Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins every single recorded comparison against the Intel Core 3 305. Across 17 head-to-head tests, the Core Ultra 5 235 takes all 17, with the Core 3 305 recording zero wins. The largest margins appear in PassMark workloads, while the Cinebench suite shows a narrower but consistent gap.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 235 scores 14,769 against the Core 3 305's 13,123, a delta of -11.1%. The single-core result follows the same pattern: 2,085 versus 1,852, a -11.2% difference. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 6,202 against 5,511 (-11.1%), and R20 single-core shows 875 versus 777 (-11.2%). The R15 tests mirror this, with multi-core at 1,488 versus 1,322 (-11.2%) and single-core at 210 versus 186 (-11.4%). These are consistent, almost uniform margins across the entire Cinebench suite, indicating a steady performance advantage rather than workload-specific spikes.

The PassMark results reveal where the Core Ultra 5 235 truly separates itself. Data compression shows the largest percentage gap: 390,711 versus 146,857, a -62.4% delta. Data encryption follows at 29,293 versus 11,019, also -62.4%. Floating point math delivers 117,951 against 42,284 (-64.2%), and integer math delivers 87,948 versus 32,295 (-63.3%). Random string sorting comes in at 48,980 versus 17,623 (-64%). Extended instructions show 32,752 versus 13,543 (-58.6%). Prime number finding is the biggest relative blowout: 371 versus 115, a -69% delta.

The multi-threaded PassMark score is 37,816 versus 15,439 (-59.2%), and physics processing is 2,570 versus 1,233 (-52%). The single-thread PassMark score is 4,516 versus 3,977 (-11.9%), which aligns closely with the Cinebench single-core deltas. The average benchmark score places the Core Ultra 5 235 at 46,062, versus 18,302 for the Core 3 305. In percentile terms, the Core Ultra 5 235 sits at the 89th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 305 sits at the 72nd.

Looking at nearest rivals, the Core 3 305's average score of 18,302 puts it within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 5 2600E (18,230) and within 0.1% of the Intel Core i3-14100 (18,318). The Core Ultra 5 235's average of 46,062 is within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (46,030) and within 0.1% of the Intel Core i9-13900HX (46,098). These reference points confirm that the performance gap between the two reviewed chips is not an artifact of the test suite; it is a structural difference in capability.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core rendering workloads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins all Cinebench multi-core tests. In R23 multi-core, it scores 14,769 versus 13,123 for the Core 3 305, a -11.1% delta. In R20 multi-core, it scores 6,202 versus 5,511, also -11.1%.

Q: How large is the gap in single-threaded performance?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235 leads by roughly 11-12% across all single-thread tests. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2,085 versus 1,852 (-11.2%), and PassMark single-thread shows 4,516 versus 3,977 (-11.9%).

Q: Where does the Core Ultra 5 235 show its biggest advantage?

A: The largest deltas appear in PassMark workloads. Prime number finding shows a -69% delta (371 versus 115), floating point math shows -64.2% (117,951 versus 42,284), and data compression shows -62.4% (390,711 versus 146,857).

Q: Does the Core 3 305 win any benchmark at all?

A: No. The recorded data shows zero wins for the Core 3 305 across all 17 head-to-head tests. The Core Ultra 5 235 wins every comparison.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Core 3 305's average score of 18,302 is 0.1% below the Intel Core i3-14100 (18,318) and 0.4% above the AMD Ryzen 5 2600E (18,230). The Core Ultra 5 235's average of 46,062 is 0.1% above the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (46,030) and 0.1% below the Intel Core i9-13900HX (46,098).

Q: What is the difference in overall benchmark percentile?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235 ranks at the 89th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 305 ranks at the 72nd percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows no workload category where the Core 3 305 comes out ahead. Every Cinebench iteration, both multi-core and single-core, favors the Core Ultra 5 235. Every PassMark subtest, from integer math to data encryption, also favors the Core Ultra 5 235. The only question is the size of the margin, not the direction.

For users focused on lightly threaded tasks such as everyday desktop responsiveness, the Core Ultra 5 235 still leads, but the margin is comparatively modest. Single-thread PassMark shows a -11.9% delta, and Cinebench R23 single-core shows -11.2%. These are meaningful but not overwhelming advantages.

For multi-threaded and compute-heavy workloads, the Core Ultra 5 235's advantage becomes decisive. The PassMark multi-thread score shows a -59.2% delta, floating point math shows -64.2%, and data compression shows -62.4%. These are not incremental differences; they represent roughly 2.5 to 3 times the throughput in certain operations. The physics test, at -52%, is the smallest PassMark margin but still a substantial lead.

The Core 3 305, by contrast, sits closer to its nearest rivals. Its average score of 18,302 is virtually tied with the Intel Core i3-14100 (18,318) and the Intel Core 5 330 (18,345). The Core Ultra 5 235's average of 46,062 puts it in the company of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (46,030) and the Intel Core i9-13900HX (46,098), which are far more powerful processors.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 235 has 14 cores and 14 threads. Base clock speeds are 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 305 and 3.40 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 235. Boost clocks are 4.30 GHz and 5.00 GHz respectively. Thermal design power is 15 watts for the Core 3 305 and 65 watts for the Core Ultra 5 235.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 235 supports DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory. PCIe configurations are different: the Core 3 305 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 235 uses Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

The integrated graphics differ. The Core 3 305 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the Core Ultra 5 235 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 execution units. The sockets are not interchangeable: the Core 3 305 uses Intel BGA 1516, and the Core Ultra 5 235 uses Intel Socket 1851. The Core 3 305 is a mobile segment part, while the Core Ultra 5 235 is a desktop part. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The Core 3 305 is built on the Wildcat Lake architecture, while the Core Ultra 5 235 is built on Arrow Lake. Both use a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. The Core 3 305 is manufactured by Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 235 is manufactured by TSMC. The Core Ultra 5 235 has a recorded transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm²; no transistor or die size data is recorded for the Core 3 305.

Cache configurations are substantially different. 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 Ultra 5 235 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The L3 cache difference alone is a factor of four in favor of the Core Ultra 5 235.

The Core Ultra 5 235 belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 and uses the Arrow Lake-S codename. The Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename. The release dates differ: the Core Ultra 5 235 launched on 2025-01-06, while the Core 3 305 launched on 2026-04-15. The launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 5 235 is $257, and for the Core 3 305 it is $309. Part numbers are SRQAS for the Core Ultra 5 235 and SAE3L for the Core 3 305.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports one clear conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 outperforms the Intel Core 3 305 across every benchmark in the database. The Core Ultra 5 235 wins all 17 head-to-head tests, with no exceptions. Its average benchmark score is 46,062 versus 18,302 for the Core 3 305, and its percentile ranking is 89 versus 72.

The Core Ultra 5 235 is the appropriate choice for workloads that demand high multi-threaded throughput, large data compression, encryption, or heavy floating point math. Its PassMark results in these areas are roughly 2.5 to 3 times higher than the Core 3 305's results. The Core Ultra 5 235 also leads in single-threaded performance, though by a smaller margin of around 11-12%.

The Core 3 305, with its 15-watt thermal design power, single-channel memory, and 6-core configuration, occupies a different position in the product stack. Its benchmark results place it near the Intel Core i3-14100 and the AMD Ryzen 5 2600E, with average scores within a fraction of a percent. It is not competitive with the Core Ultra 5 235 in any measured category.

For users who require maximum performance in multi-threaded applications, the Core Ultra 5 235 is the clear pick. For users whose workloads are limited to lighter tasks and who prioritize the mobile form factor and lower thermal envelope of the Core 3 305, the data still shows the Core Ultra 5 235 as the faster part in every test, though the mobile segment positioning of the Core 3 305 may be relevant for system design considerations beyond raw benchmark scores.