Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core 9 270H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy between these two mobile processors. The Intel Core 9 270H wins 14 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 3 305 claims only 3 wins. The margins, however, are not uniform across workloads, and the Core 3 305 manages to secure victories in two specific areas that reveal its architectural strengths.

The largest gap appears in PassMark integer math, where the Core 9 270H scores 97654 against 32295 for the Core 3 305, a 66.9% advantage. This is the single biggest delta in the entire comparison. Data compression shows a similar story: the Core 9 270H posts 333785 versus 146857, a 56% lead. Random string sorting follows at 52.2% behind for the Core 3 305, with scores of 36867 and 17623 respectively. These three workloads all favor the Core 9 270H by more than half, indicating a substantial throughput advantage in integer-heavy and data-manipulation tasks.

Cinebench multi-core results tell a more nuanced story. In Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core, the Core 9 270H leads by 46.3% in both cases, scoring 2464 versus 1322 and 10268 versus 5511. The R23 multi-core gap narrows considerably to 27.1%, with the Core 9 270H at 18000 and the Core 3 305 at 13123. This narrowing suggests that the longer R23 workload allows the Core 3 305 to sustain its performance more effectively relative to the Core 9 270H, although it still trails by a significant margin.

Single-core results present a different picture. The Core 9 270H wins Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests by 46.4%, 46.4%, and 9.2% respectively. The R23 single-core margin is remarkably small: 2040 versus 1852. Yet in the PassMark single-thread test, the Core 3 305 actually wins, scoring 3977 against 3944, a 0.8% edge. The PassMark find prime numbers test also goes to the Core 3 305, with 115 versus 112, a 2.7% win. These two victories, while narrow, are consistent: the Core 3 305 shows a slight advantage in single-threaded integer workloads that Cinebench does not capture.

The Core 9 270H also dominates in data encryption, scoring 19369 versus 11019, a 43.1% lead. Floating-point math goes to the Core 9 270H by 40.1%, with scores of 70640 and 42284. Extended instructions favor the Core 9 270H by 32.6%, at 20079 versus 13543. The multithread PassMark test shows a 46.3% lead for the Core 9 270H, 28764 versus 15439. Physics simulation also favors the Core 9 270H, with 1966 versus 1233, a 37.3% margin.

Looking at overall averages, the Core 9 270H records an average benchmark score of 38335, placing it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 305 averages 18302, sitting at the 72nd percentile. The Core 9 270H sits among rivals like the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H (38312, 0.1% difference), the Intel Xeon w3-2525 (38392, 0.1% behind), the Intel Core i5-13600HX (38261, 0.2% ahead), and the AMD Ryzen 7 250 (38221, 0.3% ahead). The Core 3 305 competes with the Intel Core i3-14100 (18318, 0.1% behind), the Intel Core 5 330 (18345, 0.2% behind), the Intel Core 7 360 (18374, 0.4% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 5 2600E (18230, 0.4% ahead).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design lineages. The Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename built on a 3 nm process node, while the Core 9 270H uses Raptor Lake-H based on Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the process difference is substantial: 3 nm versus 10 nm.

Core counts differ significantly. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The Core 9 270H has 14 cores and 20 threads, indicating that 6 of its cores support additional threads while the rest do not. This explains the large multi-threaded performance gap in most tests.

Cache configurations also diverge. The Core 3 305 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core 9 270H lists 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Core 9 270H's larger shared L3 pool, 24 MB versus 6 MB, provides a substantial advantage in workloads that benefit from larger working sets.

Clock speeds differ as well. The Core 3 305 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Core 9 270H has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. Both the base and boost clocks are higher on the Core 9 270H, which contributes to its single-core performance advantage in Cinebench tests.

Memory support varies. The Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 9 270H supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus, though no bandwidth figure is recorded. The dual-channel configuration gives the Core 9 270H a memory bandwidth advantage in practice.

PCIe connectivity differs: the Core 3 305 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 9 270H offers Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Core 9 270H also includes Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the Core 3 305 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe unit.

The Core 3 305 uses socket Intel BGA 1516, while the Core 9 270H uses Intel BGA 1744. Power envelopes are also different: the Core 3 305 has a 15 W TDP, the Core 9 270H has a 45 W TDP. The release dates differ, with the Core 9 270H released in December 2024 and the Core 3 305 in April 2026. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 270H wins decisively in almost every multi-threaded and CPU-intensive workload. Its 14 cores and 20 threads, combined with a 5.80 GHz boost clock and 24 MB of L3 cache, make it the clear choice for rendering, compilation, data processing, and any workload that scales across cores. The Cinebench multi-core results, the PassMark multithread score, and the data compression and encryption benchmarks all point in the same direction.

The Core 3 305 wins in exactly two recorded benchmarks: PassMark find prime numbers (115 versus 112) and PassMark single-thread (3977 versus 3944). Both margins are small, under 3%. The single-thread win is notable because the Core 9 270H has a higher boost clock, yet the Core 3 305 still edges ahead in this specific PassMark test. This suggests that the Wildcat Lake core design, despite lower clock speeds, delivers better single-thread integer performance per clock in certain workloads. The find prime numbers result reinforces this: a classic integer-heavy, cache-sensitive workload where the Core 3 305's core efficiency compensates for its lower clock.

For users running lightly threaded applications, office productivity, or workloads that are sensitive to single-thread integer performance, the Core 3 305 holds a narrow but measurable advantage. For everything else, the Core 9 270H is faster, often by wide margins.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 9 270H has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Core 9 270H scores 18000 versus 13123 for the Core 3 305, a 27.1% advantage.

Q: Does the Core 3 305 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins PassMark find prime numbers (115 versus 112, a 2.7% lead) and PassMark single-thread (3977 versus 3944, a 0.8% lead).

Q: What is the difference in process node?

A: The Core 3 305 uses a 3 nm process node, while the Core 9 270H uses a 10 nm process node.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus. The Core 9 270H supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Core 9 270H has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core 3 305 has 6 MB of shared L3.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 305 | Intel Core 9 270H |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 6 | 14 |

| Threads | 6 | 20 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.30 GHz | 5.80 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 1744 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Raptor Lake-H |

| Architecture | Not specified | Raptor Lake |

| Process node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| L1 cache | 192 KB | 80 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 2.5 MB | 2 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 6 MB shared | 24 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | Not recorded |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 lanes | Gen 5, 8 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | Iris Xe Graphics 96EU |

| Release date | April 2026 | December 2024 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | $697 |

| Part number | SAE3L | SRQ6V |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core 9 270H is the far faster processor in nearly every workload category. Its 14-core, 20-thread configuration, 5.80 GHz boost clock, 24 MB L3 cache, and dual-channel memory support deliver large wins across Cinebench multi-core tests, PassMark multithread, integer math, data compression, encryption, and floating-point math. The average benchmark score of 38335 places it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, more than double the Core 3 305's 18302 average.

The Intel Core 3 305 does not compete on raw throughput, but it holds a narrow lead in PassMark single-thread and find prime numbers. Its 3 nm process node, lower 15 W TDP, and newer release date position it as a power-efficient option for single-threaded workloads. The 72nd percentile ranking places it in the same performance class as the Intel Core i3-14100, Intel Core 5 330, Intel Core 7 360, and AMD Ryzen 5 2600E.

Users who need multi-core performance for rendering, compilation, data processing, or any parallel workload should select the Core 9 270H. Users whose workloads are dominated by single-threaded integer tasks and who prioritize lower power consumption will find the Core 3 305 marginally better in those specific tests, though the overall performance gap remains large.