Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core 9 273PQE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core 9 273PQE across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Intel Core 3 305 does not claim a single victory in any measured workload. The most dominant margin appears in PassMark integer math, where the Core 9 273PQE scores 164,629 against 32,295 for the Core 3 305, a delta of 80.4 percent in favor of the larger processor. This indicates a massive advantage in arithmetic-heavy workloads that scale with core count and clock speed.

The gap narrows considerably in single-threaded tests. In PassMark single-thread, the Core 9 273PQE posts 4,573 points versus 3,977 for the Core 3 305, a 13 percent difference. This is the smallest delta recorded between the two chips, suggesting that the Core 3 305's single-core efficiency is relatively competitive, even though it still trails. The Cinebench R23 single-core result shows a similar pattern: the Core 9 273PQE scores 5,532, while the Core 3 305 manages 1,852, a 66.5 percent gap. The single-thread PassMark test is the only benchmark where the Core 3 305 comes within double-digit percentage territory.

Multi-threaded performance tells a different story. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 9 273PQE delivers 39,190 points against 13,123 for the Core 3 305, a 66.5 percent lead. The Cinebench R20 multi-core result shows 16,459 versus 5,511, again a 66.5 percent delta. PassMark multi-thread follows the same trend: 46,107 for the Core 9 273PQE versus 15,439 for the Core 3 305, a 66.5 percent difference. These consistent deltas across Cinebench versions indicate that the performance ratio remains stable regardless of the rendering workload.

Data compression and encryption tests reveal even larger disparities. The PassMark data compression score for the Core 9 273PQE is 585,752, compared to 146,857 for the Core 3 305, a 74.9 percent gap. Data encryption shows 29,636 versus 11,019, a 62.8 percent difference. Extended instruction workloads produce a 65 percent delta, with 38,743 points for the Core 9 273PQE versus 13,543 for the Core 3 305. Floating-point math results in a 66.3 percent advantage for the Core 9 273PQE, scoring 125,546 against 42,284.

The smallest multi-threaded margin appears in PassMark physics, where the Core 9 273PQE scores 2,754 versus 1,233 for the Core 3 305, a 55.2 percent gap. Prime number finding shows a 41.9 percent delta, with 198 points for the Core 9 273PQE and 115 for the Core 3 305. Random string sorting is closer to the overall average, with 53,167 versus 17,623, a 66.9 percent difference. The data confirms that the Core 9 273PQE maintains a substantial lead in every category, with the advantage shrinking only in single-threaded tasks.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates a clear hierarchy between these two processors. The Intel Core 9 273PQE is the superior performer in every measured workload, with an average benchmark score of 66,099 compared to 18,302 for the Intel Core 3 305. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the Core 9 273PQE sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 3 305 occupies the 72nd percentile. Users requiring maximum throughput in rendering, data compression, or multi-threaded productivity should select the Core 9 273PQE based on these results.

The Core 3 305, despite losing all head-to-head comparisons, still holds a position above many desktop processors in the database. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-14100 with an average score of 18,318 (0.1 percent ahead) and the Intel Core 5 330 at 18,345 (0.2 percent ahead). The Core 3 305 also edges out the AMD Ryzen 5 2600E by 0.4 percent, scoring 18,302 against 18,230. This places it in a competitive range for basic productivity tasks, but it cannot approach the Core 9 273PQE's performance tier.

For workloads that emphasize single-thread responsiveness, the Core 9 273PQE still wins, but the margin is smaller. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus with an average score of 66,159 (0.1 percent behind the Core 9 273PQE) and the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at 65,914 (0.3 percent ahead). The Core 9 273PQE also outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus by 1.1 percent and the AMD EPYC 4465P by 1.2 percent. This suggests the Core 9 273PQE sits in a high-performance desktop segment where small deltas separate top contenders.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from distinct architectural lineages. The Intel Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation, built on a 3 nm process node. The Intel Core 9 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename, belongs to the Core 9 generation, and employs a 10 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the process difference is substantial: the Core 3 305 uses a newer 3 nm node, while the Core 9 273PQE uses a 10 nm node. This does not translate into performance parity, as the Core 9 273PQE's higher core count and clock speeds dominate the benchmarks.

Core and thread configurations differ sharply. The Core 3 305 provides 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyper-threading support. The Core 9 273PQE provides 12 cores and 24 threads, doubling the core count and quadrupling the thread count through simultaneous multi-threading. This explains the large multi-threaded benchmark gaps, as the Core 9 273PQE can process twice as many threads concurrently. The base clock for the Core 3 305 is 1.50 GHz with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz; the Core 9 273PQE runs at 3.40 GHz base and 5.90 GHz boost. The higher boost clock contributes to the Core 9 273PQE's single-thread advantage, while the higher base clock aids sustained multi-threaded performance.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 3 305 has an L1 cache of 192 KB, an L2 cache of 2.5 MB, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 9 273PQE lists L1 cache as 80 KB per core, L2 cache as 2 MB per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L1 and L2 values for the Core 9 273PQE suggest a different cache distribution strategy, with more total L3 capacity available. The Core 3 305's memory support includes DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Core 9 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bus configurations also differ: the Core 3 305 uses single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core 9 273PQE uses dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 305 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the Core 9 273PQE includes UHD Graphics 770. PCIe support shows the Core 3 305 at Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core 9 273PQE provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. ECC memory support is absent on the Core 3 305 but present on the Core 9 273PQE. The sockets differ: the Core 3 305 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700, indicating different platform compatibility.

Specification Differences

The most significant specification gap is in core and thread counts. The Core 3 305 offers 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core 9 273PQE offers 12 cores and 24 threads. Clock speeds differ by a wide margin: the Core 3 305 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, while the Core 9 273PQE has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.90 GHz. Thermal design power also diverges, with the Core 3 305 rated at 15 watts and the Core 9 273PQE rated at 125 watts, reflecting the higher performance envelope of the larger chip.

Process nodes differ, with the Core 3 305 using 3 nm and the Core 9 273PQE using 10 nm. Cache configurations show the Core 3 305 with 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3, while the Core 9 273PQE lists 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. Memory support differs: the Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Core 9 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bus width differs, with single-channel on the Core 3 305 and dual-channel on the Core 9 273PQE. Memory bandwidth is 59.7 GB/s for the Core 3 305 and 89.6 GB/s for the Core 9 273PQE.

ECC memory support is false for the Core 3 305 and true for the Core 9 273PQE. PCIe capabilities differ, with the Core 3 305 offering Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes and the Core 9 273PQE offering Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ: Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe for the Core 3 305 versus UHD Graphics 770 for the Core 9 273PQE. Market segments also differ, with the Core 3 305 listed as Mobile and the Core 9 273PQE as Desktop. Release dates show the Core 3 305 launching on 2026-04-15 and the Core 9 273PQE on 2026-03-08. The launch MSRP for the Core 3 305 is $309, while the Core 9 273PQE has a launch MSRP of $589. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: In PassMark single-thread, the Core 9 273PQE scores 4,573 versus 3,977 for the Core 3 305, a 13 percent advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 5,532 for the Core 9 273PQE and 1,852 for the Core 3 305.

Q: How do the multi-core Cinebench scores compare?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 9 273PQE scores 39,190 and the Core 3 305 scores 13,123, a 66.5 percent gap. R20 multi-core shows 16,459 versus 5,511, and R15 multi-core shows 3,950 versus 1,322.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, while the Core 3 305 has 59.7 GB/s. The Core 9 273PQE also uses dual-channel memory, whereas the Core 3 305 uses single-channel.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has an average benchmark score of 66,099, while the Core 3 305 has an average benchmark score of 18,302.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core 9 273PQE supports ECC memory, while the Core 3 305 does not.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins in all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, so the data does not identify any workload where the Core 3 305 takes the lead. The Core 9 273PQE is strongest relative to the Core 3 305 in PassMark integer math, with an 80.4 percent advantage. It also shows a 74.9 percent lead in data compression, a 66.9 percent lead in random string sorting, and a 66.5 percent lead across all Cinebench multi-core tests. For tasks involving heavy arithmetic, data processing, or multi-threaded rendering, the Core 9 273PQE is clearly the better choice.

The Core 3 305 comes closest to matching the Core 9 273PQE in single-threaded PassMark, trailing by only 13 percent. This suggests that for lightly threaded applications where a single core is the bottleneck, the Core 3 305 is less disadvantaged, but it still loses outright. The Core 3 305 also shows its smallest deltas in prime number finding (41.9 percent behind) and physics (55.2 percent behind), indicating that these workloads reduce the performance gap compared to integer math or compression tasks.

For users prioritizing single-thread responsiveness with minimal power draw, the Core 3 305's 15 watt TDP and 3 nm process node offer efficiency advantages, though the benchmark scores remain lower. The Core 9 273PQE's 125 watt TDP and 10 nm node indicate a higher power envelope that corresponds to its performance lead. The Core 9 273PQE also provides Gen 5 PCIe with 16 lanes, which benefits systems with high-bandwidth expansion cards. The Core 3 305's Gen 4 PCIe with 6 lanes is more limited but sufficient for basic mobile configurations.

The Core 9 273PQE's dual-channel memory and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth support memory-intensive workloads, while the Core 3 305's single-channel 59.7 GB/s bandwidth is a limiting factor. The Core 9 273PQE's ECC memory support adds reliability for data-critical applications. The Core 3 305's mobile market segment and BGA 1516 socket target thin-and-light systems, while the Core 9 273PQE's desktop segment and Socket 1700 target full-size platforms. The data supports the Core 9 273PQE for any performance-oriented use case, while the Core 3 305 finds its role in low-power mobile environments where its smaller footprint and lower thermal requirements matter more than raw benchmark scores.