Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core 5 220H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between the Intel Core 3 305 and the Intel Core 5 220H is strikingly clear. The Core 5 220H dominates the multicore and throughput-oriented tests, winning 13 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The Core 3 305 takes only 4 wins, but those wins cluster around specific workloads that reveal a distinct personality.

The Core 5 220H is the obvious choice for heavily threaded, data-intensive tasks. It wins decisively in PassMark data compression (247921 vs 146857, a 40.8% margin), integer math (73555 vs 32295, a 56.1% margin), and multithreaded workloads (21884 vs 15439, a 29.5% margin). The 12-core, 16-thread configuration with Raptor Lake architecture simply has more execution resources to throw at parallel problems.

The Core 3 305, however, wins in areas that suggest a different strength profile. It takes the PassMark single-thread test (3977 vs 3405, a 16.8% margin) and the passmark find prime numbers test (115 vs 82, a 40.2% margin). The prime number test is notable because it often rewards lower-latency, higher-frequency single-core performance rather than raw core count. The Core 3 305 also wins Cinebench R23 multicore (13123 vs 11198, a 17.2% margin), which is curious given the Core 5 220H's advantage in the older Cinebench R15 and R20 multicore tests.

The percentile rankings place the Core 5 220H at the 80th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 305 sits at the 72nd percentile. The average benchmark score difference is substantial: 28574 for the Core 5 220H versus 18302 for the Core 3 305. That is a 56% gap in aggregate performance, confirming the Core 5 220H as the heavier hitter in most scenarios.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design generations. The Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node, while the Core 5 220H uses the Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm node. The process node difference is significant: 3 nm allows for denser transistors and potentially better power efficiency per unit of work, though the Core 3 305's 15 W TDP versus the Core 5 220H's 45 W TDP already signals a much lower power envelope.

Core counts diverge sharply. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The Core 5 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads, indicating a hybrid configuration with some cores supporting additional threads. The cache hierarchy also differs: the Core 3 305 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3, while the Core 5 220H has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. The Core 5 220H's L3 cache is three times larger, which helps with data reuse in threaded workloads.

Memory support separates them further. The Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 5 220H supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus, though its bandwidth is not recorded in the database. The dual-channel configuration gives the Core 5 220H a structural memory throughput advantage for multi-core workloads.

PCIe capabilities also differ: the Core 3 305 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes, while the Core 5 220H provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU-only lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 3 305 features Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe, while the Core 5 220H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units.

The sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 3 305 versus Intel BGA 1744 for the Core 5 220H. Release dates also differ, with the Core 5 220H launching in December 2024 and the Core 3 305 arriving in April 2026.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results tell a layered story. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core 5 220H scores 1835 versus the Core 3 305's 1322, a 28% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the gap is similar: 7812 versus 5511, a 29.5% margin. But in Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core 3 305 flips the result, scoring 13123 versus 11198, a 17.2% win. The R23 test may weight sustained load differently, and the Core 3 305's newer architecture may handle that specific workload more efficiently despite fewer cores.

Single-core Cinebench results are nearly tied in R23: 1852 for the Core 3 305 versus 1853 for the Core 5 220H, a 0.1% difference. The Core 5 220H wins R15 single-core (262 vs 186, 29%) and R20 single-core (1102 vs 777, 29.5%), but the R23 single-core tie suggests that the Core 3 305's Wildcat Lake architecture closes the gap in newer test versions.

PassMark tests show the Core 5 220H's dominant pattern. Integer math is its largest win: 73555 versus 32295, a 56.1% margin. Data compression follows at 247921 versus 146857, a 40.8% margin. Random string sorting goes to the Core 5 220H at 28438 versus 17623, a 38% margin. Multithreaded performance shows 21884 versus 15439, a 29.5% margin. Data encryption favors the Core 5 220H at 15216 versus 11019, a 27.6% margin. Floating-point math goes to the Core 5 220H at 51671 versus 42284, an 18.2% margin. Physics simulation favors the Core 5 220H at 1478 versus 1233, a 16.6% margin. Extended instructions go to the Core 5 220H at 14642 versus 13543, a 7.5% margin.

The Core 3 305's wins beyond single-thread include passmark find prime numbers at 115 versus 82, a 40.2% margin. The passmark single-thread score of 3977 versus 3405 is a 16.8% win, and the duplicate passmark_singlethread test confirms the same result. The prime number test's 40.2% win is particularly interesting given that the Core 5 220H has more cores and a higher boost clock. This suggests the Core 3 305's single-core latency characteristics are superior for that specific workload.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core 5 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads. Base clock speeds are 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 305 versus 2.70 GHz for the Core 5 220H. Boost clocks are 4.30 GHz versus 4.90 GHz. TDP is 15 W versus 45 W.

Socket types differ: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 3 305, Intel BGA 1744 for the Core 5 220H. The Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename on a 3 nm process, while the Core 5 220H uses Raptor Lake-H on a 10 nm process. The Core 3 305's architecture field is null in the database, while the Core 5 220H explicitly lists Raptor Lake.

Cache configurations diverge completely. The Core 3 305 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Core 5 220H has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. Memory support differs: the Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core 5 220H supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and no recorded bandwidth figure.

PCIe generations and lane counts differ: Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the Core 3 305, Gen 5 with 8 lanes for the Core 5 220H. Integrated graphics differ: Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe for the Core 3 305, Iris Xe Graphics 80EU for the Core 5 220H. Launch MSRP values are recorded as $309 for the Core 3 305 and $342 for the Core 5 220H. Both processors are active production parts with locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 220H scores 28574 on average, versus 18302 for the Intel Core 3 305. The Core 5 220H also sits at the 80th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 305 sits at the 72nd percentile.

Q: Does the Core 3 305 win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, it wins 4 of the 17 recorded comparisons. These include Cinebench R23 multicore (13123 vs 11198), PassMark find prime numbers (115 vs 82), and PassMark single-thread (3977 vs 3405). The single-thread win appears twice in the database with identical scores.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark integer math, where the Core 5 220H scores 73555 versus 32295 for the Core 3 305, a 56.1% advantage. Data compression is the second largest at 40.8%.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Core 5 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads, while the Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core 5 220H also has a larger shared L3 cache at 18 MB versus 6 MB.

Q: Are these processors from the same Intel generation?

A: No. The Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename on a 3 nm process, while the Core 5 220H uses Raptor Lake-H on a 10 nm process. The Core 5 220H belongs to the Raptor Lake Refresh generation, while the Core 3 305 is listed as Core 3 (Wildcat Lake).

Q: Do the processors support the same memory types?

A: Both support DDR5, but they differ otherwise. The Core 3 305 supports LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core 5 220H supports DDR4 in addition to DDR5 and uses a dual-channel bus.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload type. The Intel Core 5 220H is the stronger processor for multithreaded, data-heavy applications. Its 12 cores, 16 threads, 45 W TDP, dual-channel memory, and 18 MB L3 cache deliver decisive wins in integer math, data compression, encryption, and multithreaded benchmarks. The 56.1% margin in integer math and 40.8% margin in data compression show that this processor is built for throughput.

The Intel Core 3 305 is the better choice for single-thread-sensitive workloads and scenarios where power efficiency matters. Its 15 W TDP, 3 nm process, and Wildcat Lake architecture produce a 16.8% win in PassMark single-thread and a 40.2% win in prime number finding. The Cinebench R23 multicore win (17.2%) suggests that the newer architecture handles certain modern workloads more efficiently despite having half the cores.

The percentile data reinforces this split. The Core 5 220H at the 80th percentile is a stronger overall performer, but the Core 3 305 at the 72nd percentile is not far behind in aggregate terms. The Core 3 305's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-14100 (0.1% ahead) and the Intel Core 5 330 (0.2% ahead), while the Core 5 220H sits alongside AMD EPYC 7203P and Intel Xeon E-2436 with near-zero delta percentages.

For users who run heavily threaded workloads such as video encoding, data compression, or multi-tasking, the Core 5 220H delivers substantially more performance. For users who prioritize single-thread response, lower power draw, and a more modern process node, the Core 3 305 offers a compelling profile. The benchmark record shows 13 wins for the Core 5 220H and 4 for the Core 3 305, but the specific wins of the Core 3 305 in single-thread and R23 multicore indicate that it is not simply a weaker part. It is a different kind of processor, one that trades core count for architectural efficiency.