Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core 7 150HL Comparison

The Intel Core 3 305 and Intel Core 7 150HL occupy different positions in Intel’s mobile and desktop lineup. The Core 3 305 is a 6-core, 6-thread part built on a 3 nm process, while the Core 7 150HL is a 14-core, 20-thread processor on a 10 nm node. Benchmark data is available only for the Core 3 305, as the Core 7 150HL has no recorded scores in the database. This asymmetry shapes the analysis: the Core 3 305 can be measured against its recorded rivals, while the Core 7 150HL must be assessed through its architectural specifications and market positioning.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Core 3 305 and the Intel Core 7 150HL. The Core 7 150HL has an average benchmark score of zero and no recorded entries for any test. Consequently, a direct comparison of Cinebench, PassMark, or other workload scores is impossible from the recorded data. The Core 3 305, however, has a full suite of benchmark results, and those scores can be interpreted against its nearest rivals.

The Core 3 305 achieves an average benchmark score of 18302. Its closest rival, the Intel Core i3-14100, scores 18318, a difference of 0.1 percent in favor of the i3-14100. The Intel Core 5 330 scores 18345, placing it 0.2 percent ahead of the Core 3 305. The Intel Core 7 360 scores 18374, a margin of 0.4 percent. The AMD Ryzen 5 2600E trails slightly, with a score of 18230, which is 0.4 percent behind the Core 3 305. These differences are narrow, indicating that the Core 3 305 sits in a tightly contested performance band.

Looking at individual workloads, the Core 3 305 delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13123 and a single-core score of 1852. In Cinebench R20, it scores 5511 multi-core and 777 single-core. The Cinebench R15 results are 1322 multi-core and 186 single-core. These figures establish a baseline for the Core 3 305’s rendering performance, but without Core 7 150HL scores, no direct percentage advantage or deficit can be stated.

PassMark results for the Core 3 305 show a single-thread score of 3977 and a multithread score of 15439. Data compression reaches 146857, data encryption 11019, extended instructions 13543, and prime number finding 115. Floating point math scores 42284, integer math 32295, physics 1233, and random string sorting 17623. These results reflect the Core 3 305’s capabilities in specific computational tasks, yet they cannot be compared to the Core 7 150HL because no equivalent measurements exist for that processor.

The percentile ranking reinforces the Core 3 305’s position. It sits at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Core 7 150HL sits at the 50th percentile, but that figure is derived from its average benchmark score of zero, which likely reflects missing data rather than actual performance. The percentile difference between the two parts should not be read as a performance gap, since the Core 7 150HL has no recorded measurements to support a comparative ranking.

Architecture Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in their underlying designs. The Intel Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake architecture and is built on a 3 nm process at Intel’s foundry. Its codename is Wildcat Lake, and it belongs to the Core 3 generation. The Core 7 150HL uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS codename, and is manufactured on a 10 nm process. The process node difference, 3 nm versus 10 nm, indicates a significant generational gap in manufacturing technology for the Core 3 305.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The Core 3 305 provides 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning it has no hyper-threading. The Core 7 150HL provides 14 cores and 20 threads, indicating a hybrid configuration with more physical cores and additional logical threads. The Core 7 150HL’s thread count exceeds its core count, which suggests the presence of efficiency cores alongside performance cores, a common trait in Raptor Lake designs.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 3 305 has a 192 KB L1 cache, a 2.5 MB L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 150HL lists L1 cache as 80 KB per core, L2 cache as 2 MB per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core notation for the Core 7 150HL means its total cache scales with the number of cores, giving it a substantially larger aggregate cache pool, especially at the L3 level where 24 MB shared is four times the Core 3 305’s 6 MB.

Memory support and bus width present another contrast. The Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, with a single-channel memory bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core 7 150HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, uses a dual-channel memory bus, and has no recorded memory bandwidth figure. The dual-channel configuration of the Core 7 150HL suggests higher potential memory throughput, but the absence of a bandwidth number in the database prevents a quantified comparison.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Core 3 305 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU only. The Core 7 150HL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU only. Both parts use PCIe Gen 4, but the Core 7 150HL offers two additional CPU-attached lanes.

Integrated graphics distinguish the two. The Core 3 305 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with a single Xe core. The Core 7 150HL includes Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The naming and execution unit counts suggest different graphics performance levels, though the Core 3 305’s Xe3 designation points to a newer graphics architecture.

Socket and market segment differ. The Core 3 305 uses Intel BGA 1516, a ball grid array socket, and is classified as a mobile part. The Core 7 150HL uses Intel Socket 1700 and is classified as a desktop part. This distinction affects platform compatibility and system design. The Core 3 305 was released on 2026-04-15, while the Core 7 150HL was released on 2024-04-07. Production status for both is active.

Clock speeds show a clear difference. The Core 3 305 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Core 7 150HL has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Core 7 150HL runs at higher clock speeds in both base and boost states. Thermal design power also differs: the Core 3 305 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Core 7 150HL has a TDP of 45 watts. The higher TDP of the Core 7 150HL reflects its larger core count and higher clock speeds, which require more power and more substantial cooling.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear but limited verdict. For workloads measured in the database, the Intel Core 3 305 has proven scores, and those scores place it at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs. Its average benchmark score of 18302 is within 0.4 percent of its nearest rivals, including the Intel Core i3-14100, Core 5 330, Core 7 360, and AMD Ryzen 5 2600E. This consistency across rivals indicates that the Core 3 305 delivers performance in a well-established mid-range band.

The Intel Core 7 150HL has no benchmark scores in the database. Its average benchmark score is zero, and it has no nearest rivals listed. Therefore, the data cannot confirm that the Core 7 150HL outperforms the Core 3 305, even though its higher core count, thread count, boost clock, and larger L3 cache suggest it should be the stronger multi-core processor. The 14-core, 20-thread configuration, 5.00 GHz boost clock, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache point toward higher multi-threaded capability, but those are specifications, not measured results.

Who should pick which, strictly from the data? A system builder with a mobile platform requirement would choose the Core 3 305, as it is classified as a mobile part on Intel BGA 1516 with a 15 watt TDP. Its 3 nm process and active production status make it a current-generation option. A system builder with a desktop platform requirement would choose the Core 7 150HL, as it is classified as a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700 with a 45 watt TDP. The desktop classification and higher TDP align with a desktop cooling solution.

For users who rely on benchmark-verified performance, the Core 3 305 is the only part with recorded scores. For users who prioritize raw specifications such as core count, thread count, and cache size, the Core 7 150HL presents a more formidable specification sheet. The data does not allow a direct performance verdict between the two, so the choice hinges on platform type and the weight given to measured benchmarks versus architectural specifications.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 7 150HL has 14 cores, while the Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 150HL has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while the Intel Core 3 305 has a boost clock of 4.30 GHz.

Q: What is the average benchmark score of the Intel Core 3 305?

A: The Intel Core 3 305 has an average benchmark score of 18302 and sits at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 150HL have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No, the Intel Core 7 150HL has no recorded benchmark scores in the database; its average benchmark score is zero.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Intel Core 7 150HL supports DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Intel Core 3 305 has a TDP of 15 watts, and the Intel Core 7 150HL has a TDP of 45 watts.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 3 305 wins in areas where the database has direct measurements. It records a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13123 and a single-core score of 1852, along with PassMark scores across multiple workloads. Its 72nd percentile ranking among all CPUs gives it a verified position in the performance hierarchy. Its nearest rival comparison shows it within 0.4 percent of the Intel Core i3-14100, Core 5 330, Core 7 360, and AMD Ryzen 5 2600E, meaning it trades blows with these parts in the recorded data. The Core 3 305 also wins on process node, using a 3 nm process compared to the Core 7 150HL’s 10 nm process, which indicates newer manufacturing technology. Its 15 watt TDP makes it suitable for mobile platforms where power efficiency is a priority.

The Intel Core 7 150HL wins on specifications that suggest higher multi-core and single-core capability. It has 14 cores and 20 threads versus 6 cores and 6 threads, a 24 MB shared L3 cache versus 6 MB, a boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.30 GHz, and a base clock of 2.40 GHz versus 1.50 GHz. Its dual-channel memory bus supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core 3 305 is limited to a single-channel bus with DDR5 and LPDDR5X only. The Core 7 150HL also provides 8 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, compared to 6 lanes on the Core 3 305. Its Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units offers a higher execution unit count than the Core 3 305’s Xe3 Graphics with a single Xe core, though the newer architecture of the latter may compensate in ways the data cannot quantify. The Core 7 150HL’s desktop classification and Socket 1700 compatibility make it the choice for desktop systems.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. Core count: 6 for the Core 3 305, 14 for the Core 7 150HL. Thread count: 6 versus 20. Base clock: 1.50 GHz versus 2.40 GHz. Boost clock: 4.30 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. TDP: 15 watts versus 45 watts. Socket: Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel Socket 1700. Codename: Wildcat Lake versus Raptor Lake-PS. Process node: 3 nm versus 10 nm. L1 cache: 192 KB versus 80 KB per core. L2 cache: 2.5 MB versus 2 MB per core. L3 cache: 6 MB shared versus 24 MB shared. Memory support: DDR5 and LPDDR5X versus DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bus: single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s for the Core 3 305, no recorded value for the Core 7 150HL. PCIe: Gen 4 with 6 lanes versus Gen 4 with 8 lanes. Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core versus Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. Market segment: mobile versus desktop. Release date: 2026-04-15 versus 2024-04-07. The Core 3 305 has a launch MSRP of $309, while the Core 7 150HL has no launch MSRP recorded. Both processors have active production status, neither has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory.