Intel Core 3 100HL vs Intel Core 3 305 Comparison

Intel Core 3 100HL and Intel Core 3 305 are two desktop and mobile processors respectively that occupy different positions in Intel’s Core 3 lineup. The 100HL is a Raptor Lake-PS part built on Intel’s 10 nm process, while the 305 is a Wildcat Lake part built on Intel’s 3 nm process. Benchmark data from the database records 11 wins for the 100HL and 6 wins for the 305 across 17 tests. The average benchmark score for the 100HL is 23545, placing it at the 76th percentile of all CPUs, while the 305 averages 18302 and sits at the 72nd percentile. The 100HL’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8540U with an average score of 23709 (0.7% higher) and the Intel Core i5-11500 with an average score of 23718 (0.7% higher). The 305’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-14100 with an average score of 18318 (0.1% higher) and the Intel Core 5 330 with an average score of 18345 (0.2% higher). The data indicates a clear performance hierarchy, but the 305 counters in several specific workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 3 100HL dominates in multi-threaded and memory-intensive workloads. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 14948 against 13123 for the 305, a 13.9% advantage. The same 13.9% margin appears in Cinebench R15 multicore (1506 vs 1322), Cinebench R20 multicore (6278 vs 5511), and Passmark multithread (17586 vs 15439). The 100HL also leads in integer math by a large 74.4% margin (56308 vs 32295), in data compression by 37.7% (202225 vs 146857), and in random string sorting by 31.8% (23223 vs 17623). Data encryption goes to the 100HL by 8.6% (11964 vs 11019). Cinebench single-core results also favor the 100HL: 212 vs 186 in R15 (14%), 886 vs 777 in R20 (14%), and 2110 vs 1852 in R23 (13.9%).

The Intel Core 3 305 wins in six tests. The largest margin is in Passmark find prime numbers, where it scores 115 versus 48, a 58.3% advantage. Passmark physics goes to the 305 by 24.7% (1233 vs 928). Passmark single-thread favors the 305 by 6.1% (3977 vs 3735). Extended instructions also favor the 305 by 8% (13543 vs 12463). Floating point math is nearly identical, with the 305 ahead by only 0.4% (42284 vs 42108). These wins suggest the 305 has a stronger per-clock efficiency in certain scalar and physics-oriented tasks, despite having fewer cores and threads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The 100HL uses Raptor Lake, with the codename Raptor Lake-PS, and is manufactured on Intel’s 10 nm process. The 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is manufactured on Intel’s 3 nm process. The process node difference is significant: the 305 uses a much newer fabrication technology.

Core and thread counts differ substantially. The 100HL has 8 cores and 12 threads, while the 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The 100HL therefore supports hyperthreading, doubling its thread count over its physical core count, while the 305 has no extra threads. The 100HL has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The 305 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The 100HL runs at higher clocks in both base and boost states.

Cache layouts also differ. The 100HL has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The 305 has 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The 100HL’s larger L3 cache (12 MB vs 6 MB) likely contributes to its strong performance in data compression and integer math. The 305’s L1 and L2 figures are listed as aggregate values, but the L3 difference is clear.

Memory support separates the two as well. The 100HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus. The 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X on a single-channel bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The 100HL does not have a listed memory bandwidth figure, but its dual-channel configuration suggests higher potential bandwidth than the 305’s single-channel design. The 100HL uses Intel Socket 1700, while the 305 uses Intel BGA 1516. The 305 is a mobile part, while the 100HL is listed as a desktop part.

Integrated graphics differ. The 100HL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 48 execution units. The 305 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. PCIe support also differs: the 100HL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the 305 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Thermal design power is a major differentiator. The 100HL is rated at 45 W TDP, while the 305 is rated at 15 W TDP. The 305 delivers its results at one-third the TDP of the 100HL, which explains its efficiency-oriented design. The release dates are also different: the 100HL launched on 2024-04-07, while the 305 launched on 2026-04-15.

The Verdict

The data shows the Intel Core 3 100HL is the faster processor overall. It wins 11 of 17 benchmark tests and holds a higher average benchmark score (23545 vs 18302) and a higher percentile rank (76th vs 72nd). Its multi-threaded performance is consistently 13.9% ahead of the 305 across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests, and its Passmark multithread score is 13.9% higher as well. The 100HL also has a decisive lead in integer math, data compression, and random string sorting, all of which benefit from its 8 cores, 12 threads, and 12 MB of L3 cache.

The Intel Core 3 305 wins in single-thread Passmark (3977 vs 3735, 6.1% ahead), physics (1233 vs 928, 24.7% ahead), find prime numbers (115 vs 48, 58.3% ahead), and extended instructions (13543 vs 12463, 8% ahead). These wins indicate that the 305’s 3 nm process and newer microarchitecture provide better per-core efficiency in specific workloads. However, the 305 does not overcome the 100HL’s core and thread advantage in most tests.

For workloads that rely on parallel processing, heavy integer math, or large data sets, the 100HL is the stronger choice. For workloads that are single-threaded, physics-based, or reliant on prime number computation, the 305 shows a measurable advantage. The 305 also operates at a 15 W TDP versus the 100HL’s 45 W TDP, making it a lower-power option, though the database does not include power consumption measurements for these processors.

The 305 has a launch MSRP of $309. The 100HL has no launch MSRP listed in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 3 100HL has 8 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: How much faster is the 100HL in multi-threaded Cinebench tests?

A: The 100HL is 13.9% faster than the 305 in Cinebench R15 multicore (1506 vs 1322), Cinebench R20 multicore (6278 vs 5511), and Cinebench R23 multicore (14948 vs 13123).

Q: In which tests does the 305 beat the 100HL?

A: The 305 wins in Passmark find prime numbers (115 vs 48), Passmark physics (1233 vs 928), Passmark single-thread (3977 vs 3735), Passmark extended instructions (13543 vs 12463), and Passmark floating point math (42284 vs 42108).

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The 100HL has a 45 W TDP. The 305 has a 15 W TDP.

Q: What memory types do they support?

A: The 100HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus. The 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X on a single-channel bus with a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

Q: What are their process nodes?

A: The 100HL is built on Intel’s 10 nm process. The 305 is built on Intel’s 3 nm process.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest margin in the entire comparison belongs to the 100HL in Passmark integer math. It scores 56308 against 32295, a 74.4% advantage. This is the clearest indicator of the 100HL’s strength in arithmetic-heavy workloads, driven by its higher core count and larger L3 cache. Data compression follows at 37.7% (202225 vs 146857), and random string sorting at 31.8% (23223 vs 17623). These three tests all involve moving or transforming large amounts of data, where the 100HL’s 12 threads and 12 MB L3 cache provide a substantial edge.

The 305’s largest margin is in Passmark find prime numbers, where it scores 115 versus 48, a 58.3% advantage. This test is often sensitive to per-core efficiency and branch handling, and the 305’s newer 3 nm process appears to deliver a significant improvement in this specific workload. Passmark physics also favors the 305 by 24.7% (1233 vs 928), indicating better performance in simulated physical interactions, which are typically single-threaded and rely on floating point operations.

Single-thread results are split. Cinebench single-core tests all favor the 100HL: 212 vs 186 in R15 (14%), 886 vs 777 in R20 (14%), and 2110 vs 1852 in R23 (13.9%). Passmark single-thread, however, favors the 305 by 6.1% (3977 vs 3735). The discrepancy between Cinebench and Passmark single-thread results suggests that the 305’s higher single-thread Passmark score reflects a different workload mix, while Cinebench’s rendering tasks favor the 100HL’s higher boost clock of 4.60 GHz versus the 305’s 4.30 GHz.

Floating point math is nearly a tie. The 305 scores 42284 and the 100HL scores 42108, a 0.4% difference. Extended instructions go to the 305 by 8% (13543 vs 12463), showing that the newer architecture handles certain instruction sets more efficiently. Data encryption goes to the 100HL by 8.6% (11964 vs 11019), and Passmark multithread goes to the 100HL by 13.9% (17586 vs 15439).

The 100HL wins 11 tests and the 305 wins 6 tests. The 100HL’s wins are concentrated in multi-threaded, data-heavy, and integer workloads. The 305’s wins are concentrated in physics, prime numbers, single-thread Passmark, floating point math, and extended instructions. The overall average benchmark score confirms the 100HL’s lead: 23545 versus 18302, a difference of 28.6% in favor of the 100HL.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification. The 100HL has 8 cores and 12 threads; the 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clocks are 2.10 GHz for the 100HL and 1.50 GHz for the 305. Boost clocks are 4.60 GHz for the 100HL and 4.30 GHz for the 305. TDP is 45 W for the 100HL and 15 W for the 305.

Sockets differ: the 100HL uses Intel Socket 1700, while the 305 uses Intel BGA 1516. The 100HL is a desktop part, while the 305 is a mobile part. Process nodes differ: 10 nm for the 100HL and 3 nm for the 305. Codename differs: Raptor Lake-PS for the 100HL and Wildcat Lake for the 305. Architecture is listed as Raptor Lake for the 100HL, while the 305 has no architecture field listed.

Cache configurations differ. The 100HL has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The 305 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory support differs: the 100HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 on dual-channel, while the 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X on single-channel with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe support differs: the 100HL has Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the 305 has Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics differ: Iris Xe Graphics with 48 EU on the 100HL, Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe on the 305. Neither supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. Release dates differ: 2024-04-07 for the 100HL and 2026-04-15 for the 305. The 305 has a part number of SAE3L, while the 100HL has an unknown part number. The 305 has a launch MSRP of $309, while the 100HL has no listed launch MSRP.