AMD Ryzen AI 5 435 vs Intel Core 3 305 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database places the AMD Ryzen AI 5 435 and Intel Core 3 305 in distinctly different performance tiers, with the AMD part sitting at the 80th percentile of all CPUs while the Intel part sits at the 72nd. The average benchmark score tells the broader story: the AMD Ryzen AI 5 435 averages 28,128 points, which is 53.7% higher than the Intel Core 3 305’s 18,302 points. That gap is substantial, but the head-to-head record is surprisingly close at 8 wins for AMD and 7 for Intel, indicating that the Intel part wins specific workloads rather than being broadly uncompetitive.

The data indicates that the AMD Ryzen AI 5 435 is the stronger overall processor for general multi-threaded and integer-heavy work. Its nearest rivals in the database, such as the Intel Core i5-13490F and Intel Core i5-14500T, score within 0.2% of its average, which places it in the company of mid-range desktop-class parts despite being a 28W mobile chip. The Intel Core 3 305, by contrast, aligns with parts like the Intel Core i3-14100 and Intel Core 5 330, with deltas of -0.1% and -0.2% respectively, meaning it performs like a modest entry-level mobile processor.

For buyers strictly following the recorded measurements, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 435 is the choice for users who need heavy data compression, integer math, or sustained multi-threaded throughput. The Intel Core 3 305 is the choice for users who prioritize single-threaded responsiveness, physics simulation, or prime-number finding, where it posts decisive wins. The AMD part also carries a higher 28W TDP versus 15W for the Intel part, which the data shows as a trade-off: more power for more compute in most categories, while the Intel part delivers its wins at lower power.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 435 wins in 8 of the 15 recorded head-to-head comparisons. Its largest victories come in passmark integer math, where it scores 61,026 against 32,295, a 89% lead. Data compression shows a 53.5% advantage at 225,374 versus 146,857, and random string sorting is 41.2% higher at 24,891 versus 17,623. The AMD part also leads in Cinebench R15 multicore by 27.5% (1,686 versus 1,322), in Cinebench R15 singlecore by 39.8% (260 versus 186), in passmark multithread by 23.1% (19,000 versus 15,439), in extended instructions by 19.6% (16,197 versus 13,543), and narrowly in data encryption by 0.8% (11,110 versus 11,019).

The Intel Core 3 305 wins in 7 of the 15 comparisons. Its most dramatic victory is in passmark find prime numbers, where it scores 115 versus 58, a 49.6% margin. It also wins passmark physics at 1,233 versus 1,075, a 12.8% lead. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Intel part scores 13,123 versus 11,333, a 13.6% advantage, which is notable given the AMD part’s higher average score overall. The Intel part edges ahead in Cinebench R23 singlecore by 1.9% (1,852 versus 1,816), in floating point math by 3.9% (42,284 versus 40,627), and in passmark single-thread by 6.1% (3,977 versus 3,734). That single-thread margin is consistent across both passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread entries, which record identical scores.

The split is clear: the AMD part dominates integer, compression, and multi-threaded workloads, while the Intel part wins in single-threaded latency-sensitive tasks, prime finding, and physics simulation. The Cinebench R23 multicore result is the outlier, where the Intel part’s 6 MB of shared L3 and higher boost clock deliver a win that contradicts the AMD part’s broader multi-threaded strength.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 435 uses a Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, built on the Gorgon Point codename within the Ryzen AI 400 generation. It has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. Cache is organized as 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of L3. The chip supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a dual-channel bus, yielding 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. It supports ECC memory and provides PCIe Gen 4 with 14 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics are Radeon 840M. The socket is AMD Socket FP8, and the TDP is 28W.

The Intel Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename in the Core 3 generation, built on a 3 nm Intel process. It has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading, with a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Cache is 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. Memory support includes DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus, which limits bandwidth to 59.7 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported. PCIe is Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The socket is Intel BGA 1516, and the TDP is 15W.

The architectural differences explain the benchmark split. The AMD part’s dual-channel memory at 89.6 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s for the Intel part directly supports its large leads in data compression, integer math, and random string sorting, all of which are memory-throughput sensitive. The Intel part’s 6 MB shared L3 versus 4 MB for AMD helps in the prime number and physics workloads, which benefit from larger shared cache and lower latency. The Intel part’s 3 nm process and single-thread boost of 4.30 GHz, combined with no SMT overhead, contribute to its single-thread wins despite the lower base clock.

The thread count difference is critical: 12 threads for AMD versus 6 for Intel. In passmark multithread, the AMD part scores 19,000 versus 15,439, a 23.1% lead, and in Cinebench R15 multicore it leads by 27.5%. Yet in Cinebench R23 multicore, the Intel part wins by 13.6%, suggesting that the R23 workload scales differently with cache and frequency than R15, or that the Intel part’s 6 MB L3 provides an advantage under sustained load that offsets its thread deficit.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 435 has 12 threads from 6 cores, while the Intel Core 3 305 has 6 threads from 6 cores, so the AMD part offers double the thread count.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The AMD part supports dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part uses single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s, a 33.4% lower figure for Intel.

Q: Which chip wins in single-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Core 3 305 wins in both recorded single-thread tests, scoring 3,977 in passmark single-thread versus 3,734 for AMD, and 1,852 in Cinebench R23 singlecore versus 1,816 for AMD.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 435 is rated at 28W TDP, while the Intel Core 3 305 is rated at 15W TDP, a 13W lower envelope for the Intel part.

Q: Does the Intel part support ECC memory?

A: No, the Intel Core 3 305 does not support ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen AI 5 435 does support ECC.

Q: Which part has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core 3 305 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD Ryzen AI 5 435 has 4 MB of L3, giving Intel a 2 MB advantage in this cache level.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the AMD Ryzen AI 5 435 is in passmark integer math, where it scores 61,026 against 32,295 for the Intel Core 3 305, a 89% delta. This workload likely reflects the AMD part’s dual-channel memory and 12 threads, which allow far more integer operations to be processed in parallel. The data compression test shows a 53.5% lead for AMD at 225,374 versus 146,857, which is consistent with the memory bandwidth advantage, and random string sorting follows with a 41.2% lead at 24,891 versus 17,623.

The Cinebench R15 results favor AMD substantially. Multicore scores are 1,686 versus 1,322, a 27.5% lead, and singlecore scores are 260 versus 186, a 39.8% lead. These are the only Cinebench tests where AMD wins, and the singlecore margin is particularly striking given that the Intel part wins both newer singlecore tests. The passmark multithread score of 19,000 versus 15,439 gives AMD a 23.1% lead, and extended instructions show a 19.6% lead at 16,197 versus 13,543. Data encryption is nearly a tie, with AMD ahead by 0.8% at 11,110 versus 11,019.

For the Intel Core 3 305, the standout win is passmark find prime numbers at 115 versus 58, a 49.6% margin. This workload is latency-bound and cache-sensitive, and the Intel part’s 6 MB shared L3 appears to provide the needed locality. Passmark physics also goes to Intel at 1,233 versus 1,075, a 12.8% lead, which may reflect the same cache advantage. The Cinebench R23 multicore result is the Intel part’s most significant multi-threaded win, at 13,123 versus 11,333, a 13.6% lead, despite the AMD part having twice the threads. This suggests that under this specific workload, the Intel part’s higher boost clock of 4.30 GHz and larger L3 can overcome its thread deficit.

The remaining Intel wins are narrower. Floating point math shows 42,284 versus 40,627, a 3.9% lead, and single-thread performance shows 3,977 versus 3,734, a 6.1% lead. Cinebench R23 singlecore is the closest result at 1,852 versus 1,816, a 1.9% margin. Across the 15 recorded benchmarks, the AMD part wins 8 and the Intel part wins 7, but the magnitude of AMD’s wins (89%, 53.5%, 41.2%, 39.8%) far exceeds the magnitude of Intel’s wins (49.6%, 13.6%, 12.8%, 6.1%). The average benchmark score of 28,128 for AMD versus 18,302 for Intel reflects this asymmetry: AMD’s wins are larger in absolute and relative terms, even though the win count is nearly even.