AMD Ryzen 7 260 vs Intel Core 3 305 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a decisive overall victory for the AMD Ryzen 7 260, which wins 10 of the 15 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The most lopsided result is in PassMark integer math, where the AMD part scores 96,737 against 32,295 for the Intel Core 3 305, a 199.5% advantage. This metric reflects raw arithmetic throughput, and the gap is so wide that it defines the two processors' positioning: the Ryzen 7 260 is built for heavy computational workloads, while the Core 3 305 is not.

Data compression shows a similarly large divide. The AMD chip scores 351,517 versus 146,857, a 139.4% lead. Random string sorting follows at 140.5% ahead, with scores of 42,383 and 17,623 respectively. These two results indicate that the Ryzen 7 260 handles data manipulation tasks with far greater efficiency, likely due to its higher core count and thread count. The Intel processor's 6 cores and 6 threads simply cannot compete with the AMD chip's 8 cores and 16 threads in parallel workloads.

Extended instruction throughput favors AMD by 96%, with scores of 26,544 and 13,543. This suggests the Ryzen 7 260 executes modern instruction set extensions more effectively, which matters for scientific computing and media encoding. Data encryption shows an 83.9% lead for AMD, scoring 20,267 versus 11,019. The multithreaded PassMark test confirms the trend: 28,078 for AMD versus 15,439 for Intel, an 81.9% difference.

Cinebench results reinforce the multi-core narrative. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD Ryzen 7 260 scores 2,747.5 against 1,322, a 107.8% advantage. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a narrower but still substantial 31.2% lead, with scores of 17,211.5 and 13,123. Floating point math also favors AMD at 40.6% ahead, scoring 59,462 versus 42,284.

The Intel Core 3 305 does claim several single-threaded victories, but they are smaller in magnitude. The most notable is Cinebench R23 single-core, where Intel scores 1,852 against AMD's 1,770.5, a 4.4% lead. PassMark single-thread shows Intel ahead by 6.1%, scoring 3,977 versus 3,736. Intel also wins the find prime numbers test by 33%, scoring 115 against 77, and the physics test by 1.2%, with 1,233 versus 1,218. These wins are consistent: the Intel part has superior per-core efficiency in certain workloads, but the AMD processor's overall throughput advantage dwarfs those gains in every heavily threaded test.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, built on a 4 nm process by TSMC. It packs 25,000 million transistors into a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename with a 3 nm process from Intel's own foundry, though the database records no transistor count or die size for this part.

Core topology differs sharply. The AMD chip has 8 cores and 16 threads, enabling simultaneous multithreading. The Intel chip has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyperthreading. This structural difference explains the multi-core benchmark dominance of the AMD part. Clock speeds also diverge: the Ryzen 7 260 has a 3.80 GHz base clock and a 5.10 GHz boost clock, while the Core 3 305 runs at 1.50 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost. The Intel processor's low base clock suggests a power-saving design, and its 15 W TDP confirms this, compared to the AMD chip's 45 W TDP.

Cache hierarchies are notably different. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel Core 3 305 lists 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD L3 cache is nearly three times larger, which contributes to its performance in cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory support also separates the two. The AMD chip uses dual-channel DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel chip supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but only on a single-channel bus, yielding 59.7 GB/s. That bandwidth deficit compounds the core count disadvantage in memory-intensive tasks. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

Platform connectivity differs as well. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 uses AMD Socket FP8 and provides PCIe Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes. The Intel Core 3 305 uses Intel BGA 1516 and provides PCIe Gen 4 with only 6 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics also differ: the AMD part carries a Radeon 780M, while the Intel part uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. Both are mobile processors, and both are currently active in production.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion: the AMD Ryzen 7 260 is the stronger processor for multi-threaded and data-heavy workloads. Its 10 benchmark wins include every heavily parallel test, and its margins are often extreme. The 199.5% lead in integer math and the 139.4% lead in data compression show that this chip is in a different performance class for computational throughput. The database places the Ryzen 7 260 at the 88th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 43,717, while the Intel Core 3 305 sits at the 72nd percentile with an average score of 18,302.

The Intel Core 3 305 wins exactly one meaningful category: single-threaded performance. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,852 edges out the AMD's 1,770.5, and its PassMark single-thread score of 3,977 beats 3,736. The physics test and prime number finding also go Intel's way. These results indicate that Intel's 3 nm process and Wildcat Lake design deliver strong per-core efficiency. However, the wins are narrow, between 1.2% and 33%, while AMD's wins frequently exceed 80%.

The Intel part does have a lower TDP at 15 W versus 45 W, which makes it suitable for fanless or ultra-portable designs. The AMD chip's nearest rivals in the database are all AMD parts with similar average scores, including the Ryzen 7 PRO 7745 at 43,704 and the Ryzen 7 170 at 43,689. The Intel chip's nearest rivals include the Core i3-14100 at 18,318 and the Core 5 330 at 18,345. These rival clusters show that each processor competes within its own performance tier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 260 wins all multi-core tests. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 17,211.5 versus 13,123, a 31.2% lead, and PassMark multithread shows 28,078 versus 15,439, an 81.9% lead.

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

A: Yes, it wins five tests: Cinebench R23 single-core by 4.4%, PassMark single-thread by 6.1%, find prime numbers by 33%, and physics by 1.2%. The single-thread results repeat across two PassMark entries.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 260 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: Which processor has higher clock speeds?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 260 has a 3.80 GHz base clock and 5.10 GHz boost clock. The Intel Core 3 305 has a 1.50 GHz base clock and 4.30 GHz boost clock.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 260 supports dual-channel DDR5 at 89.6 GB/s. The Intel Core 3 305 supports single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X at 59.7 GB/s.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Intel Core 3 305?

A: The launch MSRP is $309. The database does not record a launch MSRP for the AMD Ryzen 7 260.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 260 dominates in all forms of parallel computation. Data compression, integer math, floating point math, encryption, extended instructions, random string sorting, and multi-threaded rendering all go to the AMD chip by wide margins. The largest win is integer math at 199.5%, followed by random string sorting at 140.5% and data compression at 139.4%. These workloads benefit directly from the 8-core, 16-thread configuration and the dual-channel memory bus. The Radeon 780M integrated graphics also give the AMD part a more capable graphics solution on paper, though the database does not include graphics benchmarks.

The Intel Core 3 305 wins in single-threaded responsiveness and lightweight physics calculations. Its PassMark single-thread score of 3,977 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,852 show that it handles lightly threaded tasks with slightly better efficiency than the AMD chip. The find prime numbers result, where Intel leads by 33%, suggests that certain algorithmic workloads with low memory pressure and minimal thread scaling favor the Intel design. The 15 W TDP also makes the Intel part the more power-efficient option for battery-constrained mobile systems, though the database does not provide battery life measurements.

For users running heavily threaded applications such as video encoding, 3D rendering, or data analysis, the AMD Ryzen 7 260 is the clear choice based on the recorded data. For users prioritizing single-threaded response and minimal power draw, the Intel Core 3 305 has measurable advantages, but those advantages are modest compared to the AMD chip's multi-core dominance.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 260 | Intel Core 3 305 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 6 |

| Threads | 16 | 6 |

| Base Clock | 3.80 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.10 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 15 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Codename | Hawk Point | 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 | 89.6 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 780M | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Mobile |

| Production Status | Active | Active |

| Release Date | 2025-01-05 | 2026-04-15 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $309 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Part Number | 100-000001724 | SAE3L |

The specification table highlights the fundamental differences. The AMD chip uses more power, more transistors, and a larger die to deliver substantially higher multi-core performance. The Intel chip uses a smaller 3 nm process with a lower TDP to deliver competitive single-thread results. The 45 W TDP of the AMD part versus the 15 W TDP of the Intel part represents the clearest trade-off: raw performance versus power efficiency. The release dates also differ, with the AMD part launching in early 2025 and the Intel part in mid-2026, though the database does not provide any performance-per-watt measurements to compare efficiency directly.