AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT vs Intel Core 3 305 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a decisive overall advantage for the AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT, which wins 12 of the 17 recorded tests. The Intel Core 3 305 takes 5 wins, but the margins tell a more nuanced story than the raw count suggests.

In the Cinebench suite, the AMD part is consistently 20.8% ahead across R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core. The R23 multi-core score of 15848 versus 13123 is a clear indicator of sustained throughput advantage. Single-core R23 shows the same 20.8% gap, with 2237 against 1852. This uniformity across the entire Cinebench family points to a stable architectural efficiency edge rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The PassMark integer math test delivers the largest single delta in the comparison: the Ryzen 5 5500GT scores 64218 versus 32295, a 98.8% lead. That is nearly double the throughput. Data compression also heavily favors AMD at 243904 versus 146857, a 66.1% margin. Random string sorting shows a 39.5% advantage, and multithreaded performance is 23.1% higher at 19000 versus 15439. Data encryption rounds out the AMD wins with a 33.9% gap.

The Intel Core 3 305 has its own pockets of superiority. The most striking is the PassMark find prime numbers test, where Intel scores 115 versus AMD's 54, a 53% advantage. This is a highly specialized workload, but the magnitude is noteworthy. Floating point math also goes Intel's way: 42284 versus 36694, a 13.2% lead. The physics test shows a 31.9% margin for Intel at 1233 versus 840. Single-threaded PassMark scores put Intel ahead by 22.9%, with 3977 against 3066. That single-thread PassMark result is interesting because it contradicts the Cinebench single-core pattern, where AMD leads. The two benchmarks measure different aspects of single-thread performance, and the data shows Intel excels in the PassMark variant while AMD excels in the Cinebench variant.

Overall, the average benchmark score in the database places the Ryzen 5 5500GT at 26748, which sits in the 79th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 3 305 averages 18302, landing in the 72nd percentile. The AMD part's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9554 at 26743 (0% delta), the Intel Core i7-12700H at 26717 (0.1% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 5 7545U at 26849 (-0.4% delta). The Intel Core 3 305's nearest rivals are the Intel Core i3-14100 at 18318 (-0.1% delta), the Intel Core 5 330 at 18345 (-0.2% delta), and the Intel Core 7 360 at 18374 (-0.4% delta). This places the two chips in very different performance tiers, with the AMD part competing against much higher-end silicon.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher multi-threaded performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT wins the PassMark multithread test with 19000 against 15439, a 23.1% margin. It also leads Cinebench R23 multi-core by 20.8% with 15848 versus 13123.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 305 win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes. It wins PassMark find prime numbers (115 versus 54, a 53% advantage), floating point math (42284 versus 36694, 13.2% ahead), physics (1233 versus 840, 31.9% ahead), and the PassMark single-thread test (3977 versus 3066, 22.9% ahead).

Q: Why does the AMD chip win Cinebench single-core but lose PassMark single-thread?

A: The data shows AMD leads Cinebench R23 single-core by 20.8% (2237 versus 1852), while Intel leads PassMark single-thread by 22.9% (3977 versus 3066). These tests stress different instruction patterns and scoring methodologies, so the results are not contradictory but rather reflect workload-specific behavior.

Q: How do these processors compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT has a dual-channel memory bus with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 3 305 has a single-channel bus but achieves 59.7 GB/s, which is higher despite the narrower interface, due to its support for DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: Both have 6 cores, but the AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT supports 12 threads while the Intel Core 3 305 supports only 6 threads. This means the AMD part can process two threads per core, while the Intel part is limited to one thread per core.

Q: Which chip has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT boosts to 4.40 GHz, while the Intel Core 3 305 boosts to 4.30 GHz. The AMD part also has a much higher base clock at 3.60 GHz versus 1.50 GHz for Intel.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT uses the Zen 3 architecture on the Cezanne codename, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 10,700 million transistors into a 180 mm² die. The Intel Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The die size and transistor count are not recorded for the Intel part.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The AMD chip has 64 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, with 16 MB of L3 cache. The Intel chip reports 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2 total, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD design gives each core private L1 and L2, while the Intel design aggregates the higher-level caches at the chip level. The larger L3 on AMD likely contributes to its strong data compression and integer math results.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT supports DDR4 over a dual-channel memory bus. The Intel Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus. The Intel part's bandwidth is higher at 59.7 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s for AMD, which may explain why Intel wins the floating point math test where memory throughput is critical.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The AMD chip provides Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes. The Intel chip provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The newer PCIe generation on Intel offers higher per-lane bandwidth, but the AMD part has more lanes available for expansion.

The integrated graphics are different as well. AMD uses Radeon Vega 7, while Intel uses Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The production status for both is Active, but the AMD part is a desktop segment chip while the Intel part is a mobile segment chip.

Specification Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, with a TDP of 65 W. The Intel Core 3 305 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, with a TDP of 15 W. The power envelope difference is substantial, with the AMD part drawing significantly more power to sustain higher sustained clocks.

Socket and form factor separate them clearly. AMD uses the AM4 socket, a desktop platform with upgrade options. Intel uses BGA 1516, a surface-mounted mobile socket that is not user-replaceable. The market segments reflect this: AMD is Desktop, Intel is Mobile.

The AMD chip has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking. The Intel chip has a locked multiplier. The part numbers are 100-000001489 for AMD and SAE3L for Intel.

ECC memory support is false for both. The AMD chip supports DDR4 only, while the Intel chip supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The memory bus width differs: dual-channel for AMD, single-channel for Intel.

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT has a launch MSRP of $125. The Intel Core 3 305 has a launch MSRP of $309.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT dominates in integer-heavy and throughput-oriented workloads. The 98.8% lead in integer math is the standout result, indicating strong ALU throughput for general computation. Data compression at 66.1% ahead and random string sorting at 39.5% ahead reinforce this pattern. The Cinebench sweep across all versions and both core counts shows that the AMD part is the better choice for rendering workloads. The 20.8% consistent margin in Cinebench suggests that the combination of 12 threads and a larger 16 MB L3 cache provides a sustained advantage in multi-threaded rendering tasks. Data encryption also favors AMD by 33.9%.

The Intel Core 3 305 wins in specialized math and physics simulations. The 53% lead in prime number finding is a decisive result for number theory workloads. Floating point math at 13.2% ahead indicates better FPU throughput, which matters for scientific computing and certain simulation tasks. The physics test at 31.9% ahead suggests stronger performance in physics engine calculations. The PassMark single-thread score at 22.9% ahead shows that for single-threaded PassMark workloads, Intel has the edge, despite losing the Cinebench single-core comparison.

The mobile versus desktop split is also important. The Intel chip's 15 W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops, while the AMD part's 65 W TDP requires a desktop cooling solution. The Intel chip supports newer memory types but with a single-channel bus, which limits memory bandwidth despite the higher raw number.

The Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT is the clear winner for desktop users who need multi-threaded performance, rendering capability, and integer-heavy computation. The 12-thread configuration, larger L3 cache, and dual-channel memory bus deliver consistent 20.8% advantages across Cinebench and 98.8% in integer math. The 79th percentile standing and average score of 26748 place it in a tier that rivals much more expensive processors, as shown by its proximity to the AMD EPYC 9554 and Intel Core i9-11900K in the nearest rivals data.

The Intel Core 3 305 serves a different purpose. Its 15 W TDP and mobile BGA socket make it a laptop processor. The 72nd percentile and average score of 18302 position it alongside the Intel Core i3-14100 and Intel Core 5 330. For users who prioritize single-threaded PassMark performance, floating point math, and physics workloads, the Intel part has specific advantages. The prime number finding result at 53% ahead of AMD is exceptional for that narrow workload.

The launch MSRP difference is notable, but the two chips are not direct competitors due to platform and form factor. The AMD part targets desktop builds on AM4 with an unlocked multiplier. The Intel part targets mobile devices with a locked multiplier and soldered mounting. The choice between them depends on the intended use case: the AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT for desktop multi-threaded workloads, the Intel Core 3 305 for mobile single-threaded and floating point tasks. The benchmark data does not support a single universal recommendation, as each chip leads in distinct categories that align with different usage scenarios.