Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core 7 240H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data presents a clear hierarchy: the Intel Core 7 240H wins 13 of 17 benchmark comparisons, while the Intel Core 3 305 takes 4. The margin of victory matters more than the raw count. The Core 7 240H dominates in multi-threaded workloads, while the Core 3 305 shows a surprising edge in specific single-thread tests.

Starting with the largest gap, the PassMark integer math test shows the Core 7 240H at 80396 against 32295 for the Core 3 305, a delta of -59.8%. This is the single biggest divergence in the entire comparison. The Core 7 240H's 10 cores and 16 threads provide a structural advantage in this workload that the Core 3 305's 6 cores and 6 threads cannot overcome.

Data compression follows a similar pattern. The Core 7 240H scores 271774 versus 146857, a -46% difference. This workload scales with thread count and cache capacity, both of which favor the Core 7 240H. The Core 3 305 does not come close in this test.

Cinebench R15 multicore shows the Core 7 240H at 2360 against 1322, a -44% delta. The R20 multicore test shows 8562 versus 5511, a -35.6% margin. The R23 multicore test narrows the gap somewhat: 15764 against 13123, a -16.8% difference. This suggests that as the workload becomes more sustained, the Core 3 305's efficiency-oriented design partially compensates for its lower core count.

The single-core results tell a more nuanced story. Cinebench R23 single-core actually goes to the Core 3 305: 1852 versus 1719, a +7.7% win. This is notable because the Core 7 240H has a higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz compared to 4.30 GHz on the Core 3 305. The newer Wildcat Lake architecture appears to deliver better instructions-per-clock in this specific test.

PassMark single-thread confirms the Core 3 305's advantage: 3977 versus 3782, a +5.2% margin. The find prime numbers test also goes to the Core 3 305: 115 versus 102, a +12.7% win. These are the only two PassMark tests where the Core 3 305 comes out ahead.

The remaining wins for the Core 7 240H are spread across various workloads. Random string sorting shows 28866 versus 17623, a -38.9% delta. Multithread performance shows 23975 versus 15439, a -35.6% margin. Floating point math shows 58905 versus 42284, a -28.2% difference. Physics simulation shows 1723 versus 1233, a -28.4% gap.

Data encryption shows a smaller but still decisive margin: 15155 versus 11019, a -27.3% difference. Extended instructions show 16897 versus 13543, a -19.8% margin. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 249 versus 186, a -25.3% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1208 versus 777, a -35.7% gap.

The average benchmark score reflects this overall picture. The Core 7 240H averages 31483, placing it in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 305 averages 18302, placing it in the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 7 240H include the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 with an average score of 31473 and a delta of 0%, the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX at 31495 with 0% delta, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H at 31508 with -0.1%. The Core 3 305 sits near the Intel Core i3-14100 at 18318 with a -0.1% delta and the Intel Core 5 330 at 18345 with -0.2%.

The Verdict

The data indicates two distinct performance profiles. The Intel Core 7 240H is the stronger processor for multi-threaded and throughput-oriented tasks. Its wins in integer math, data compression, and Cinebench multicore tests are decisive, with margins ranging from -16.8% to -59.8%. The 10-core, 16-thread configuration combined with 24 MB of shared L3 cache delivers substantial performance in parallel workloads.

The Intel Core 3 305 wins in a narrower set of scenarios. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1852 beats the Core 7 240H's 1719, and its PassMark single-thread score of 3977 beats 3782. The find prime numbers test also favors the Core 3 305. These results suggest that for workloads that depend primarily on single-core efficiency, the Core 3 305 holds an advantage despite its lower boost clock.

The percentile ranking confirms the overall hierarchy. The Core 7 240H sits at the 82nd percentile, while the Core 3 305 sits at the 72nd. The average benchmark score difference is substantial: 31483 versus 18302. This is a 72% advantage for the Core 7 240H in average terms.

The launch MSRP for the Core 7 240H is $502, while the Core 3 305 has a launch MSRP of $309. The data does not address whether this price difference is justified; the benchmark results stand on their own.

For workloads that use many cores, the Core 7 240H is the clear choice. For workloads that rely on single-thread efficiency, the Core 3 305 delivers a measurable advantage. The Core 7 240H also consumes more power, with a TDP of 45 compared to 15 for the Core 3 305. This may matter in thermally constrained mobile designs.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations. The Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is built on a 3 nm process node. The Core 7 240H uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-H, and is built on a 10 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel.

The core configurations differ significantly. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyper-threading support. The Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads, indicating a hybrid configuration with performance and efficiency cores. The Core 7 240H's base clock is 2.50 GHz with a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Core 3 305 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. 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 7 240H has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 cache on the Core 7 240H is substantial and likely contributes to its strong integer math performance.

Memory support differs. The Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth. The Core 7 240H supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus. The memory bandwidth for the Core 7 240H is not recorded in the database.

PCIe capabilities differ. The Core 3 305 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The Core 7 240H provides PCIe Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Core 7 240H offers a newer PCIe generation and more lanes.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Core 3 305 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe unit. The Core 7 240H includes Iris Xe Graphics with 64 execution units. The Core 7 240H's integrated GPU likely offers higher graphics throughput based on the execution unit count.

The production status for both is listed as Active. The release dates differ: the Core 3 305 was released on 2026-04-15, while the Core 7 240H was released on 2024-12-17. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The Core 3 305 wins in Cinebench R23 single-core with 1852 against 1719, a +7.7% margin. It also wins in PassMark single-thread with 3977 against 3782, a +5.2% margin. However, the Core 7 240H wins in Cinebench R15 single-core (249 versus 186) and Cinebench R20 single-core (1208 versus 777).

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: The Core 7 240H leads significantly. Cinebench R15 multicore shows 2360 versus 1322, a -44% difference. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 8562 versus 5511, a -35.6% difference. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 15764 versus 13123, a -16.8% difference. PassMark multithread shows 23975 versus 15439, a -35.6% difference.

Q: What explains the Core 3 305's single-thread advantage despite a lower boost clock?

A: The Core 3 305 uses a 3 nm process node compared to the Core 7 240H's 10 nm node. The newer Wildcat Lake architecture likely delivers higher instructions-per-clock. The boost clock difference is notable: 4.30 GHz for the Core 3 305 versus 5.20 GHz for the Core 7 240H, yet the Core 3 305 still wins in Cinebench R23 single-core.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: The Core 7 240H has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 6 MB of shared L3 cache on the Core 3 305. The Core 7 240H also has 2 MB of L2 cache per core, while the Core 3 305 has 2.5 MB of total L2 cache.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth. The Core 7 240H supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus. The memory bandwidth for the Core 7 240H is not recorded in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements for each processor?

A: The Core 3 305 has a TDP of 15, while the Core 7 240H has a TDP of 45. The Core 3 305 is designed for lower power consumption, which aligns with its lower base clock of 1.50 GHz. The Core 7 240H's higher TDP corresponds to its higher base clock of 2.50 GHz and boost clock of 5.20 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 7 240H wins in every multi-threaded benchmark category. This includes Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests, PassMark multithread, data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, floating point math, integer math, physics, and random string sorting. The margins range from -16.8% in Cinebench R23 multicore to -59.8% in PassMark integer math.

The Core 7 240H also wins in Cinebench R15 single-core and Cinebench R20 single-core, despite losing in Cinebench R23 single-core. This suggests that the Core 7 240H's higher boost clock helps in shorter single-thread bursts, but the Core 3 305's architectural efficiency wins out in the longer R23 workload.

The Core 3 305 wins in four specific tests: Cinebench R23 single-core, PassMark single-thread, PassMark singlethread, and PassMark find prime numbers. The find prime numbers result is particularly interesting: 115 versus 102, a +12.7% margin. This test often depends on efficient integer operations and cache behavior, areas where the Core 3 305's newer architecture appears to excel.

For workloads like data compression and integer math, the Core 7 240H is the clear choice. The PassMark data compression score of 271774 is nearly double the Core 3 305's 146857. Similarly, the integer math score of 80396 is more than double the Core 3 305's 32295.

For single-threaded productivity tasks or workloads that cannot use more than one or two cores, the Core 3 305 holds a measurable advantage. The PassMark single-thread score of 3977 against 3782 indicates better performance in this category. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1852 against 1719 confirms this pattern.

The Core 7 240H's wins are more numerous and often larger in magnitude. The Core 3 305's wins are narrower but consistent across single-thread tests. The data suggests that the Core 7 240H is better suited for rendering, compilation, data processing, and other parallel workloads. The Core 3 305 is better suited for legacy applications or workloads that scale poorly beyond a single thread.

Specification Differences

The core count differs substantially: 6 cores and 6 threads for the Core 3 305, versus 10 cores and 16 threads for the Core 7 240H. This is the most fundamental difference and explains most of the multi-threaded performance gap.

Clock speeds differ in both directions. The Core 3 305 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Core 7 240H has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Core 7 240H is faster in both metrics, yet the Core 3 305 still wins some single-thread tests.

TDP differs by a factor of three: 15 for the Core 3 305 versus 45 for the Core 7 240H. This has implications for thermal design and battery life in mobile devices.

The socket differs: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 3 305, and Intel BGA 1744 for the Core 7 240H. These are not interchangeable.

Process node differs: 3 nm for the Core 3 305, 10 nm for the Core 7 240H. The Core 3 305 uses a more advanced manufacturing process.

Cache differs in both size and structure. The Core 3 305 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Core 7 240H has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3.

Memory support differs. The Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with single-channel memory. The Core 7 240H supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory. The Core 3 305 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

PCIe differs: Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the Core 3 305, Gen 5 with 8 lanes for the Core 7 240H.

Integrated graphics differ: Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe unit for the Core 3 305, Iris Xe Graphics with 64 execution units for the Core 7 240H.

Release dates differ: 2026-04-15 for the Core 3 305, 2024-12-17 for the Core 7 240H. The Core 3 305 is the newer product.

The launch MSRP differs: $309 for the Core 3 305, $502 for the Core 7 240H.