Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235A Comparison
Intel Core 3 305
Core Ultra 5 235A
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235A
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The benchmark data records a decisive sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A, which wins all 17 recorded comparisons. The largest margins appear in compute-heavy workloads. In PassMark find prime numbers, the Core Ultra 5 235A scores 392 against 115 for the Core 3 305, a delta of -70.7%. Floating point math shows the same pattern: 118778 versus 42284, a -64.4% gap. Integer math follows at 88626 versus 32295, a -63.6% difference. Random string sorting records 49489 against 17623, also -64.4%.
The Core Ultra 5 235A leads by roughly 60% in most multi-threaded rendering tests. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 32633 versus 13123, a -59.8% delta. Cinebench R20 multicore records 13705 against 5511, also -59.8%. Cinebench R15 multicore lands at 3289 versus 1322, again -59.8%. PassMark multithread mirrors this at 38392 versus 15439, a -59.8% gap. Data compression shows a slightly larger spread: 393800 versus 146857, a -62.7% delta. Data encryption follows at 30136 versus 11019, a -63.4% gap.
Single-thread results narrow the gap but still favor the Core Ultra 5 235A. PassMark single thread records 4557 versus 3977, a -12.7% delta. Cinebench R23 singlecore shows 4607 versus 1852, a -59.8% delta, while Cinebench R20 singlecore records 1934 versus 777, also -59.8%. Cinebench R15 singlecore scores 464 against 186, a -59.9% gap. Extended instructions show 31625 versus 13543, a -57.2% delta. Physics is the closest relative result at 2437 versus 1233, a -49.4% gap, though the Core Ultra 5 235A still wins comfortably.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A wins in every recorded category, so the use-case split is defined by the size of the advantage rather than the direction. The smallest edge appears in PassMark single thread, where the Core Ultra 5 235A leads by only 12.7%. That result suggests lightly threaded daily tasks, such as basic office work or web browsing, would show a modest but real performance difference. The largest gap, 70.7% in find prime numbers, points to workloads dominated by pure integer calculation loops. Rendering, data compression, and encryption all sit in the 57% to 64% range, indicating consistent scaling across parallel workloads.
The Core 3 305 offers no benchmark wins in this dataset. Its role in a comparison is therefore defined by its lower power envelope and mobile-oriented configuration, not by measured performance superiority. The Core Ultra 5 235A, as a desktop part with 14 cores and a 5.00 GHz boost clock, occupies the higher-performance position across every recorded test. Users seeking the strongest recorded scores in any of the 17 benchmarks would select the Core Ultra 5 235A without exception.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A records an average benchmark score of 48201, while the Intel Core 3 305 records 18302.
Q: How much faster is the Core Ultra 5 235A in Cinebench R23 multicore?
A: The Core Ultra 5 235A scores 32633 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the Core 3 305 scores 13123, a -59.8% delta favoring the Core Ultra 5 235A.
Q: What is the smallest performance gap between the two processors?
A: The smallest gap is in PassMark single thread, where the Core Ultra 5 235A scores 4557 and the Core 3 305 scores 3977, a -12.7% delta.
Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?
A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 5 235A scores 392 and the Core 3 305 scores 115, a -70.7% delta.
Q: Do both processors support DDR5 memory?
A: Yes, both support DDR5. The Core 3 305 also supports LPDDR5X, while the Core Ultra 5 235A lists only DDR5.
Q: Which processor has a higher percentile ranking among all CPUs?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A ranks in the 90th percentile, while the Intel Core 3 305 ranks in the 72nd percentile.
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 235A has 14 cores and 14 threads. Base clocks differ substantially: 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 305 versus 3.40 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 235A. Boost clocks reach 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 235A.
Memory configuration also differs. The Core 3 305 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 5 235A uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s. Cache allocations are distinct: the Core 3 305 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3, while the Core Ultra 5 235A has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. PCIe support differs as well, with Gen 4 at 6 lanes for the Core 3 305 and Gen 5 at 20 lanes for the Core Ultra 5 235A.
The integrated graphics differ in branding: Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) for the Core 3 305 versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU for the Core Ultra 5 235A. Sockets are not shared: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 3 305 and Intel Socket 1851 for the Core Ultra 5 235A. Market segments differ, with the Core 3 305 listed as Mobile and the Core Ultra 5 235A as Desktop. The launch MSRP for the Core 3 305 is $309, and the launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 5 235A is $269.
Architecture Differences
The Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename within the Core 3 generation, built on a 3 nm process at Intel's foundry. The Core Ultra 5 235A belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Arrow Lake-S codename with the Arrow Lake architecture, and is also built on a 3 nm process, but at TSMC. The Core Ultra 5 235A carries a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm²; the Core 3 305 lists no transistor or die size data in the database.
Threading behavior is identical in structure, with each core supporting one thread on both parts. The Core Ultra 5 235A has a larger L2 allocation per core (3 MB) versus a total 2.5 MB L2 for the Core 3 305, and a shared L3 of 24 MB versus 6 MB. The Core 3 305 includes LPDDR5X memory support beyond DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 235A lists DDR5 only. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 3 305 uses a part number of SAE3L, while the Core Ultra 5 235A uses SRWPN.
The Verdict
The recorded data points to the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A as the stronger processor in every measured benchmark. Its 90th percentile ranking versus the 72nd percentile for the Core 3 305 confirms a wide overall gap. The average benchmark score of 48201 is roughly 2.6 times the 18302 recorded by the Core 3 305. Multi-threaded workloads show consistent 59.8% deltas across Cinebench versions, while single-thread PassMark shows only a 12.7% difference. The Core 3 305 has no recorded wins.
The Core 3 305 remains relevant only in contexts outside the benchmark suite: a mobile segment designation, a 15 watt TDP, and support for LPDDR5X. The Core Ultra 5 235A is a desktop part with a 65 watt TDP, a dual-channel memory bus, and Gen 5 PCIe. Users choosing between these two on the basis of recorded performance data would select the Core Ultra 5 235A for every workload represented in the database. Those constrained by the mobile form factor or the lower power envelope would look to the Core 3 305, but without any benchmark advantage to justify the choice.