Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a one-sided comparison. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 3 305 does not register a single victory in any workload category, from single-core throughput to multi-threaded rendering and data processing tasks.

The largest margin appears in PassMark integer math, where the Ultra 5 225H scores 68520 against the Core 3 305's 32295, a delta of negative 52.9% for the latter. Floating point math follows closely: 86540 versus 42284, a 51.1% deficit. These results indicate a substantial difference in raw arithmetic capability, which typically translates to faster compilation, scientific computing, and similar processor-bound workloads.

The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows a similar pattern. The Ultra 5 225H scores 10041, while the Core 3 305 scores 5511, a 45.1% gap. Cinebench R15 multi-core narrows slightly in percentage terms: 2397.5 versus 1322, a 44.9% difference. The single-core Cinebench R20 results show the Ultra 5 225H at 1417 and the Core 3 305 at 777, a 45.2% advantage. These scores confirm that the performance gap is not limited to parallel workloads; the Ultra 5 225H also leads in tasks that rely heavily on a single thread.

Data compression and encryption workloads show the Ultra 5 225H at roughly double the throughput. Compression scores 283451 versus 146857, a 48.2% difference. Encryption scores 21428 versus 11019, a 48.6% difference. These results suggest the Ultra 5 225H handles archival and security-related tasks with considerably more efficiency. Extended instruction workloads, which exercise SIMD and other specialized instruction sets, show a 38.2% gap: 21915 versus 13543.

The smallest margins appear in single-threaded tests. PassMark single-thread scores the Ultra 5 225H at 4258 and the Core 3 305 at 3977, a 6.6% difference. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 1969 versus 1852, a 5.9% gap. These tighter margins indicate that the per-core architecture of the Core 3 305 is relatively competitive, but the overall package still falls behind in every measured category.

The average benchmark score reflects the overall picture. The Core 3 305 averages 18302, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs. The Ultra 5 225H averages 31508, placing it in the 82nd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 3 305 include the Intel Core i3-14100 with an average score of 18318, a 0.1% difference, and the Intel Core 5 330 at 18345, a 0.2% difference. The Ultra 5 225H sits alongside the Intel Core i5-13500 at 31510, a 0% difference, and the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX at 31495, also 0%. These percentile and rival data contextualize the head-to-head results: the Core 3 305 competes in a lower performance tier, while the Ultra 5 225H occupies a clearly higher one.

Architecture Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in their construction. The Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation. The Ultra 5 225H uses the Arrow Lake-H codename and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs: Intel fabricates the Core 3 305, while TSMC fabricates the Ultra 5 225H.

Core counts diverge sharply. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyper-threading. The Ultra 5 225H has 14 cores and 14 threads. This 8-core difference explains much of the multi-threaded performance gap observed in Cinebench and PassMark tests. The base clock of the Core 3 305 is 1.50 GHz, while the Ultra 5 225H starts at 1.70 GHz. Boost clocks also favor the Ultra 5 225H: 4.90 GHz versus 4.30 GHz.

Cache hierarchies are not comparable in scale. The Core 3 305 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 225H lists 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The larger L3 pool, combined with per-core L2 allocation, gives the Ultra 5 225H a significant cache advantage for data reuse and multi-core coordination.

Memory support is identical in type: both accept DDR5 and LPDDR5X. However, the memory bus differs. The Core 3 305 uses a single-channel configuration with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 5 225H uses dual-channel memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. This nearly doubles the available memory bandwidth, which directly impacts workloads that stream data, such as compression and encryption tests. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 3 305 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Ultra 5 225H provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes. The newer PCIe standard and additional lanes give the Ultra 5 225H more headroom for high-throughput peripherals, though the benchmark data does not isolate this factor.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 305 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Ultra 5 225H includes Arc Graphics 130T. The socket changes from Intel BGA 1516 on the Core 3 305 to Intel BGA 2049 on the Ultra 5 225H, indicating different platform requirements. The thermal design power also differs: 15 watts for the Core 3 305 versus 28 watts for the Ultra 5 225H, which correlates with the higher core count and clock speeds of the latter.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

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

A: The Ultra 5 225H leads by 44.9% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 45.1% in Cinebench R20 multi-core, and 10.3% in Cinebench R23 multi-core. PassMark multithread shows a 45.1% advantage.

Q: Are the single-core results closer than multi-core results?

A: Yes. The smallest gaps appear in single-threaded tests. PassMark single-thread shows a 6.6% difference, and Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 5.9% difference. The Ultra 5 225H still wins every test.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Core 3 305 uses single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s. The Ultra 5 225H uses dual-channel memory with 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Do both processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: Both use a 3 nm process node. Intel fabricates the Core 3 305, while TSMC fabricates the Ultra 5 225H.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The Core 3 305 averages 18302, placing in the 72nd percentile. The Ultra 5 225H averages 31508, placing in the 82nd percentile.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H outperforms the Intel Core 3 305 in every benchmark test available, with no exceptions. The largest gaps appear in integer math, floating point math, data compression, and data encryption, where the Ultra 5 225H holds a roughly 38% to 53% advantage. The smallest gaps appear in single-threaded tests, but even there the Ultra 5 225H remains ahead.

The Core 3 305's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-14100, Core 5 330, and Core 7 360, all with average scores within 0.4% of 18302. The Ultra 5 225H's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-13500 and AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX, with average scores essentially identical to 31508. These groupings place the two processors in different performance tiers, despite both being mobile parts.

The architecture explains the outcome. The Ultra 5 225H has more than double the core count, a higher boost clock, larger caches, dual-channel memory, and newer PCIe support. The Core 3 305 compensates with a lower TDP of 15 watts versus 28 watts, which suits lighter thermal envelopes. The data suggests the Core 3 305 targets efficiency and basic tasks, while the Ultra 5 225H targets sustained multi-threaded performance.

For scenarios requiring heavy parallel computation, the Ultra 5 225H is the clear choice based on the benchmark results. For single-threaded responsiveness, the margin narrows but still favors the Ultra 5 225H. The Core 3 305 remains viable for workloads that do not demand the higher throughput, but no measured workload in this dataset shows it ahead.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core 3 305 | Intel Core Ultra 5 225H |

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

| Cores | 6 | 14 |

| Threads | 6 | 14 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 1.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 28 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2049 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-H |

| Generation | Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake-H) |

| Process Node | 3 nm (Intel) | 3 nm (TSMC) |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2.5 MB | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | Arc Graphics 130T |

| Part Number | SAE3L | SRQAM |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | Not listed |