Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 236V Comparison
Intel Core 3 305
Core Ultra 5 236V
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 236V
FAQ
Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 236V records an average benchmark score of 21952, while the Intel Core 3 305 records 18302. The Ultra 5 236V also sits at the 75th percentile against all CPUs, compared to the 72nd percentile for the Core 3 305.
Q: How large is the performance gap between the two in multi-core Cinebench tests?
A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 5 236V scores 15628 against 13123 for the Core 3 305, a 16% advantage. The same 16% delta appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core (6563 versus 5511) and Cinebench R15 multi-core (1575 versus 1322).
Q: Does the Core 3 305 win any benchmark at all?
A: Yes, the Core 3 305 wins the PassMark single-thread test with a score of 3977, which is 2.2% higher than the 3893 scored by the Ultra 5 236V. This appears twice in the database, under both the single_thread and singlethread test labels.
Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?
A: The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core Ultra 5 236V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither supports simultaneous multithreading.
Q: What process node does each chip use, and who fabricates them?
A: Both chips are built on a 3 nm process node. Intel fabricates the Core 3 305, while TSMC fabricates the Core Ultra 5 236V.
Q: What are the boost clock speeds of the two CPUs?
A: The Core 3 305 boosts to 4.30 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 236V boosts to 4.70 GHz. The base clocks are 1.50 GHz and 2.10 GHz, respectively.
Where Each One Wins
The benchmark data shows a nearly one-sided distribution of wins. The Core Ultra 5 236V takes 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Core 3 305 takes only 2, and both of those are the same PassMark single-thread measurement.
The Core Ultra 5 236V dominates in every Cinebench generation recorded. In Cinebench R15, it leads by 16.1% in multi-core and 16.2% in single-core. In Cinebench R20, the margins are 16% multi-core and 16.1% single-core. In Cinebench R23, the margins are 16% multi-core and 16% single-core. This consistency across three Cinebench versions indicates that the Ultra 5 236V holds a structural advantage in both heavily threaded and lightly threaded rendering workloads.
The PassMark suite tells a similar story with a few notable variations. The largest single gap appears in the prime number search test, where the Ultra 5 236V scores 171 versus 115 for the Core 3 305, a 32.7% lead. Floating point math shows a 19.9% advantage (52774 versus 42284), and physics shows an 18% advantage (1503 versus 1233). Data compression, integer math, random string sorting, data encryption, and extended instructions all land in the 12.3% to 18.5% range in favor of the Ultra 5 236V.
The Core 3 305 does not win any other test. Its single-thread PassMark score of 3977 is 2.2% ahead of the Ultra 5 236V's 3893, which makes it the only area where the 6-core part outperforms the 8-core part. The single-thread result is notable because it runs against the trend of the Ultra 5 236V winning every Cinebench single-core test by roughly 16%. This suggests the Core 3 305's Wildcat Lake cores have a specific strength in the PassMark single-thread workload that does not translate to Cinebench.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different Intel design lineages. The Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, while the Core Ultra 5 236V uses Lunar Lake architecture and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2. Both are fabricated on a 3 nm node, but Intel produces the Core 3 305 while TSMC produces the Core Ultra 5 236V.
Core organization differs substantially. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no multithreading. The Core Ultra 5 236V has 8 cores and 8 threads, also without multithreading. The cache hierarchy reflects this difference. The Core 3 305 carries 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 236V carries 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 allocation on the Ultra 5 236V gives it a larger total L2 footprint.
Memory architecture also separates the two. The Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 236V uses a dual-channel memory bus, and the database lists its memory support as dependent on the motherboard. The Core 3 305 has no ECC support, and neither does the Core Ultra 5 236V.
PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Core 3 305 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 5 236V provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. This means the Core 3 305 offers more CPU-attached lanes at a slower standard, while the Ultra 5 236V offers fewer lanes at a faster standard.
The integrated graphics are different tiers. The Core 3 305 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Core Ultra 5 236V uses Arc 130V graphics. Both target the mobile market segment and are currently listed as Active in production.
Specification Differences
The Core 3 305 and Core Ultra 5 236V differ in several key specification fields. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 236V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clock speeds are 1.50 GHz versus 2.10 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.30 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. The Core 3 305 has a 15 W TDP, while the Ultra 5 236V has a 17 W TDP.
Sockets are not interchangeable. The Core 3 305 uses Intel BGA 1516, and the Core Ultra 5 236V uses Intel BGA 2833. The cache configurations differ as noted: 6 MB shared L3 for the Core 3 305 versus 8 MB shared L3 for the Ultra 5 236V, with the L2 being 2.5 MB total versus 2.5 MB per core.
Memory support splits between single-channel and dual-channel. The Core 3 305 lists DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a 59.7 GB/s bandwidth figure. The Ultra 5 236V lists memory support as dependent on the motherboard, with no bandwidth figure recorded. The PCIe implementation differs: Gen 4 with 6 lanes against Gen 5 with 4 lanes.
Part numbers and release timing also differ. The Core 3 305 carries part number SAE3L and released on 2026-04-15. The Core Ultra 5 236V carries part numbers SRPN2SRPN3 and released on 2024-09-23. The Core 3 305 has a launch MSRP of $309; the database does not record a launch MSRP for the Ultra 5 236V. Both processors have locked multipliers.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The largest margin in the entire comparison is in the PassMark prime number search. The Core Ultra 5 236V scores 171, and the Core 3 305 scores 115, giving the Ultra 5 236V a 32.7% lead. This is the single most lopsided result in the dataset and points to a major difference in integer-heavy scalar workloads.
The next largest margin is floating point math. Here the Ultra 5 236V scores 52774 against 42284, a 19.9% advantage. Physics follows at 18% (1503 versus 1233), and random string sorting at 18.5% (21628 versus 17623). The smallest Ultra 5 236V win is extended instructions, where it leads by 12.3% (15451 versus 13543).
The Cinebench results are remarkably uniform. Every Cinebench test, regardless of version or thread count, shows the Ultra 5 236V ahead by approximately 16%. The exact deltas are 16.1% for R15 multi-core, 16.2% for R15 single-core, 16% for R20 multi-core, 16.1% for R20 single-core, 16% for R23 multi-core, and 16% for R23 single-core. This uniformity suggests the Ultra 5 236V's advantage in rendering workloads is consistent across thread scaling and does not diminish or grow with core count.
PassMark data compression shows a 16.8% lead for the Ultra 5 236V (176554 versus 146857), data encryption shows 15.6% (13049 versus 11019), integer math shows 16.7% (38765 versus 32295), and multithread shows 16% (18375 versus 15439). These results align closely with the Cinebench margins, reinforcing the overall 16% class advantage.
The Core 3 305's only victory is PassMark single-thread, where it scores 3977 against 3893 for a 2.2% lead. The same result is recorded under both the single_thread and singlethread labels. This is a narrow win, and it does not appear in any other single-core test.
Nearest rival data provides context for each chip. The Core 3 305 sits within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 5 2600E and within 0.4% of the Intel Core 7 360, and it trails the Intel Core i3-14100 by 0.1% and the Intel Core 5 330 by 0.2%. The Ultra 5 236V trails the Intel Core Ultra 5 238V by 0.1%, the Intel Core i7-11700F by 0.2%, and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600X by 0.2%, while leading the AMD EPYC 9534 by 0.2%. These deltas place both chips in tightly contested performance brackets.
The Verdict
The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 5 236V is the stronger processor for nearly every workload captured in the database. It wins 15 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, and its average benchmark score of 21952 is 20% higher than the Core 3 305's 18302. The 8-core, 8-thread configuration with per-core L2 cache and 8 MB of shared L3 cache delivers consistent 16% advantages across Cinebench rendering tests and similar margins across most PassMark workloads.
The Core 3 305 is not without a specific strength. Its PassMark single-thread score of 3977 tops the Ultra 5 236V by 2.2%, making it the better choice for workloads that mirror that particular test. It also offers a lower 15 W TDP compared to 17 W, a wider 6-lane Gen 4 PCIe implementation, and a recorded 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth figure. The single-channel memory bus and 6 MB of shared L3 cache, however, place it behind in multi-threaded and memory-sensitive tasks.
The Core Ultra 5 236V is the appropriate pick for rendering, compression, encryption, physics simulation, and general multi-threaded productivity. Its 32.7% lead in prime number search and 19.9% lead in floating point math make it particularly strong for compute-heavy workloads. The Core 3 305 is the appropriate pick only where the PassMark single-thread workload is the dominant factor, or where the lower TDP and Gen 4 lane count are prioritized. For all other recorded metrics, the Ultra 5 236V holds a clear and consistent advantage.