AMD Ryzen 5 8400F vs Intel Core 3 305 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two processors into very different roles. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F dominates almost every workload category, winning 14 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons. Its biggest advantages appear in integer math, data compression, and random string sorting, where it leads by margins ranging from 96.2% to 129.2%. These are classic throughput-oriented tasks that reward multiple cores and simultaneous multithreading, and the Ryzen 5 8400F clearly delivers there.

The Intel Core 3 305 takes only three wins, but they are concentrated in specific areas. It wins both PassMark single-thread tests by 7.3%, and it wins the prime number finding test by 22.6%. The single-thread result is notable because the Ryzen 5 8400F wins every Cinebench single-core test by roughly 59%. That suggests the Intel part has a different performance profile: strong in certain scalar integer workloads, but weaker in the broader Cinebench rendering tasks that the AMD chip handles with ease.

For users running threaded productivity workloads, Cinebench renders, encryption, or sorting operations, the Ryzen 5 8400F is the clear choice. The data shows a 58% advantage across all three Cinebench versions in both multi-core and single-core tests, and a 58% lead in PassMark multithread. The Intel Core 3 305, by contrast, shows its strength in lightweight single-threaded tasks and prime number calculations, which are niche but real use cases.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this split. The Ryzen 5 8400F posts an average score of 25005, placing it at the 77th percentile among all CPUs. The Intel Core 3 305 averages 18302, at the 72nd percentile. Both sit close to their nearest rivals in the database, with the AMD chip within 0.4% of the AMD EPYC 9474F and the Intel chip within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 5 2600E. These percentile positions suggest the Ryzen part belongs in a higher performance tier overall, while the Intel part competes more closely with lower-end desktop and older mobile parts.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F uses the Zen 4 architecture on the Phoenix codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It packs 25,000 million transistors into a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, built on a 3 nm process at Intel, though the database records no transistor count or die size for it.

Core and thread counts differ significantly despite both having six cores. The AMD chip supports 12 threads via simultaneous multithreading, while the Intel chip has six threads total, matching its core count. This explains much of the multi-threaded benchmark gap. The Ryzen part also runs much higher clocks: 4.20 GHz base and 4.70 GHz boost, versus 1.50 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost for the Intel part. The Intel chip's low base clock suggests a power-constrained design, consistent with its 15 W TDP versus the AMD part's 65 W TDP.

Cache hierarchies also diverge sharply. The AMD processor offers 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel processor lists 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2 total, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ryzen part's larger L3 cache, combined with its higher clocks and SMT, gives it a substantial advantage in cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory support separates the two as well. The AMD chip uses dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel chip supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but runs single-channel, with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. That bandwidth difference directly impacts memory-heavy tasks like data compression and sorting. PCIe lanes also differ: the AMD part provides Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, while the Intel part provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes.

The platforms could not be more different. The Ryzen 5 8400F uses AMD Socket AM5, has an unlocked multiplier, and targets the desktop market. The Intel Core 3 305 uses Intel BGA 1516, has a locked multiplier, and targets the mobile market. The Intel part includes integrated graphics (Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core), while the AMD part has no integrated graphics at all. Neither supports ECC memory.

The launch dates also differ. The AMD processor launched on March 31, 2024, while the Intel processor launched on April 15, 2026. The AMD part has a launch MSRP of $170, and the Intel part has a launch MSRP of $309.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F averages 25005, compared to 18302 for the Intel Core 3 305. The AMD chip sits at the 77th percentile among all CPUs, while the Intel chip sits at the 72nd percentile.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 305 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins three tests. It leads the PassMark single-thread and singlethread tests by 7.3% (3977 versus 3685 in both), and it wins the PassMark find prime numbers test by 22.6% (115 versus 89).

Q: How large is the AMD chip's advantage in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Ryzen 5 8400F leads by 58% in PassMark multithread (24389 versus 15439) and by 58.9% across all three Cinebench multi-core versions: R15 (2101 versus 1322), R20 (8757 versus 5511), and R23 (20851 versus 13123).

Q: What memory configurations do these processors support?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F uses dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but runs single-channel with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Intel Core 3 305 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has no integrated graphics, so it requires a discrete GPU.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F provides Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes. The Intel Core 3 305 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 8400F | Intel Core 3 305 |

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

| Cores | 6 | 6 |

| Threads | 12 | 6 |

| Base clock | 4.20 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.70 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 15 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Not recorded |

| Codename | Phoenix | Wildcat Lake |

| Process node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | Not recorded |

| Die size | 178 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 cache | 64 KB per core | 192 KB |

| L2 cache | 1 MB per core | 2.5 MB |

| L3 cache | 16 MB shared | 6 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 lanes | Gen 4, 6 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | N/A | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Multiplier unlocked | Yes | No |

| Release date | 2024-03-31 | 2026-04-15 |

| Launch MSRP | $170 | $309 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows total dominance for the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 2101 against 1322, a 58.9% lead. In single-core, the margin is 59.1% (296 versus 186). The same pattern repeats in R20: 8757 versus 5511 for multi-core (58.9% lead) and 1236 versus 777 for single-core (59.1% lead). Cinebench R23 continues the trend with 20851 versus 13123 in multi-core and 2943 versus 1852 in single-core, both at 58.9% margins. The consistency of these deltas across all three Cinebench versions suggests a stable architectural advantage rather than workload-specific noise.

PassMark integer math delivers the largest victory for the AMD chip. The Ryzen 5 8400F scores 74021 versus 32295, a 129.2% advantage. This test heavily rewards the AMD part's combination of higher clocks, SMT, and larger cache. Data compression shows a 96.2% lead (288158 versus 146857), and random string sorting shows a 96.4% lead (34604 versus 17623). These near-identical margins in compression and sorting suggest memory bandwidth and cache capacity are the limiting factors, and the AMD chip's dual-channel setup with 83.2 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s provides the edge.

Data encryption goes to the AMD chip by 51.1% (16646 versus 11019), while extended instructions go to it by 63.7% (22175 versus 13543). Floating-point math is closer: the AMD chip wins 46217 versus 42284, a 9.3% margin. Physics tests show a modest 8% lead (1332 versus 1233). PassMark multithread gives the AMD chip a 58% win (24389 versus 15439), matching the Cinebench multi-core margins.

The Intel Core 3 305 takes its wins in specific niches. PassMark single-thread and singlethread both show 3977 versus 3685, a 7.3% lead for Intel. Prime number finding shows 115 versus 89, a 22.6% lead. These wins indicate the Intel chip has competitive scalar execution and efficient prime calculation routines, but they do not offset the AMD chip's broader superiority across 14 of 17 tests.

The overall picture from the recorded data is clear. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F outperforms the Intel Core 3 305 in the vast majority of measured workloads, often by very large margins. The Intel chip's single-thread and prime number wins are real but narrow, while the AMD chip's wins in integer math, compression, sorting, encryption, and rendering are decisive. The Ryzen part's higher TDP, dual-channel memory, SMT, and larger caches translate directly into benchmark performance. The Intel part's low-power mobile design with single-channel memory limits its throughput, despite a smaller process node and a newer release date.