Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core 5 210H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data splits these two mobile processors into distinct performance profiles. The Intel Core 5 210H wins 10 of the 17 recorded comparisons, while the Intel Core 3 305 takes 7. The wins, however, are not evenly distributed across workload types.

The most decisive victory for the Core 5 210H comes in PassMark integer math, where it scores 61503 against 32295 for the Core 3 305, a 47.5% advantage. This is the largest single delta in the entire comparison. Data compression also heavily favors the Core 5 210H, with a score of 217805 versus 146857, a 32.6% gap. These two results indicate the Core 5 210H has a substantial edge in workloads that scale with core count and raw arithmetic throughput.

The multi-core Cinebench results tell a more complicated story. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core 5 210H scores 1757 against 1322 for the Core 3 305, a 24.8% lead. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the Core 5 210H leads 6504 to 5511, a 15.3% margin. But in Cinebench R23 multicore, the pattern reverses: the Core 3 305 scores 13123 against 11830 for the Core 5 210H, a 10.9% win for the smaller chip. The R23 result is notable because it contradicts the trend established by the older R15 and R20 tests. The Core 3 305 also wins Cinebench R23 single-core, scoring 1852 versus 1771, a 4.6% margin.

Single-threaded performance generally favors the Core 3 305. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 3977 against 3539 for the Core 5 210H, a 12.4% advantage. The Cinebench R15 single-core test goes the other way, with the Core 5 210H scoring 247 versus 186, a 24.7% lead, and Cinebench R20 single-core also favors the Core 5 210H at 918 versus 777, a 15.4% margin. The single-core picture is therefore inconsistent across benchmark versions, with the Core 3 305 winning the newer R23 test and the PassMark single-thread test, while the Core 5 210H wins the older R15 and R20 single-core tests.

The Core 3 305 dominates in prime number generation. Its PassMark find prime numbers score of 115 is more than double the Core 5 210H score of 53, a 117% advantage. This is the largest percentage win for either processor. The Core 3 305 also wins PassMark physics, scoring 1233 against 1040, an 18.6% margin, and PassMark extended instructions, 13543 versus 13370, a narrow 1.3% edge.

The Core 5 210H takes the remaining tests. PassMark multithread goes to the Core 5 210H at 18252 versus 15439, a 15.4% margin. Random string sorting favors the Core 5 210H at 23451 versus 17623, a 24.9% gap. Floating point math goes to the Core 5 210H at 45057 versus 42284, a 6.2% margin. Data encryption favors the Core 5 210H at 12187 versus 11019, a 9.6% gap.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core 5 210H as the stronger overall processor. Its average benchmark score of 24872 places it at the 77th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Intel Core 3 305 averages 18302, sitting at the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 5 210H include the Intel Core i7-13620H at 24911 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX at 24822 (0.2% behind), and the Intel Core i7-11850H at 24935 (0.3% ahead). The Core 3 305 sits closest to the Intel Core i3-14100 at 18318 (0.1% behind), the Intel Core 5 330 at 18345 (0.2% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 5 2600E at 18230 (0.4% behind).

The Core 5 210H delivers its advantages in the broad categories of integer math, compression, encryption, and multithreaded throughput. Systems using this processor should handle parallel workloads with noticeably more headroom. The Core 3 305 counters with wins in newer Cinebench versions, single-thread PassMark, prime number finding, and physics simulation. Those specific strengths point to a chip that handles certain latency-sensitive tasks very well.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design lineages. The Intel Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, built on a 3 nm process node from Intel. The Intel Core 5 210H uses the Raptor Lake-H architecture, specifically from the Raptor Lake Refresh generation, on a 10 nm process node. This node difference is significant: the Core 3 305 uses a newer manufacturing process, which likely explains its competitive single-thread results despite having fewer cores.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. The Core 5 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement where some cores support additional threads. This thread advantage contributes directly to the Core 5 210H wins in multithreaded benchmarks.

Cache layouts also diverge. 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 210H lists L1 at 80 KB per core, L2 at 2 MB per core, and L3 at 12 MB shared. The Core 5 210H carries double the shared L3 capacity, which helps in workloads that repeatedly access larger data sets.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 305 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Core 5 210H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 48 execution units. The memory support also differs: the Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core 5 210H supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, with no bandwidth figure recorded in the database.

PCIe connectivity is another differentiating factor. The Core 3 305 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Core 5 210H provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes. The Core 5 210H therefore offers both a newer PCIe generation and more lanes.

Specification Differences

The Core 5 210H operates at higher clock speeds. Its base clock is 2.20 GHz with a boost of 4.80 GHz, compared to 1.50 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost for the Core 3 305. The Core 5 210H also has a much higher thermal design power at 45 watts versus 15 watts for the Core 3 305. This power envelope difference aligns with the Core 5 210H's additional cores and threads.

The sockets are not interchangeable. The Core 3 305 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core 5 210H uses Intel BGA 1744. The release dates place the Core 3 305 as the newer product, launching on 2026-04-15, while the Core 5 210H launched on 2024-12-17. The launch MSRP for the Core 3 305 is $309. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 210H is $342.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory. Both are classified as mobile market segments and both remain in active production. The Core 3 305 has part number SAE3L, while the Core 5 210H has part number SRQ6RQ5MN.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 210H, with an average benchmark score of 24872, compared to 18302 for the Intel Core 3 305. The Core 5 210H sits at the 77th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 305 sits at the 72nd percentile.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-core performance?

A: The results vary by benchmark version. The Core 5 210H wins Cinebench R15 multicore by 24.8% and Cinebench R20 multicore by 15.3%, but the Core 3 305 wins Cinebench R23 multicore by 10.9%. PassMark multithread favors the Core 5 210H by 15.4%.

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded tests?

A: The Core 3 305 wins PassMark single-thread by 12.4% and Cinebench R23 single-core by 4.6%. The Core 5 210H wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 24.7% and Cinebench R20 single-core by 15.4%.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each processor?

A: The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core 5 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What are the manufacturing process nodes?

A: The Core 3 305 is built on a 3 nm process node from Intel. The Core 5 210H is built on a 10 nm process node from Intel.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Core 5 210H has 12 MB of shared L3 cache, double the 6 MB shared L3 cache of the Core 3 305.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 210H is the choice for throughput-oriented workloads. Its 47.5% lead in integer math and 32.6% lead in data compression make it the stronger option for number crunching and data processing tasks. The 24.9% advantage in random string sorting and 15.4% lead in multithreaded PassMark reinforce this profile. Data encryption also favors the Core 5 210H by 9.6%. The dual-channel memory bus and 8 PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide additional bandwidth headroom for systems that move large amounts of data. The 45 watt TDP indicates this processor is designed for performance-oriented mobile systems.

The Intel Core 3 305 wins in specific computational niches. Its 117% advantage in prime number finding is extraordinary and indicates strong performance in algorithms that rely on integer division and modular arithmetic. The 18.6% win in physics simulation and the 12.4% win in PassMark single-thread suggest it handles latency-sensitive, lightly threaded tasks with efficiency. The Cinebench R23 multicore win by 10.9% shows that newer rendering workloads can favor this chip despite its lower core count. The 3 nm process node and 15 watt TDP make it the more power-efficient option, and its single-channel memory support with LPDDR5X indicates a design aimed at compact, power-conscious mobile platforms.

The overall average benchmark scores, however, place the Core 5 210H clearly ahead. Its nearest rivals in the database are all higher-performing parts, while the Core 3 305 sits alongside more modest chips. Systems that need maximum throughput across a wide range of applications should favor the Core 5 210H. Systems that prioritize specific single-threaded tasks, prime number calculations, and physics workloads, while consuming less power, can rely on the Core 3 305.