Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core 7 150UL Comparison

Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core 7 150UL

The Intel Core 3 305 and Intel Core 7 150UL represent two distinct approaches in Intel’s mobile and desktop processor lineup. The Core 3 305 is a 6-core, 6-thread part built on a 3 nm process with Wildcat Lake architecture, while the Core 7 150UL is a 10-core, 12-thread chip using Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm node. Benchmark data is available only for the Core 3 305, which records an average benchmark score of 18302 and sits at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs. The Core 7 150UL has no recorded benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile, meaning the quantitative comparisons below rely exclusively on the Core 3 305’s measured results and the specification differences between the two.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 3 305 wins in every measurable performance category because it is the only one with benchmark data. Its recorded scores span Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core and single-core tests, plus seven PassMark workloads. Across these, the Core 3 305 shows a pattern of strong multi-threaded throughput for a 15 W part. For example, its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13123 and single-core score of 1852 indicate balanced scaling, while its PassMark single-thread score of 3977 confirms solid per-core performance. The nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core i3-14100 with an average score of 18318 and a delta of -0.1%, the Intel Core 5 330 at 18345 with -0.2%, the Intel Core 7 360 at 18374 with -0.4%, and the AMD Ryzen 5 2600E at 18230 with +0.4%. These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, which places the Core 3 305 in a very tight performance band around its immediate competitors.

The Core 7 150UL, lacking any benchmark scores, cannot claim a win in any measured test. Its advantage lies in its specifications: 10 cores versus 6, 12 threads versus 6, a higher base clock of 1.70 GHz versus 1.50 GHz, and a higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.30 GHz. It also uses a dual-channel memory bus, while the Core 3 305 uses single-channel. For workloads that depend on raw thread count or memory bandwidth scalability, the Core 7 150UL would likely hold an edge, but without recorded data, that remains speculative. In terms of recorded wins, the Core 3 305 is the only contender with numbers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

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

Q: How many cores and threads does each CPU have?

A: The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core 7 150UL has 10 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the difference in process node?

A: The Core 3 305 uses a 3 nm process node, while the Core 7 150UL uses a 10 nm node.

Q: Does the Core 3 305 support ECC memory?

A: No, both processors have ECC memory support set to false.

Q: What is the memory channel configuration for each?

A: The Core 3 305 uses a single-channel memory bus, while the Core 7 150UL uses dual-channel.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Core 3 305 has an average benchmark score of 18302. The Core 7 150UL has no recorded benchmark scores, so its average is 0.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark results between the two CPUs are not present in the database. The head-to-head field is empty, and wins for each item are recorded as zero. This means no direct comparison tests exist for the Core 3 305 versus the Core 7 150UL. Instead, the available data consists solely of the Core 3 305’s individual benchmark scores. These scores reveal its performance profile: in Cinebench R15, it scores 1322 multi-core and 186 single-core. In Cinebench R20, it scores 5511 multi-core and 777 single-core. In Cinebench R23, it scores 13123 multi-core and 1852 single-core. The PassMark suite shows 146857 in data compression, 11019 in data encryption, 13543 in extended instructions, 115 in find prime numbers, 42284 in floating point math, 32295 in integer math, 15439 in multithread, 1233 in physics, 17623 in random string sorting, and 3977 in single-thread.

The nearest rival comparisons for the Core 3 305 are close. The Intel Core i3-14100 has an average score of 18318, which is 0.1% higher than the Core 3 305’s 18302. The Intel Core 5 330 scores 18345, 0.2% higher. The Intel Core 7 360 scores 18374, 0.4% higher. The AMD Ryzen 5 2600E scores 18230, which is 0.4% lower. These deltas are minimal, indicating the Core 3 305 performs on par with these established parts despite having fewer cores than some of them. For instance, the Core 7 360 likely has more cores, but the Core 3 305 still sits within 0.4% of its average score. That suggests the 3 nm process and Wildcat Lake architecture deliver strong per-core efficiency. The Core 7 150UL, with no scores, cannot be placed in this hierarchy.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several core specifications. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core 7 150UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 305 and 1.70 GHz for the Core 7 150UL. Boost clocks are 4.30 GHz and 5.00 GHz, respectively. Both have a TDP of 15 W, but they use different sockets: the Core 3 305 fits Intel BGA 1516, while the Core 7 150UL uses Intel Socket 1700. The Core 3 305’s cache layout is listed as 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Core 7 150UL lists 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. Memory support differs: the Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core 7 150UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and no recorded bandwidth figure. PCIe lanes are 6 for the Core 3 305 and 8 for the Core 7 150UL, both Gen 4. Integrated graphics differ: the Core 3 305 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe, while the Core 7 150UL uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. The Core 3 305 has a release date of 2026-04-15, while the Core 7 150UL released on 2024-04-07. The Core 3 305 has a launch MSRP of $309; the Core 7 150UL has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is significant. The Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename with a 3 nm process node, fabricated by Intel. Its generation is listed as Core 3 (Wildcat Lake). The Core 7 150UL uses Raptor Lake as its architecture and codename Raptor Lake-PS, built on a 10 nm process node, also by Intel. The generation is Core 7 (Raptor Lake-PS). The process node difference, 3 nm versus 10 nm, implies a substantial density and efficiency advantage for the Core 3 305, which likely explains its strong single-thread scores despite a lower boost clock than the Core 7 150UL. The Core 3 305’s cache is organized as a single block of 6 MB shared L3, while the Core 7 150UL has 12 MB shared L3. The Core 7 150UL’s per-core L1 and L2 allocations (80 KB and 1.25 MB per core) contrast with the Core 3 305’s aggregate numbers (192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2). The Core 3 305 supports only DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, whereas the Core 7 150UL supports both DDR4 and DDR5, which gives it broader platform compatibility. The Core 3 305’s integrated graphics, Intel Xe3 with 1 Xe, is a newer generation compared to the Core 7 150UL’s Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both are marked as active production. The Core 7 150UL is classified as a Desktop segment part, while the Core 3 305 is Mobile.

The Verdict

The data supports the Core 3 305 as the better-measured processor. Its average benchmark score of 18302 places it at the 72nd percentile, and its nearest rivals, including the Intel Core i3-14100 and Intel Core 5 330, sit within 0.2% of its score. The Core 7 150UL has no benchmark data and a 50th percentile ranking, which cannot be validated against any recorded performance. For users who rely on Cinebench or PassMark results, the Core 3 305 delivers concrete numbers: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13123 and a PassMark single-thread score of 3977. The Core 7 150UL offers more cores, more threads, higher clocks, and dual-channel memory, but none of that is quantified in the database. The choice depends on whether the user prioritizes verified performance or raw specifications. The Core 3 305 is the only one with proof of performance, while the Core 7 150UL remains an unmeasured option with a wider memory bus and higher clock ceilings. For builders who need a known quantity, the Core 3 305 is the data-backed pick. For those who value thread count and memory bandwidth on paper, the Core 7 150UL has the specification advantage, but its actual performance is unrecorded. The database shows one clear result: the Core 3 305 outperforms its nearest rivals by a narrow margin, and the Core 7 150UL has no comparable scores to contest that position.