Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core 5 120UL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a strikingly one-sided comparison. The Intel Core 3 305 wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with the Intel Core 5 120UL managing a single victory. The margins are often substantial, not marginal. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core 3 305 scores 13,123 against 8,974 for the Core 5 120UL, a 46.2% advantage. This pattern repeats across the entire Cinebench suite: R15 multicore shows 1,322 versus 904 (46.2% delta), R20 multicore shows 5,511 versus 3,769 (46.2% delta), and R15 singlecore shows 186 versus 127 (46.5% delta). The consistency of the 46% delta across all three Cinebench versions suggests a fundamental throughput advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Single-thread performance is where the Core 3 305 separates itself most dramatically. In PassMark single-thread testing, the Core 3 305 records 3,977 points against 2,080 for the Core 5 120UL, a 91.2% delta. Cinebench R23 singlecore tells the same story: 1,852 versus 1,266, a 46.3% gap. The Core 3 305 also wins PassMark physics by 52.8% (1,233 versus 807) and floating-point math by 60.7% (42,284 versus 26,311). These are not close contests; the Core 3 305 dominates in nearly every measured category.

The largest deltas appear in PassMark extended instructions and prime-number finding. Extended instructions show 13,543 versus 5,203, a 160.3% advantage for the Core 3 305. Find prime numbers records 115 versus 47, a 144.7% delta. Data encryption favors the Core 3 305 by 43.4% (11,019 versus 7,685), while data compression shows a 34.6% edge (146,857 versus 109,090). Random string sorting is the closest major test, with the Core 3 305 ahead by 29.5% (17,623 versus 13,610).

The sole win for the Core 5 120UL comes in PassMark integer math, where it scores 38,060 against 32,295 for the Core 3 305, a 15.1% advantage in favor of the Core 5 120UL. This single result is interesting because it contradicts the overall trend. Integer math typically scales with core count and thread count, and the Core 5 120UL has more of both. Yet in every other multithreaded test, the Core 3 305 wins by wide margins. The average benchmark score reflects this overall dominance: the Core 3 305 averages 18,302 points across all tests, while the Core 5 120UL averages 13,594. The Core 3 305 sits at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, versus the 68th percentile for the Core 5 120UL.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design families and different process nodes. The Intel Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake architecture on Intel's 3 nm process, while the Intel Core 5 120UL uses Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process. The Core 3 305 is classified in the database as mobile segment, whereas the Core 5 120UL is classified as desktop segment. Despite the desktop classification, both chips carry a 15 W TDP, which is unusual for a desktop part and suggests the Core 5 120UL is a low-power desktop offering.

Core and thread counts differ significantly. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The Core 5 120UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, which implies a mix of performance and efficiency cores with hyperthreading on some cores. Despite having 4 fewer cores and 6 fewer threads, the Core 3 305 wins the multithreaded benchmarks by roughly 46%. This indicates that the Wildcat Lake architecture on 3 nm delivers far higher instructions per clock than the older Raptor Lake design.

Cache configurations also differ. The Core 3 305 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 5 120UL lists L1 as 80 KB per core and L2 as 1.25 MB per core, with 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 5 120UL's total L2 cache is larger when multiplied across its 10 cores, and its L3 is double the Core 3 305's 6 MB. Yet the larger cache pool does not translate into benchmark wins, which suggests the Core 3 305's architectural efficiency overcomes the cache deficit.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core 5 120UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, with no bandwidth figure recorded in the database. The single-channel limitation of the Core 3 305 is a potential bottleneck, but the benchmark data shows it winning memory-sensitive tests like data compression anyway. The Core 5 120UL's dual-channel support and broader memory compatibility (including DDR4) make it more flexible for system builders with existing DDR4 memory.

The integrated graphics differ. The Core 3 305 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the Core 5 120UL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units. The Core 5 120UL's graphics solution appears more substantial in execution unit count, but no graphics benchmarks are recorded in the database to quantify this. PCIe support shows the Core 3 305 with Gen 4 and 6 CPU lanes, while the Core 5 120UL has Gen 4 and 8 CPU lanes. The Core 5 120UL offers two additional CPU PCIe lanes. Sockets also differ: the Core 3 305 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core 5 120UL uses Intel Socket 1700. The BGA socket is soldered, while Socket 1700 is generally a socketed LGA design, which has implications for upgradeability and cooling compatibility.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 3 305 averages 18,302 points across all recorded benchmarks, compared to 13,594 for the Intel Core 5 120UL. The Core 3 305 also holds a higher percentile ranking at 72nd versus 68th for the Core 5 120UL.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 120UL win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the Core 5 120UL wins exactly one test: PassMark integer math, scoring 38,060 against 32,295 for the Core 3 305, a 15.1% advantage. Every other recorded head-to-head test favors the Core 3 305.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: The Core 3 305 leads by 91.2% in PassMark single-thread testing (3,977 versus 2,080) and by 46.3% in Cinebench R23 singlecore (1,852 versus 1,266). The single-thread advantage is the largest category gap between the two processors.

Q: Why does the Core 5 120UL have more cores but lose multithreaded tests?

A: The Core 5 120UL has 10 cores and 12 threads versus 6 cores and 6 threads for the Core 3 305. Despite this, the Core 3 305 wins Cinebench R23 multicore by 46.2% (13,123 versus 8,974). The likely explanation is the Core 3 305's newer Wildcat Lake architecture on a 3 nm process delivering higher instructions per clock than the older Raptor Lake design on 10 nm.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 5 120UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, with no bandwidth figure recorded. The Core 5 120UL is the only one of the two that works with DDR4 memory.

Q: How do the two processors compare in nearest-rival context?

A: The Core 3 305's nearest rival is the Intel Core i3-14100 with a delta of -0.1%, meaning the Core 3 305 is essentially tied with that chip. The Core 5 120UL's nearest rival is the Intel Core i3-12100F with a delta of 0.7%, meaning it trails that rival by less than 1%. The Core 3 305 scores 34.6% higher on average than the Core 5 120UL.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 305 | Intel Core 5 120UL |

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

| Cores | 6 | 10 |

| Threads | 6 | 12 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 1.30 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Wildcat Lake | Raptor Lake |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Raptor Lake-PS |

| Generation | Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) | Core 5 (Raptor Lake-PS) |

| Process node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| L1 cache | 192 KB | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 2.5 MB | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

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

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | Not recorded |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | Iris Xe Graphics 80EU |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | 2026-04-15 | 2024-04-07 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | Not recorded |

| Part number | SAE3L | Unknown |

| Average benchmark score | 18,302 | 13,594 |

| Percentile | 72 | 68 |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 3 305 wins in the vast majority of workload categories. It dominates Cinebench rendering tests across all three versions (R15, R20, R23) in both multicore and singlecore modes, with consistent 46% margins. It wins PassMark data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime-number finding, floating-point math, multithreaded throughput, physics simulation, random string sorting, and single-thread performance. The 160.3% lead in extended instructions and the 144.7% lead in prime-number finding indicate particularly strong SIMD and integer-iteration capabilities. The 91.2% single-thread lead makes it the clear choice for latency-sensitive, lightly threaded workloads such as general desktop responsiveness and older applications that use one or two threads.

The Intel Core 5 120UL wins exactly one recorded test: PassMark integer math, with a 15.1% margin. This suggests that its higher core count and thread count provide a specific advantage in pure integer arithmetic throughput, possibly due to its larger L3 cache (12 MB versus 6 MB) or its dual-channel memory bus. The Core 5 120UL also offers features the Core 3 305 lacks: DDR4 memory support, dual-channel memory access, a socketed LGA 1700 platform, and two additional CPU PCIe lanes. It also has a higher boost clock (4.60 GHz versus 4.30 GHz) and a desktop market classification, which may matter for system integration flexibility.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the Intel Core 3 305 is the stronger processor in almost every measurable way. It wins 16 of 17 head-to-head tests, holds a 34.6% higher average benchmark score (18,302 versus 13,594), and ranks higher in the database at the 72nd percentile versus 68th. Its single-thread performance is nearly double that of the Core 5 120UL in PassMark testing, and its multicore Cinebench results are consistently 46% higher despite having fewer cores and threads. The 3 nm Wildcat Lake architecture appears to deliver a substantial per-clock efficiency advantage over the 10 nm Raptor Lake design.

The Intel Core 5 120UL is the better choice only in narrow circumstances. Users who require DDR4 memory compatibility, dual-channel memory bandwidth, a socketed LGA 1700 platform, or additional CPU PCIe lanes will find those features only on the Core 5 120UL. Its single integer-math win suggests it handles integer-heavy arithmetic workloads better, and its higher boost clock of 4.60 GHz gives it a nominal clock-speed advantage. However, the recorded benchmark results show that the Core 3 305 wins the workloads that matter for most users: rendering, compression, encryption, physics, and general single-threaded responsiveness.

The data points to the Core 3 305 as the superior compute engine despite its mobile classification and single-channel memory limitation. The Core 5 120UL remains viable for specific platform requirements, but its benchmark profile lags across the board. Any workload that can use the Core 3 305's architectural efficiency will see a meaningful performance benefit, often in the 30% to 60% range, with extended instructions and prime-number workloads exceeding 140% deltas. The verdict from the recorded measurements is clear: the Core 3 305 delivers the higher level of performance, while the Core 5 120UL offers platform flexibility that the benchmarks do not capture.