Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 228V Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two mobile processors into distinct roles. The Intel Core 3 305 wins 4 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V wins 13. That count alone suggests a clear overall winner, but the specific tests each chip takes reveal a more interesting story.

The Core 3 305 wins the Cinebench R23 multicore test by a wide margin, scoring 13123 against 9932, a 32.1% advantage. It also wins Cinebench R23 singlecore, 1852 versus 1758, a 5.3% lead. In PassMark single-thread tests, the Core 3 305 scores 3977 against 3836, a 3.7% edge. These are the only four victories.

The Core Ultra 5 228V dominates nearly everything else. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 1502.5 versus 1322, a 12% lead. In R15 singlecore, it posts 267 against 186, a 30.3% gap. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 6491 versus 5511, a 15.1% advantage, and R20 singlecore shows 916 versus 777, a 15.2% edge.

The PassMark suite heavily favors the Ultra 5 228V. Data compression scores 173924 versus 146857, a 15.6% lead. Data encryption shows 13032 against 11019, a 15.4% gap. Extended instructions deliver 14801 versus 13543, an 8.5% advantage. Finding prime numbers yields 168 against 115, a 31.5% margin. Floating point math scores 53310 versus 42284, a 20.7% lead. Integer math hits 39679 against 32295, an 18.6% edge. Multithread performance reaches 18227 versus 15439, a 15.3% lead. Physics simulation scores 1538 versus 1233, a 19.8% gap. Random string sorting delivers 21254 versus 17623, a 17.1% advantage.

The pattern is clear. The Core 3 305 wins in the newer Cinebench R23 workloads and in PassMark single-thread tests. The Core Ultra 5 228V wins across the older Cinebench versions and nearly the entire PassMark suite. The average benchmark scores reflect this: the Core 3 305 sits at 18302, while the Core Ultra 5 228V reaches 21440, a 17.1% difference in overall average.

Percentile rankings confirm the separation. The Core 3 305 places in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs. The Core Ultra 5 228V places in the 75th percentile. Both sit comfortably above average, but the Ultra 5 228V holds a measurable edge in overall standing.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different design lineages within Intel's mobile lineup. The Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation. The Core Ultra 5 228V uses the Lunar Lake architecture, part of the Core Ultra Series 2. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. Intel fabricates the Core 3 305, while TSMC produces the Core Ultra 5 228V.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The Core Ultra 5 228V has 8 cores and 8 threads, also without hyperthreading. The extra two physical cores give the Ultra 5 228V a structural advantage in heavily threaded workloads, which the PassMark multithread score of 18227 versus 15439 confirms.

Cache hierarchies diverge. The Core 3 305 has 192 KB of L1 cache total, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 228V lists 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. With 8 cores, the per-core L1 and L2 figures scale to roughly 1.5 MB L1 and 20 MB L2 total, though the database records them per core for clarity. The larger shared L3 on the Ultra 5 228V provides more room for frequently accessed data.

Clock speeds favor the Ultra 5 228V on both ends. Its base clock runs at 2.10 GHz against 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 305. Its boost clock reaches 4.50 GHz against 4.30 GHz. The higher base clock explains part of the Ultra 5 228V's advantage in sustained workloads, while the modest boost clock difference contributes to the single-thread results.

Memory support differs significantly. The Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and a recorded bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 228V lists memory support as dependent on the motherboard, with a dual-channel memory bus and no recorded bandwidth figure. The dual-channel configuration gives the Ultra 5 228V a potential memory throughput advantage, though the database lacks a direct bandwidth number to quantify it.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 3 305 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 5 228V uses Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. The newer PCIe generation on the Ultra 5 228V offers higher per-lane bandwidth, while the Core 3 305 offers more lanes. For typical mobile workloads, the practical difference depends on the attached devices.

Integrated graphics separate the two as well. The Core 3 305 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Core Ultra 5 228V includes Arc 130V graphics. The Arc branding suggests a more capable GPU solution, and the database records no further graphics details for either.

Power envelopes sit close. The Core 3 305 has a TDP of 15 watts. The Core Ultra 5 228V has a TDP of 17 watts. The 2-watt difference is minor, and both fall into the efficient mobile segment.

Sockets differ, which affects platform compatibility. The Core 3 305 uses Intel BGA 1516. The Core Ultra 5 228V uses Intel BGA 2833. These are not interchangeable, so system builders must choose a motherboard matched to the specific chip.

Release dates separate the two by a significant span. The Core Ultra 5 228V launched on 2024-09-23. The Core 3 305 launched on 2026-04-15, roughly 19 months later. The newer chip benefits from design refinements, though the benchmark data shows the older chip winning some tests anyway.

The Core 3 305 has a recorded launch MSRP of $309. The Core Ultra 5 228V has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

The Verdict

The data indicates a split decision based on workload type. For users prioritizing the latest Cinebench R23 multicore scores, the Core 3 305 delivers a 32.1% advantage over the Ultra 5 228V. That is a substantial margin in a modern rendering benchmark. The Core 3 305 also wins single-core tests in R23 and PassMark single-thread, suggesting it handles lightly threaded applications with slightly better efficiency.

For users running the broader PassMark suite, the Core Ultra 5 228V is the stronger choice. It wins 9 of the 10 PassMark sub-tests, with leads ranging from 3.7% (the single-thread tests it loses) to 31.5% (prime number finding). The multithread score of 18227 versus 15439 confirms the extra two cores translate into real-world throughput gains. The data compression, encryption, and integer math workloads all show double-digit advantages for the Ultra 5 228V.

The average benchmark score difference is decisive in aggregate. The Core Ultra 5 228V averages 21440, which is 17.1% higher than the Core 3 305's 18302. The percentile rankings reinforce this: 75th versus 72nd. For a general-purpose mobile processor, the Ultra 5 228V is the more capable chip.

The Core 3 305 is not without merit. Its R23 multicore win is the single largest margin in the entire head-to-head set, and its R23 singlecore and PassMark single-thread wins indicate strong performance per thread in certain workloads. Users running primarily Cinebench R23-based rendering tasks would see better results with the Core 3 305.

However, the breadth of the Ultra 5 228V's wins matters. Thirteen of 17 tests favor it, including every PassMark workload except the two single-thread variants. The consistency across encryption, compression, physics, floating point, and integer math suggests a well-rounded processor that handles diverse tasks without significant weak spots.

The architecture differences explain much of this. Eight cores versus six cores gives the Ultra 5 228V more parallel execution resources. Dual-channel memory versus single-channel provides a wider path for data movement. The higher base clock of 2.10 GHz versus 1.50 GHz helps sustain performance under load. The newer PCIe Gen 5 interface offers future-proofing for high-bandwidth peripherals.

The Core 3 305 counters with a higher boost clock in some scenarios, a larger L3 cache relative to core count (6 MB shared across 6 cores versus 8 MB shared across 8 cores, meaning 1 MB per core versus 1 MB per core, effectively equal), and a later release date. Its single-core R23 score of 1852 exceeds the Ultra 5 228V's 1758, indicating the Wildcat Lake design has refined single-thread execution.

For system builders, the choice hinges on the primary workload. Rendering with Cinebench R23 favors the Core 3 305. General productivity, data processing, and mixed workloads favor the Core Ultra 5 228V. The average benchmark score strongly favors the Ultra 5 228V, making it the safer default for most users.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmark tests?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 3 305 wins 4.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark margin between them?

A: The Intel Core 3 305 wins Cinebench R23 multicore by 32.1% (13123 versus 9932). The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V wins PassMark find prime numbers by 31.5% (168 versus 115).

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V boosts to 4.50 GHz. The Intel Core 3 305 boosts to 4.30 GHz.

Q: Do they use the same socket?

A: No. The Intel Core 3 305 uses Intel BGA 1516. The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V uses Intel BGA 2833.

Q: What are the power envelopes for each chip?

A: The Intel Core 3 305 has a TDP of 15 watts. The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V has a TDP of 17 watts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the Core 3 305 comes in Cinebench R23 multicore. It scores 13123 against 9932, a 32.1% advantage. This is the most striking result in the entire comparison, as the Core 3 305 has two fewer cores yet still outperforms the Ultra 5 228V by a wide margin. The R23 singlecore test also favors the Core 3 305, with 1852 versus 1758, a 5.3% lead.

The PassMark single-thread tests show a narrow victory for the Core 3 305. Both records list 3977 versus 3836, a 3.7% edge. This consistency across duplicate entries confirms the result.

The Core Ultra 5 228V's biggest win is in Cinebench R15 singlecore, where it scores 267 versus 186, a 30.3% margin. This is the largest percentage lead for either chip in any single-core test. The R15 multicore test shows 1502.5 versus 1322, a 12% advantage.

Cinebench R20 results favor the Ultra 5 228V in both modes. Multicore scores 6491 versus 5511, a 15.1% lead. Singlecore scores 916 versus 777, a 15.2% edge.

In PassMark, the Ultra 5 228V wins every test except the two single-thread variants. Data compression shows 173924 versus 146857, a 15.6% lead. Data encryption shows 13032 versus 11019, a 15.4% gap. Extended instructions deliver 14801 versus 13543, an 8.5% advantage. Find prime numbers yields 168 versus 115, a 31.5% margin. Floating point math scores 53310 versus 42284, a 20.7% lead. Integer math hits 39679 versus 32295, an 18.6% edge. Multithread performance reaches 18227 versus 15439, a 15.3% lead. Physics simulation scores 1538 versus 1233, a 19.8% gap. Random string sorting delivers 21254 versus 17623, a 17.1% advantage.

The average benchmark scores place the Core 3 305 at 18302 and the Core Ultra 5 228V at 21440. The nearest rivals for the Core 3 305 include the Intel Core i3-14100 at 18318 (a 0.1% difference), the Intel Core 5 330 at 18345 (0.2% difference), the Intel Core 7 360 at 18374 (0.4% difference), and the AMD Ryzen 5 2600E at 18230 (0.4% difference). The Core Ultra 5 228V sits near the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 at 21484 (0.2% difference), the Intel Core i9-11900H at 21367 (0.3% difference), the Intel Xeon D-1746TER at 21635 (0.9% difference), and the AMD EPYC 9454 at 21223 (1% difference).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category.

Core count: 6 cores for the Core 3 305, 8 cores for the Core Ultra 5 228V.

Thread count: 6 threads for the Core 3 305, 8 threads for the Core Ultra 5 228V.

Base clock: 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 305, 2.10 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 228V.

Boost clock: 4.30 GHz for the Core 3 305, 4.50 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 228V.

TDP: 15 watts for the Core 3 305, 17 watts for the Core Ultra 5 228V.

Socket: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 3 305, Intel BGA 2833 for the Core Ultra 5 228V.

Codename: Wildcat Lake for the Core 3 305, Lunar Lake for the Core Ultra 5 228V.

Process node: both use 3 nm, but the Core 3 305 is fabricated by Intel while the Core Ultra 5 228V is fabricated by TSMC.

L1 cache: 192 KB total for the Core 3 305, 192 KB per core for the Core Ultra 5 228V.

L2 cache: 2.5 MB for the Core 3 305, 2.5 MB per core for the Core Ultra 5 228V.

L3 cache: 6 MB shared for the Core 3 305, 8 MB shared for the Core Ultra 5 228V.

Memory bus: single-channel for the Core 3 305, dual-channel for the Core Ultra 5 228V.

Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s recorded for the Core 3 305, no figure recorded for the Core Ultra 5 228V.

PCIe: Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes for the Core 3 305, Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes for the Core Ultra 5 228V.

Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) for the Core 3 305, Arc 130V for the Core Ultra 5 228V.

Release date: 2026-04-15 for the Core 3 305, 2024-09-23 for the Core Ultra 5 228V.

Launch MSRP: $309 recorded for the Core 3 305, none recorded for the Core Ultra 5 228V.

Both have locked multipliers, no ECC memory support, and are classified as mobile market segment processors with active production status.