Wildcat Lake codename, while AMD's is a desktop part in the Phoenix2 family under the Zen 4 architecture. The AMD chip has a known transistor count of 20,900 million and a die size of 137 mm²; the Intel part does not have those figures recorded.

Core and thread counts differ significantly. Intel runs 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. AMD runs 4 cores and 8 threads, using simultaneous multithreading to double the thread count. The base and boost clocks go in opposite directions: Intel starts at 1.50 GHz and boosts to 4.30 GHz, while AMD starts at 3.40 GHz and boosts to 4.90 GHz. The AMD chip has a higher peak clock, but the Intel chip's higher core count and efficient node appear to compensate in most tests.

Cache layouts are also distinct. Intel has 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. AMD has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The AMD L3 is larger in total, but the Intel cache arrangement works well enough to win the majority of benchmarks.

Memory support is another major divergence. Intel supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. AMD supports DDR5 only but runs dual-channel with 83.2 GB/s. That is a 39% bandwidth advantage for AMD, which likely explains its wins in data compression and integer math, where memory throughput matters. Intel does not support ECC memory; AMD does. The PCIe configurations differ too: Intel provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while AMD provides Gen 4 with 14 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics also differ. Intel uses Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while AMD uses the Radeon 740M. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, so no performance claim is made here, but the presence of iGPUs on both means either can run a basic display without a discrete card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are the cleanest comparison because both chips were tested under the same workloads. In R15 multi-core, Intel scores 1322 against AMD's 1231, a 7.4% lead. In R15 single-core, Intel scores 186 against 173, a 7.5% lead. R20 multi-core shows 5511 versus 5131, again 7.4%. R20 single-core shows 777 versus 724, a 7.3% gap. R23 multi-core shows 13123 versus 12217, and R23 single-core shows 1852 versus 1724, both at 7.4%. The consistency is striking: across six Cinebench runs, the Intel advantage never deviates outside a 7.3% to 7.5% band. That suggests a fundamental per-clock or per-core efficiency edge, not a workload-specific fluke.

PassMark results are more varied. The largest Intel win is in prime number finding at 115 versus 47, a 144.7% margin that is almost 2.5 times the AMD score. Floating point math is next at 42284 versus 25336, a 66.9% lead. Physics comes in at 1233 versus 755, a 63.3% advantage. Data encryption shows 11019 versus 9115, a 20.9% lead. Extended instructions show 13543 versus 12354, a 9.6% edge. Multi-thread overall shows 15439 versus 14018, a 10.1% lead. Single-thread shows 3977 versus 3778, a 5.3% edge.

The AMD wins are just as clear in their own domains. Integer math is the biggest AMD victory at 40534 versus 32295, a 20.3% lead. Data compression goes to AMD at 158952 versus 146857, a 7.6% edge. Random string sorting favors AMD at 19013 versus 17623, a 7.3% margin. These three wins are not trivial; in integer math, AMD is more than a fifth faster than Intel, which is a substantial gap for that specific workload.

The head-to-head table also shows that Intel's wins are more numerous but sometimes smaller, while AMD's wins are fewer but with one very large margin. If your workload is integer-heavy, the AMD chip is not just slightly better; it is decisively better. If your workload is floating-point heavy or involves Cinebench-style rendering, the Intel chip is consistently better across the board.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core 3 305 scores 13123, which is 7.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 3 8300G's 12217.

Q: Why does the AMD Ryzen 3 8300G win integer math by such a large margin?

A: The AMD chip scores 40534 versus 32295, a 20.3% advantage. This is likely related to its dual-channel memory bus and 83.2 GB/s bandwidth, versus Intel's single-channel 59.7 GB/s, though the database does not state a direct causal link.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 3 8300G supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 3 305 does not.

Q: Which chip has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD Ryzen 3 8300G has 4 cores and 8 threads. Intel has more physical cores, AMD has more threads.

Q: What is the overall percentile ranking for both CPUs?

A: Both the Intel Core 3 305 and the AMD Ryzen 3 8300G sit in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 8300G boosts to 4.90 GHz, while the Intel Core 3 305 boosts to 4.30 GHz. Despite this, Intel wins the single-thread PassMark test at 3977 versus 3778.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple split. For rendering, physics simulation, floating-point math, encryption, and general multi-threaded productivity, the Intel Core 3 305 is the better choice. It wins 14 of 17 tests, including every Cinebench benchmark, and its 7.4% consistent lead in those tests means you will see real, measurable gains in 3D and video work. The 144.7% lead in prime number finding and 66.9% lead in floating point math are not marginal; they are dominant.

For integer-heavy workloads, compression, and string sorting, the AMD Ryzen 3 8300G is the better pick. The 20.3% lead in integer math is the single largest margin in either direction, and the 7.6% lead in data compression plus 7.3% lead in random string sorting make it a strong option for database work, archiving, or any tool that processes large amounts of non-floating-point data. The AMD chip also supports ECC memory, which the Intel part does not, and it offers a dual-channel memory bus with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth versus Intel's 59.7 GB/s.

The overall average scores are nearly tied at 18302 for Intel and 18169 for AMD, so neither chip is a universal winner. Pick Intel if your software leans on Cinebench-style rendering or floating-point calculations. Pick AMD if your software is integer-heavy and you want ECC memory support. Both sit at the same 72nd percentile, so you are not sacrificing overall standing either way. The decision comes down to what your specific applications do, not which chip is "better" in the abstract.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 305 | AMD Ryzen 3 8300G |

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

| Cores | 6 | 4 |

| Threads | 6 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | AMD Socket AM5 |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 4 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Phoenix2 |

| Architecture | Not recorded | Zen 4 |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2.5 MB | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 83.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes | Gen 4, 14 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | Radeon 740M |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 20,900 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 137 mm² |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | $176 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |