Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents an unambiguous outcome: the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the database, 17 wins to zero for the Intel Core 3 305. The Core Ultra 5 245 holds a 90th percentile position among all CPUs, while the Core 3 305 sits at the 72nd percentile. The average benchmark score gap is substantial: 48,995 for the Core Ultra 5 245 versus 18,302 for the Core 3 305, a difference of roughly 2.7 times.

The Core Ultra 5 245 is the selection for any workload where compute throughput matters. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (0.5% higher average score) and the Intel Core i5-14600K (0.8% higher), placing it in serious desktop performance territory. The Core 3 305, by contrast, sits alongside the Intel Core i3-14100 (0.1% higher) and the AMD Ryzen 5 2600E (0.4% lower), which positions it as a modest mobile-class part.

For users constrained to the Core 3 305's platform, the data shows it remains functional for lighter tasks, but there is no benchmark category where it leads. The single-thread gap is the smallest at 9.5%, while multi-threaded gaps range from 52% to 68.5%. The Core Ultra 5 245 is the clear choice for rendering, math-heavy computation, and compression workloads. The Core 3 305 only makes sense when its specific mobile socket and lower power envelope are mandatory requirements.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design lineages. The Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename with a 3 nm process node fabricated by Intel. It has 6 cores and 6 threads with no hyperthreading, a base clock of 1.50 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Its cache hierarchy consists of 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory support includes DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. It uses PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes and integrates Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe unit. The package is Intel BGA 1516, and the market segment is mobile.

The Core Ultra 5 245 uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. It packs 14 cores and 14 threads, a base clock of 3.50 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Cache capacities are larger: 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. The transistor count reaches 17,800 million on a 243 mm² die. Memory support is DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, double the Core 3 305's throughput. ECC memory is supported. PCIe is Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG with 64 EU. The socket is Intel Socket 1851, and the market segment is desktop.

The foundry difference is notable: Intel fabs the Core 3 305, while TSMC fabs the Core Ultra 5 245. The memory bus width, PCIe generation, lane count, and graphics execution units all favor the Core Ultra 5 245. The Core 3 305's TDP is 15 watts versus 65 watts for the Core Ultra 5 245, which explains the mobile positioning of the former and desktop positioning of the latter. The Core Ultra 5 245 also supports ECC memory, which the Core 3 305 does not.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 records an average benchmark score of 48,995, while the Intel Core 3 305 records 18,302. The Core Ultra 5 245 also ranks at the 90th percentile versus the 72nd percentile for the Core 3 305.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: In the PassMark single-thread test, the Core Ultra 5 245 scores 4,394 versus 3,977 for the Core 3 305, a 9.5% difference. This is the narrowest margin across all recorded benchmarks.

Q: What is the multi-threaded performance difference in Cinebench R23?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245 scores 32,924 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core 3 305 scores 13,123. The delta is 60.1% in favor of the Core Ultra 5 245.

Q: Do these processors use the same socket?

A: No. The Core 3 305 uses Intel BGA 1516, a mobile package, while the Core Ultra 5 245 uses Intel Socket 1851 for desktop systems.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 supports ECC memory. The Core 3 305 does not list ECC support in the database.

Q: How do their nearest rivals compare?

A: The Core 3 305's nearest rival, the Intel Core i3-14100, scores 18,318, just 0.1% higher. The Core Ultra 5 245's nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G, scores 49,196, within 0.4% of its average.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 245 has 14 cores and 14 threads. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz versus 3.50 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.30 GHz versus 5.10 GHz. TDP ratings are 15 watts versus 65 watts.

Cache configurations differ substantially: L1 is 192 KB total for the Core 3 305 versus 192 KB per core for the Core Ultra 5 245; L2 is 2.5 MB versus 3 MB per core; L3 is 6 MB shared versus 24 MB shared. Memory support differs: the Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X single-channel with 59.7 GB/s, while the Core Ultra 5 245 supports DDR5 dual-channel with 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is absent on the Core 3 305 and present on the Core Ultra 5 245.

PCIe capabilities differ: Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the Core 3 305 versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes for the Core Ultra 5 245. Integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 with 1 Xe unit versus Arc Xe-LPG with 64 EU. Sockets are Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel Socket 1851. The market segments are mobile versus desktop. Production status for both is active. The Core Ultra 5 245 lists a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm²; the Core 3 305 has no recorded transistor or die size data.

The Core Ultra 5 245 also carries a part number of SRVFE, while the Core 3 305 uses SAE3L. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 5 245 is $270, and the launch MSRP for the Core 3 305 is $309. The Core Ultra 5 245 was released on 2025-01-06, while the Core 3 305 has a release date of 2026-04-15.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 5 245 dominates every recorded test. The largest margin occurs in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 5 245 scores 365 against 115 for the Core 3 305, a 68.5% advantage. This test rewards raw integer throughput and thread scaling, and the 14-core part simply overwhelms the 6-core mobile chip.

Floating-point math shows a 64.9% gap, with 120,548 versus 42,284. Integer math follows at 64.6%, 91,187 versus 32,295. Data compression and encryption are close behind at 63.4% and 63.6% respectively, with scores of 400,942 versus 146,857 and 30,236 versus 11,019. Random string sorting shows a 64.1% gap, 49,140 versus 17,623.

The Cinebench suite paints a consistent picture. R15 multi-core: 3,318 versus 1,322, a 60.2% gap. R15 single-core: 468 versus 186, a 60.3% gap. R20 multi-core: 13,828 versus 5,511, a 60.1% gap. R20 single-core: 1,952 versus 777, a 60.2% gap. R23 multi-core: 32,924 versus 13,123, a 60.1% gap. R23 single-core: 4,648 versus 1,852, a 60.2% gap. The consistency of these deltas, all clustered around 60%, suggests the performance difference scales almost linearly with core count and clock advantage.

PassMark multithread shows 38,706 versus 15,439, a 60.1% gap. Physics shows 2,569 versus 1,233, the smallest multi-threaded gap at 52%. Extended instructions show 33,304 versus 13,543, a 59.3% gap. The single-thread tests are the only ones below double digits: PassMark single-thread and singlethread both show 4,394 versus 3,977, a 9.5% gap.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 245 wins in every measurable category. Multi-core rendering workloads such as Cinebench R23 see a 60% performance advantage, making it the appropriate choice for video encoding, 3D rendering, and software compilation. Data compression and encryption workloads show even larger gaps, suggesting the Core Ultra 5 245 handles file archiving and encryption tasks with significantly higher throughput.

The physics test shows a 52% advantage for the Core Ultra 5 245, which indicates better performance in simulation and physics calculation tasks. Floating-point and integer math both exceed 64% advantages, meaning scientific computing and general number-crunching favor the desktop part heavily. The extended instructions test shows a 59.3% gap, covering SIMD and specialized instruction workloads.

The Core 3 305 does not win any test, but its narrowest deficit is in single-threaded PassMark at 9.5%. This means for lightly threaded, latency-sensitive tasks such as basic office work, simple web browsing, or legacy application compatibility, the Core 3 305 is not far behind. Its 15-watt TDP and mobile socket also make it the only one of the two that fits in BGA 1516 platforms, and it supports LPDDR5X memory, which the Core Ultra 5 245 does not.

The data indicates the Core 3 305's role is limited to mobile systems where power consumption and socket compatibility dictate the choice. The Core Ultra 5 245, with its 90th percentile ranking, 14 cores, 5.10 GHz boost clock, dual-channel memory, PCIe Gen 5, and ECC support, is the superior processor for virtually all performance-oriented tasks. The 17 to 0 win record in the head-to-head benchmarks leaves no ambiguity about which part delivers higher performance.