Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

The Intel Core 3 305 and Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus represent two distinct poles of the current Intel lineup, one aimed at efficient mobile computing and the other at high-performance desktop use. The database shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus winning all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. However, the two processors serve fundamentally different markets, and the data indicates that the Core 3 305 holds its own in its intended segment, achieving a 72nd percentile ranking against all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus reaches the 93rd percentile.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus records an average benchmark score of 66855, while the Intel Core 3 305 records 18302. This represents a significant gap, with the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scoring roughly 3.65 times higher on average across the recorded benchmarks.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-threaded performance?

A: In the PassMark single-thread test, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 4757, which is 16.4% higher than the Intel Core 3 305's score of 3977. The delta is smaller in single-threaded workloads than in multi-threaded tests, but the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus still leads in every recorded benchmark.

Q: Which processor has a higher core count and what is the difference in threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Neither processor uses hyper-threading, so the thread count equals the core count in both cases.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each chip?

A: The Intel Core 3 305 has a TDP of 15 watts, making it suitable for mobile and low-power devices. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a TDP of 125 watts, reflecting its desktop-oriented, high-performance design.

Q: How do the two processors compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The Intel Core 3 305 uses a single-channel memory bus, providing a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus offers nearly double the memory bandwidth.

Q: What is the difference in their process node and foundry?

A: Both processors are built on a 3 nm process node. However, the Intel Core 3 305 is manufactured by Intel, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is manufactured by TSMC.

The Verdict

The data paints a decisive picture for raw performance. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the superior processor in every measured category, making it the clear choice for workloads that demand maximum throughput, from rendering to complex simulations. Its 18 cores and 18 threads, combined with a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, deliver multi-core scores that dwarf those of the Intel Core 3 305. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 30867 against 13123 for the Core 3 305, a 57.5% advantage.

The Intel Core 3 305, with its 6 cores, 6 threads, and 15-watt TDP, is designed for an entirely different scenario. Its market segment is mobile, and its low power draw is a defining characteristic. The data shows it is not a competitor to the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus in performance, but rather an alternative for compact, energy-efficient systems where the 125-watt TDP of the desktop part is not feasible. The Core 3 305's closest rivals in the database include the Intel Core i3-14100 and the AMD Ryzen 5 2600E, with average scores within 0.4% of its own, confirming its position in the entry-level performance tier. Users who prioritize battery life and portability should consider the Core 3 305, while those who need maximum computational power for a desktop workstation should select the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results show a consistent and substantial victory for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus across all 17 recorded tests. The largest margins appear in multi-threaded and data-heavy workloads. In PassMark data compression, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 568721, a 74.2% lead over the Core 3 305's 146857. Similarly, in PassMark integer math, the score of 125091 versus 32295 represents a 74.2% advantage. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows a score of 18442 for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus against 5511 for the Core 3 305, a 70.1% difference.

The single-core tests show a narrower, yet still definitive, gap. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 2261, which is 18.1% higher than the Core 3 305's 1852. The PassMark single-thread test confirms this trend, with the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scoring 4757 versus 3977, a 16.4% difference. The smallest margin in the entire dataset is in this single-thread test, indicating that the architectural efficiency of the Core 3 305 partially offsets its lower clock speeds in lightly threaded tasks.

The data also reveals that the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus excels in cryptography and physics simulations. In PassMark data encryption, it scores 42144, a 73.9% lead over 11019. In PassMark physics, the score of 3494 is 64.7% higher than the 1233 of the Core 3 305. The only benchmark where the Core 3 305 comes close is Cinebench R23 single-core with an 18.1% deficit; every other test shows a performance gap of at least 43.3%, as seen in Cinebench R15 single-core (328 vs 186).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ significantly in their core specifications. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The base clock of the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is 4.20 GHz, which is substantially higher than the 1.50 GHz of the Core 3 305. The boost clock also favors the desktop part, with 5.30 GHz versus 4.30 GHz.

The TDP is another major differentiator. The Core 3 305 consumes 15 watts, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus consumes 125 watts. The sockets are incompatible, with the Core 3 305 using Intel BGA 1516 and the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus using Intel Socket 1851. Memory support also differs: the Core 3 305 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports DDR5 only. The memory bus is single-channel on the Core 3 305 and dual-channel on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, leading to memory bandwidth figures of 59.7 GB/s and 115.2 GB/s respectively. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports ECC memory, while the Core 3 305 does not.

PCIe capabilities show a clear generation gap. The Core 3 305 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus also has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Core 3 305 does not. In terms of integrated graphics, the Core 3 305 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The release dates are close, with the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus released on 2026-03-10 and the Core 3 305 on 2026-04-15.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is defined by their codenames and foundry choices. The Intel Core 3 305 is based on the Wildcat Lake architecture and is manufactured by Intel on a 3 nm process. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture and is manufactured by TSMC on the same 3 nm process node. The die size of the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is recorded as 243 mm², with 17,800 million transistors, while no die size or transistor count is listed for the Core 3 305.

Cache hierarchies differ notably. The Core 3 305 has a 192 KB L1 cache, a 2.5 MB L2 cache, and a shared 6 MB L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a larger cache configuration, with 192 KB per core L1, 3 MB per core L2, and a shared 30 MB L3 cache. This larger cache is likely a factor in its superior performance in data-intensive tasks like PassMark data compression and random string sorting.

The market segments are explicit: the Core 3 305 is a mobile processor, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is a desktop processor. This is reflected in the socket types, TDP, and memory support. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is part of the Core Ultra Series 2, while the Core 3 305 has no series designation. The production status for both is active.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins in every recorded benchmark, so its domain is all performance-oriented tasks. The largest margins are in multi-threaded workloads, making it the appropriate choice for video rendering, 3D modeling, software compilation, and scientific computing. Its high scores in PassMark data compression (568721) and integer math (125091) suggest strong performance in database operations and general productivity software. The support for ECC memory and PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes further positions it for workstation and server-like applications where data integrity and high-bandwidth peripherals are critical.

The Intel Core 3 305 does not win any performance benchmarks against the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, but its design goals are different. Its 15-watt TDP and mobile socket make it suitable for thin-and-light laptops and other power-constrained devices. The support for LPDDR5X memory indicates an optimization for mobile platforms. Its single-channel memory bus limits bandwidth, but for typical mobile workloads like web browsing, office applications, and media playback, the data shows it performs adequately relative to its nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i3-14100 and AMD Ryzen 5 2600E, which have average scores within 0.4% of its own. The Core 3 305's lower clock speeds and fewer cores mean it is not intended for heavy multi-threaded processing, but its efficiency profile is its primary advantage in its target market segment.