AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300GE vs Intel Core 3 305 Comparison

# AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300GE vs Intel Core 3 305

The benchmark data presents a clear overall winner: the Intel Core 3 305 takes 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, including every Cinebench multi-core and single-core workload, while the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300GE counters with 3 wins concentrated in integer-heavy and sorting tasks. Both processors sit at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs, with average benchmark scores of 18,505 for the AMD part and 18,302 for the Intel part, placing them within 0.7% of each other in overall standing. The Intel part's nearest rival is the Intel Core i3-14100 (0.1% ahead), while the AMD part's closest competitor is the Intel Core i5-13420H (0% delta), indicating that neither chip dramatically outclasses the other in aggregate performance.

The Verdict

The Intel Core 3 305 is the default choice for users prioritizing raw multi-threaded throughput and single-thread responsiveness. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13,123 exceeds the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300GE's 12,511 by 4.7%, and its single-core R23 result of 1,852 beats the AMD's 1,766 by the same margin. The Intel part also dominates floating-point and physics workloads, posting a 40.3% advantage in PassMark floating-point math and a 30.5% lead in PassMark physics, making it the stronger pick for simulation, rendering, or any workload that leverages SIMD-heavy code paths.

The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300GE, however, is not without its niches. It wins PassMark data compression by 10.7% (162,623 vs 146,857), integer math by 24.9% (40,348 vs 32,295), and random string sorting by 14.2% (20,134 vs 17,623). These results suggest the AMD part handles integer-heavy database, archival, or string-processing tasks more efficiently. Additionally, the AMD chip features ECC memory support and dual-channel DDR5 memory (83.2 GB/s bandwidth) versus the Intel's single-channel DDR5/LPDDR5X (59.7 GB/s), making it the more robust platform for reliability-sensitive workstation builds despite its lower aggregate scores.

For buyers, the decision hinges on workload: choose Intel for general compute, encoding, and physics; choose AMD for integer-centric data tasks, ECC reliability, and higher memory bandwidth. The Intel part carries a launch MSRP of $309, while the AMD part has no listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge fundamentally in design philosophy. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300GE uses 4 cores with 8 threads, built on TSMC's 4 nm process with 20,900 million transistors on a 137 mm² die. It employs AMD's Zen 4 architecture under the Phoenix2 codename, part of the 8000 series. The Intel Core 3 305 offers 6 cores but only 6 threads (no hyper-threading), fabricated on Intel's 3 nm process under the Wildcat Lake codename. The core count difference is significant: Intel has 50% more physical cores, but AMD's simultaneous multithreading closes the logical thread gap to 8 vs 6.

Cache hierarchies differ markedly. AMD allocates 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 8 MB of shared L3. Intel provides 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD part's per-core L2 allocation is larger, but Intel's total L2 (2.5 MB) is smaller than AMD's aggregate L2 (4 MB across 4 cores). L3 favors AMD at 8 MB vs Intel's 6 MB.

Platform support is another differentiator. AMD uses the AM5 socket with 14 PCIe Gen 4 lanes (CPU only), while Intel uses BGA 1516 (soldered) with 6 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. AMD supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory; Intel supports single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC. The AMD part's integrated graphics is the Radeon 740M, while Intel uses Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe core). The AMD part has a 35W TDP and base/boost clocks of 3.40/4.90 GHz; the Intel part has a 15W TDP with 1.50/4.30 GHz clocks. Despite the Intel part's lower base clock, its boost reaches 4.30 GHz, close to the AMD's 4.90 GHz maximum.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 3 305 dominates across the board in Cinebench and most PassMark tests. Its multi-core wins are consistent at roughly 4.6-4.8% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, indicating a steady throughput advantage in threaded rendering workloads. Single-core Cinebench wins are similarly tight at 4.6-4.8%, reflecting higher per-thread efficiency in the Intel design. PassMark multi-thread shows a 6.7% Intel advantage (15,439 vs 14,403), and PassMark single-thread shows a 3.7% lead (3,977 vs 3,828). The Intel part's largest wins come in floating-point math (40.3% ahead), physics (30.5% ahead), and prime number finding (54.8% ahead, 115 vs 52). Data encryption also favors Intel by 16.3% (11,019 vs 9,224), and extended instructions by 9.1% (13,543 vs 12,313).

The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300GE wins three specific workloads. Integer math is its strongest showing, beating Intel by 24.9% (40,348 vs 32,295). Data compression sees AMD ahead by 10.7% (162,623 vs 146,857), and random string sorting by 14.2% (20,134 vs 17,623). These wins suggest AMD's architecture excels at integer arithmetic, data packing, and sort algorithms, likely benefiting from its larger L2 cache per core and higher memory bandwidth from dual-channel support.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core 3 305 scores 13,123 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 4.7% higher than the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300GE's 12,511.

Q: Does the AMD processor win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300GE wins three tests: PassMark data compression (162,623 vs 146,857), integer math (40,348 vs 32,295), and random string sorting (20,134 vs 17,623).

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The AMD part supports dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory, while the Intel part supports single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300GE has 4 cores and 8 threads due to simultaneous multithreading.

Q: How do the processors compare in single-thread performance?

A: The Intel part leads in PassMark single-thread with 3,977 vs 3,828 (3.7% ahead) and in Cinebench R23 single-core with 1,852 vs 1,766 (4.6% ahead).

Q: What are the power ratings?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300GE has a 35W TDP, while the Intel Core 3 305 has a 15W TDP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core 3 305 wins every Cinebench iteration, with near-identical margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, Intel scores 1,322 vs AMD's 1,260 (4.7% ahead). Single-core R15 shows 186 vs 177 (4.8% ahead). Cinebench R20 multi-core: 5,511 vs 5,254 (4.7% ahead); single-core: 777 vs 741 (4.6% ahead). Cinebench R23 multi-core: 13,123 vs 12,511 (4.7% ahead); single-core: 1,852 vs 1,766 (4.6% ahead). These consistent margins suggest Intel's architectural efficiency in threaded and single-threaded workloads is uniform across Cinebench versions.

PassMark results show a more varied picture. Intel wins multi-thread with 15,439 vs 14,403 (6.7% ahead) and single-thread with 3,977 vs 3,828 (3.7% ahead). Intel's largest margin is in find prime numbers, scoring 115 vs AMD's 52, a 54.8% advantage that underscores a massive gap in integer-heavy algorithmic workloads. Floating-point math also heavily favors Intel: 42,284 vs 25,258, a 40.3% lead. Physics follows with 1,233 vs 857 (30.5% ahead). Data encryption goes to Intel at 11,019 vs 9,224 (16.3% ahead), and extended instructions at 13,543 vs 12,313 (9.1% ahead).

The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300GE's wins are equally decisive in its three areas. Integer math shows AMD at 40,348 vs Intel's 32,295, a 24.9% advantage. Data compression: 162,623 vs 146,857 (10.7% ahead). Random string sorting: 20,134 vs 17,623 (14.2% ahead). These results indicate that for workloads involving integer arithmetic, data compression algorithms, and sorting large datasets, the AMD part is not just competitive but clearly superior, likely leveraging its dual-channel memory bandwidth and larger per-core cache to sustain higher throughput in memory-latency-sensitive tasks.

The overall win tally of 14-3 in favor of Intel is decisive, but the nature of AMD's wins—concentrated in data processing and integer operations—suggests that specific use cases can flip the balance. For a database server or archival workload, the AMD part's 24.9% integer math lead and 14.2% sorting advantage could translate to real-world speedups despite its multi-core deficit. Conversely, for rendering, physics simulation, or general productivity, the Intel part's consistent 4.7% Cinebench lead and 30.5% physics advantage make it the safer recommendation. The data does not support a single universal winner; the choice depends entirely on workload characteristics.