CPU Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data places the Intel Core 5 330 and Intel Core 3 305 in the same performance tier, with average benchmark scores of 18345 and 18302 respectively, a 0.2% gap. Both chips sit at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 330 wins 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, but the margins are mostly narrow. The Core 3 305 takes 4 wins, including two with notable deltas.

The Core 5 330 is the pick for users prioritizing single-threaded responsiveness, floating-point workloads, and integer math. Its 2.8% lead in PassMark single-thread (4088 vs 3977) and 3.8% lead in floating-point math (43885 vs 42284) are the largest advantages in the comparison. The Core 3 305 counters with a 5.4% win in extended instructions (13543 vs 12808) and a 1.1% win in data compression (146857 vs 145287), making it the better choice for workloads that leverage those specific instruction paths.

Given that both chips share the same core count, thread count, base clock, TDP, socket, process node, and cache configuration, the decision hinges on the boost clock and integrated graphics. The Core 5 330 boosts to 4.60 GHz versus 4.30 GHz on the Core 3 305, and carries 2 Xe graphics units versus 1 Xe. For general productivity and mixed workloads, the Core 5 330's consistent, if modest, wins across Cinebench multi-core and most PassMark tests make it the safer default. The Core 3 305 is only preferable when the specific extended-instruction or compression workloads dominate the usage profile.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 has an average benchmark score of 18345, compared to 18302 for the Intel Core 3 305, a difference of 0.2%.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-core performance?

A: The Core 5 330 leads in PassMark single-thread with 4088 versus 3977, a 2.8% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core 5 330 scores 1856 against 1852 for the Core 3 305, a 0.2% gap.

Q: Are there any tests where the Core 3 305 wins by a large margin?

A: Yes. The Core 3 305 wins PassMark extended instructions by 5.4% (13543 vs 12808) and PassMark physics by 2.6% (1233 vs 1201). It also edges out the Core 5 330 in data compression by 1.1% (146857 vs 145287).

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread configuration?

A: Yes. Both have 6 cores and 6 threads, with a base clock of 1.50 GHz, a 15W TDP, and the same Intel BGA 1516 socket.

Q: What is the difference in integrated graphics?

A: The Core 5 330 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe units, while the Core 3 305 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe unit.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core 5 330 boosts to 4.60 GHz, while the Core 3 305 boosts to 4.30 GHz, a 0.30 GHz difference in favor of the Core 5 330.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same Wildcat Lake codename and use Intel's 3 nm process node. They share the same foundry (Intel) and the same generation designation: Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) for the 330, Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) for the 305. The core topology is identical: 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyper-threading advantage on either side.

The cache hierarchy is exactly the same across both parts. L1 cache is 192 KB, L2 cache is 2.5 MB, and L3 cache is 6 MB shared. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both are unlocked for overclocking? No, both have multiplierUnlocked set to false. Memory support is identical: DDR5 and LPDDR5X, with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth.

The key architectural differentiator is the integrated graphics. The Core 5 330 carries Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe execution units, while the Core 3 305 has the same Xe3 graphics architecture but with only 1 Xe unit. This halves the graphics compute resources on the Core 3 305, which may matter for systems relying on the iGPU for display output or light acceleration. PCIe support is the same on both: Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes.

Both chips have the same production status (Active), the same release date (2026-04-15), and the same launch MSRP of $309. The part numbers differ, SAE3G for the Core 5 330 and SAE3L for the Core 3 305, but the underlying silicon appears to be the same design binned for different boost behavior and graphics configuration.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in exactly three specification fields, plus the part number. The boost clock is the most consequential: the Core 5 330 reaches 4.60 GHz, while the Core 3 305 tops out at 4.30 GHz. This 0.30 GHz gap directly explains the Core 5 330's single-thread advantage in PassMark (4088 vs 3977).

The integrated graphics differ as noted: 2 Xe units on the Core 5 330 versus 1 Xe unit on the Core 3 305. This does not affect CPU benchmark scores but is a meaningful specification difference for buyers planning to rely on the integrated GPU.

The part number is also different: SAE3G (Core 5 330) versus SAE3L (Core 3 305). All other specifications, cores, threads, base clock, TDP, socket, process node, cache, memory support, memory bus, memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe, market segment, production status, release date, launch MSRP, and unlocked multiplier, are identical between the two.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent, if narrow, pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core 5 330 scores 1325 against 1322, a 0.2% win. In R20 multi-core, the gap is 5523 vs 5511, again 0.2%. In R23 multi-core, the Core 5 330 leads 13150 to 13123, a 0.2% margin. Single-core results follow the same trend: R15 ties at 186, R20 gives the Core 5 330 a 0.3% edge (779 vs 777), and R23 shows a 0.2% lead (1856 vs 1852). These are sub-1% differences, within run-to-run noise territory, but the direction is uniform.

The PassMark suite reveals where the real separation lies. The Core 5 330 wins floating-point math by 3.8% (43885 vs 42284) and integer math by 3% (33258 vs 32295). Single-thread performance shows a 2.8% advantage (4088 vs 3977), and data encryption is 0.5% better (11076 vs 11019). The Core 5 330 also takes multithread (15471 vs 15439, 0.2%), random string sorting (17771 vs 17623, 0.8%), and data compression loses by 1.1% (145287 vs 146857).

The Core 3 305's wins are concentrated in specific areas. Extended instructions is its strongest result: 13543 vs 12808, a 5.4% margin. Physics follows at 1233 vs 1201, a 2.6% win. Prime number finding is essentially tied at 115 vs 114 (0.9% for the Core 3 305), and data compression shows a 1.1% edge. These wins suggest the Core 3 305 has an advantage in certain instruction paths despite the lower boost clock.

The overall tally stands at 13 wins for the Core 5 330 and 4 for the Core 3 305. The magnitude of the Core 3 305's extended-instructions win (5.4%) is the largest single delta in the entire comparison, larger than any individual Core 5 330 win.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 330 is the clear choice for general-purpose computing. Its wins span the Cinebench multi-core and single-core suites, PassMark multithread, single-thread, floating-point math, integer math, data encryption, and random string sorting. The 2.8% single-thread advantage and 3.8% floating-point advantage are the most meaningful deltas for everyday desktop responsiveness and numerical workloads. The higher boost clock (4.60 GHz vs 4.30 GHz) is the likely driver. The dual Xe graphics units also give it an edge for systems using the integrated GPU.

The Core 3 305 wins in extended instructions by a commanding 5.4%, suggesting it handles certain specialized instruction sets more efficiently. Its physics win (2.6%) and data compression win (1.1%) point toward workloads involving simulation or compression algorithms. For users running software that exercises these specific paths, such as compression tools, certain physics engines, or instruction-set-specific libraries, the Core 3 305's wins are not trivial. The prime number finding result (115 vs 114) is effectively tied, indicating parity in that narrow workload.

In practical terms, the Core 5 330 is the better all-rounder. The Core 3 305 only makes sense when the workload profile is heavily skewed toward the specific areas where it wins, extended instructions and compression. For everything else, the data consistently favors the Core 5 330, even if the margins are often small. Both chips occupy the same performance percentile (72nd) and sit within 0.2% of each other in average score, so the choice between them is more about workload specificity than raw capability.