AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX vs Intel Core 3 305 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a starkly one-sided comparison. The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX wins 13 of the 15 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 3 305 takes just 2. The margins, however, tell a more nuanced story than the win count alone.

The largest victory for the AMD processor comes in PassMark integer math, where it scores 189,221 against the Intel chip's 32,295. That is a 485.9% advantage, a gap that reflects the fundamental difference in core count and threading capability between the two parts. Data compression shows a similar pattern: the Ryzen 9 8940HX scores 650,984 versus 146,857, a 343.3% lead. Random string sorting also heavily favors AMD, with a 327.7% delta (75,381 versus 17,623).

Cinebench results reinforce the multi-core dominance. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD chip posts 5,355 points against the Intel's 1,322, a 305.1% difference. The R23 multi-core test shows a 147.8% advantage (32,521 versus 13,123). These results align with the processor's respective positions: the Ryzen 9 8940HX is a 16-core, 32-thread part, while the Core 3 305 is a 6-core, 6-thread design.

Single-core performance is where the contest tightens. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the AMD part scores 1,917 versus 1,852 for Intel, a modest 3.5% edge. The PassMark single-thread test is the only clear Intel win, with the Core 3 305 scoring 3,977 against AMD's 3,874, a 2.6% advantage. The same result appears in the PassMark single_thread entry, giving Intel its second win. These numbers indicate that in lightly threaded workloads, the two processors are much closer, with Intel holding a slight edge in at least one measurement.

Other PassMark tests show consistent AMD superiority. Floating point math: 113,921 versus 42,284 (169.4% delta). Extended instructions: 47,802 versus 13,543 (253%). Data encryption: 39,318 versus 11,019 (256.8%). Find prime numbers: 251 versus 115 (118.3%). Physics: 2,104 versus 1,233 (70.6%). PassMark multithread: 49,731 versus 15,439 (222.1%).

The average benchmark score for the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX is 81,103, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Intel Core 3 305 averages 18,302, which puts it in the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals for AMD are the Intel Xeon w5-3535X at 81,115 (0% delta) and the Intel Core i9-14900KS at 81,127 (0% delta), indicating the Ryzen 9 8940HX sits in elite company. For Intel, the closest competitors are the Intel Core i3-14100 at 18,318 (-0.1% delta) and the Intel Core 5 330 at 18,345 (-0.2% delta), showing the Core 3 305 is positioned near entry-level desktop parts.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX dominates in every multi-core test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 32,521 versus 13,123 for the Intel Core 3 305, a 147.8% difference. The PassMark multithread test shows a 222.1% gap (49,731 versus 15,439).

Q: Is the Intel Core 3 305 faster in any benchmark?

A: Yes, in PassMark single-thread testing, the Intel chip scores 3,977 versus 3,874 for the AMD part, a 2.6% advantage. This is the only benchmark where Intel wins, and it appears twice in the data (as passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread).

Q: How do the processors compare in single-core Cinebench tests?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX leads in both Cinebench single-core tests. In R15 single-core, it scores 292 versus 186 for Intel, a 57% margin. In R23 single-core, the lead is much smaller: 1,917 versus 1,852, only a 3.5% difference.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX has an average benchmark score of 81,103, while the Intel Core 3 305 averages 18,302. This places the AMD part in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, with the Intel chip in the 72nd percentile.

Q: Which processor shows a larger gap in integer math performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX scores 189,221 in PassMark integer math, versus 32,295 for the Intel Core 3 305. That is a 485.9% advantage, the largest delta recorded in the head-to-head data.

Q: How close are the nearest rivals for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX sits within 0.5% of the Intel Xeon w5-3535X, Intel Core i9-14900KS, AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395, and Intel Xeon 638. The Intel Core 3 305 is within 0.4% of the Intel Core i3-14100, Intel Core 5 330, Intel Core 7 360, and AMD Ryzen 5 2600E.

The Verdict

The data directs different buyers toward each processor. The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX is the choice for workloads that scale across cores: rendering, data compression, encryption, and floating-point math. Its 147.8% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 343.3% lead in data compression make the case for content creation and heavy parallel processing. The 95th percentile ranking and average score of 81,103 place it in the top tier of the database.

The Intel Core 3 305 serves a different role. Its single-thread PassMark score of 3,977 beats the AMD part by 2.6%, and its 72nd percentile ranking indicates it is a capable mainstream option. With 6 cores and 6 threads, it is not designed for the same parallel workloads. The 3 nm process node and lower 15 W TDP suggest efficiency as a priority, though the data does not include power measurements. For users whose primary tasks are single-threaded and who do not need the multi-core headroom, the Core 3 305 shows competitive single-thread results.

The 13-to-2 win count is decisive, but the single-core results indicate the two processors are not entirely different classes. The Ryzen 9 8940HX wins Cinebench R23 single-core by only 3.5%, and Intel wins PassMark single-thread by 2.6%. Multi-core is where the separation becomes extreme, with deltas ranging from 70.6% to 485.9% in favor of AMD.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge sharply on core and thread counts. The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD part has no hyper-threading equivalent in the Intel chip, which is a single-thread-per-core design.

Clock speeds differ as well. The AMD processor has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The Intel chip runs at 1.50 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost. The AMD part also has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Intel part is locked.

Thermal design power is another major differentiator: the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX carries a 55 W TDP, while the Intel Core 3 305 is rated at 15 W. Memory support also differs: AMD uses dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth, while Intel supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X on a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity varies. The AMD part offers PCIe Gen 5 with 28 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part provides PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ: AMD includes Radeon 610M, while Intel includes Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core.

The socket types are incompatible: AMD uses Socket FL1, Intel uses BGA 1516. The production status for both is Active. Release dates differ by about a year, with the AMD part launching in April 2025 and the Intel part in April 2026. The Intel Core 3 305 has a launch MSRP of $309.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX uses the Zen 4 architecture under the codename Dragon Range. It belongs to the 8000 series and the Ryzen 9 generation. The process node is 5 nm, fabricated by TSMC, with 13,140 million transistors across a die size of 2x 71 mm².

Cache configuration for the AMD part is per-core for L1 and L2: 64 KB L1 per core and 1 MB L2 per core. The L3 cache is 64 MB, shared across the chip. This large L3 is typical for a high-core-count mobile processor.

The Intel Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation. The architecture field is not specified in the data, but the process node is 3 nm, fabricated by Intel. Cache is listed differently: 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3.

Die size and transistor counts are not recorded for the Intel part. The AMD processor's dual-die design with 13,140 million transistors stands in contrast to the Intel chip's single-die approach, though the Intel die size is absent from the database. The 3 nm Intel process is smaller than the 5 nm TSMC node used for AMD, but the architectural differences in core design and cache hierarchy are more significant for performance.

The AMD part also differs in its memory controller: DDR5 dual-channel with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth versus Intel's DDR5/LPDDR5X single-channel with 59.7 GB/s. The PCIe generation and lane count further separate the two: Gen 5 with 28 lanes versus Gen 4 with 6 lanes.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX wins in every multi-threaded and compute-intensive category. Data compression, encryption, extended instructions, floating-point math, integer math, multithread, physics, and random string sorting all show AMD leads ranging from 70.6% to 485.9%. Cinebench multi-core tests add rendering workloads to that list. The 16-core, 32-thread configuration with 64 MB L3 cache makes it suitable for video encoding, 3D rendering, scientific computation, and database workloads. The 5.30 GHz boost clock also gives it an edge in Cinebench single-core tests, though that margin shrinks to 3.5% in R23.

The Intel Core 3 305 wins the PassMark single-thread test by 2.6%, a narrow margin that suggests it can handle everyday desktop tasks, office productivity, and light web workloads with comparable responsiveness to the AMD part. Its 3 nm process and 15 W TDP point toward battery efficiency in thin-and-light laptops, though the data does not include power consumption measurements. The single-channel memory bus and 6 PCIe Gen 4 lanes limit its expandability, but for a device focused on mobility and basic tasks, those may be acceptable constraints.

The use-case split is clear: the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX targets performance laptops and mobile workstations where multi-core throughput is critical. The Intel Core 3 305 targets efficient, portable systems where the 2.6% single-thread win and lower TDP matter more than the multi-core deficit. The average benchmark scores confirm this: 81,103 for AMD versus 18,302 for Intel, a difference that places the two parts in entirely different performance classes.