Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records 17 head-to-head comparisons between the Intel Core 3 305 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H, and the Core Ultra 5 336H wins all 17. There is no test in the database where the Core 3 305 comes out ahead. The margins, however, vary widely depending on the workload.

The largest gap appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test. The Core 3 305 scores 115, while the Core Ultra 5 336H scores 299, a delta of -61.5%. That is the single biggest percentage deficit for the Core 3 305 in the entire comparison. PassMark physics shows a similar pattern: 1233 versus 2682, a -54% delta. These two tests are heavily multi-threaded and scale directly with core count and memory bandwidth.

The Cinebench suite tells a consistent story. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 3 305 records 13123 points against the Core Ultra 5 336H's 23991 points, a -45.3% delta. The single-core version of the same test shows 1852 versus 3387, also -45.3%. Cinebench R20 multi-core delivers 5511 versus 10076 (-45.3%), and R20 single-core is 777 versus 1422 (-45.4%). The R15 tests follow the same trend: multi-core 1322 versus 2418 (-45.3%) and single-core 186 versus 341 (-45.5%). The consistency of these deltas, all clustering around -45%, indicates the advantage is structural rather than workload-specific.

Data compression and encryption workloads amplify the gap further. PassMark data compression shows 146857 for the Core 3 305 and 280340 for the Core Ultra 5 336H, a -47.6% delta. Data encryption is 11019 versus 21291, a -48.2% delta. Floating point math delivers 42284 versus 82415 (-48.7%), and integer math is 32295 versus 62070 (-48%). Random string sorting produces 17623 versus 34402 (-48.8%). Extended instructions score 13543 versus 24542 (-44.8%).

The closest contest in the entire dataset is PassMark single-thread performance. The Core 3 305 scores 3977 and the Core Ultra 5 336H scores 4013, a delta of only -0.9%. This is a near tie. The Core Ultra 5 336H wins, but the margin is negligible and within typical run-to-run variance. This single result shows that the Core 3 305's individual core efficiency is competitive despite the massive multi-core shortfall.

PassMark multithread confirms the overall picture: 15439 versus 28545, a -45.9% delta. Every recorded benchmark favors the Core Ultra 5 336H, and the average benchmark score reflects this: 34485 for the Core Ultra 5 336H versus 18302 for the Core 3 305. The Core Ultra 5 336H sits at the 84th percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the Core 3 305 sits at the 72nd percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 336H wins every recorded benchmark, so a use-case split must be framed around the magnitude of its advantage rather than any outright Core 3 305 victories.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the Core Ultra 5 336H wins by a hair. PassMark single-thread shows 4013 versus 3977, a 0.9% edge. In everyday tasks that rely on one or two cores, such as light office work or web browsing, the two processors would be indistinguishable in practice. The Core 3 305's single-core Cinebench scores are also respectable in absolute terms: 1852 in R23 single-core, 777 in R20 single-core, and 186 in R15 single-core. These numbers are not embarrassing; they simply trail the Core Ultra 5 336H by roughly 45%.

For all multi-threaded workloads, the Core Ultra 5 336H is decisively ahead. The 16-core, 16-thread configuration produces roughly 80% to 130% more throughput depending on the test. The largest relative win is in prime number calculation (61.5% ahead), followed by physics (54% ahead). These are compute-heavy, parallel workloads where core count and memory bandwidth dominate. The Core Ultra 5 336H's dual-channel memory bus and 18 MB of shared L3 cache give it a structural advantage that the Core 3 305 cannot offset with clock speed alone.

Content creation, video encoding, 3D rendering, and scientific computation all fall into the Core Ultra 5 336H's column. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 23991 places it in the same performance tier as the Intel Core i7-13700HX, which records an average score of 34554 in the database, a delta of -0.2%. The Core 3 305's nearest rival is the Intel Core i3-14100 at 18318 average score, a delta of -0.1%. In other words, the Core 3 305 competes with a low-end desktop chip, while the Core Ultra 5 336H competes with a high-end mobile HX-series part.

For battery-conscious scenarios, the Core 3 305 has a 15 W TDP versus 25 W for the Core Ultra 5 336H. The data does not include power draw measurements, but the TDP figures indicate the Core 3 305 is designed for lower sustained power envelopes. That said, the Core Ultra 5 336H delivers roughly double the multi-core throughput, so the efficiency per watt likely favors the larger chip in many burst workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design lineages. The Intel Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is part of the Core 3 generation. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically the Panther Lake-H variant within the Core Ultra Series 3 generation. Both are built on a 3 nm process node by Intel's own foundry, so the transistor-level fabrication is identical.

The core configurations diverge sharply. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads, also without hyper-threading but with nearly three times the physical core count. The cache hierarchy scales accordingly. 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 336H lists L1 as 192 KB per core and L2 as 2.5 MB per core, with 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 allocation is the same, but the total cache resources are much larger on the Core Ultra 5 336H due to the higher core count and the larger L3 pool.

Memory architecture differs substantially. The Core 3 305 uses a single-channel memory bus with a recorded bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 336H uses a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a direct 2x improvement in theoretical memory throughput, which explains why memory-sensitive benchmarks like data compression and integer math show deltas of roughly -48%. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory types, and neither supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity also favors the Core Ultra 5 336H. The Core 3 305 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 5 336H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). This doubles both the generation and the lane count, which matters for fast NVMe storage or discrete GPUs in a mobile chassis.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 305 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Core Ultra 5 336H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics without a core count listed in the database. The naming is the same, but the larger chip likely has more execution units; the data does not confirm this, so it remains a qualitative observation.

The sockets are incompatible: the Core 3 305 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 5 336H uses Intel BGA 2540. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 3 305 is marked as part number SAE3L, and the Core Ultra 5 336H is SA4RD.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors in the recorded data.

Core count: 6 cores on the Core 3 305 versus 16 cores on the Core Ultra 5 336H. Threads match cores on both (6 and 16 respectively). Base clock is 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 305 and 1.90 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 336H. Boost clock is 4.30 GHz versus 4.60 GHz, a 0.3 GHz advantage for the Core Ultra 5 336H. TDP is 15 W versus 25 W.

Socket: Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel BGA 2540. Architecture and codename: Wildcat Lake versus Panther Lake. Generation: Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) versus Ultra 5 (Panther Lake-H). The Core 3 305 has no listed series, while the Core Ultra 5 336H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3.

Cache: L1 is listed as 192 KB for the Core 3 305 versus 192 KB per core for the Core Ultra 5 336H. L2 is 2.5 MB versus 2.5 MB per core. L3 is 6 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory bus: single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. PCIe: Gen 4 with 6 lanes versus Gen 5 with 12 lanes. Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) versus Intel Xe3 Graphics with no core count recorded.

Release dates differ: the Core 3 305 launched on 2026-04-15, while the Core Ultra 5 336H launched earlier on 2026-01-04. The Core 3 305 has a launch MSRP of $309. The Core Ultra 5 336H has no launch MSRP recorded in the database. Both are active production parts in the mobile segment. Both have ECC memory disabled, and neither is multiplier-unlocked.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Neither processor supports hyper-threading, so thread counts equal core counts.

Q: How close is single-thread performance between the two?

A: The PassMark single-thread test shows 4013 for the Core Ultra 5 336H versus 3977 for the Core 3 305, a delta of -0.9%. This is the narrowest gap in the entire benchmark set. The Cinebench single-core tests show larger gaps of around -45%, so the PassMark result is the only near-tie.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 5 336H scores 299 versus 115 for the Core 3 305, a delta of -61.5%. PassMark physics is the second largest at -54%.

Q: Do both processors use the same memory type?

A: Yes, both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X. However, the Core 3 305 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 5 336H uses a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s. Neither supports ECC memory.

Q: Are the two chips built on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are fabricated on a 3 nm process node by Intel. The architecture differs: the Core 3 305 is Wildcat Lake, and the Core Ultra 5 336H is Panther Lake.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 5 336H boosts to 4.60 GHz, while the Core 3 305 boosts to 4.30 GHz. The base clocks are 1.90 GHz and 1.50 GHz respectively. The Core 3 305 has a lower TDP of 15 W versus 25 W for the Core Ultra 5 336H.