Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H records an average benchmark score of 33989, while the Intel Core 3 305 scores 18302. That places the Ultra 5 roughly 86% higher in aggregate performance.

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

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H leads in PassMark single-thread with a score of 4180 versus 3977 for the Core 3 305, a delta of 4.9%. The gap narrows considerably in single-core tests compared to multi-core tests.

Q: Which chip sits higher in the overall CPU percentile ranking?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H ranks in the 84th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 305 sits in the 72nd percentile.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest delta appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 5 338H scores 304 versus 115 for the Core 3 305, a 62.2% advantage for the Ultra 5.

Q: Do both processors use the same socket?

A: No. The Core 3 305 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 5 338H uses Intel BGA 2540.

Q: What are the launch dates for each chip?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H launched on 2026-01-04, and the Core 3 305 followed on 2026-04-15.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design lines. The Core 3 305 belongs to the Wildcat Lake generation, built on a 3 nm process at Intel. The Core Ultra 5 338H is part of the Core Ultra Series 3, using the Panther Lake architecture, also on a 3 nm process from Intel. Both are active mobile parts.

Core configuration differs sharply. The Core 3 305 provides 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 338H doubles that to 12 cores and 12 threads. Neither chip features simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts match core counts.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 3 305 lists L1 cache at 192 KB total, L2 at 2.5 MB total, and L3 at 6 MB shared. The Core Ultra 5 338H lists L1 at 192 KB per core, L2 at 2.5 MB per core, and L3 at 18 MB shared. The per-core L2 arrangement on the Ultra 5 scales with its 12-core design, giving it substantially more aggregate cache.

Memory support separates the two. The Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus, yielding 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 338H supports only LPDDR5X but uses a dual-channel bus, delivering 136.5 GB/s. That is more than double the bandwidth of the Core 3 305.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 3 305 offers Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 338H offers Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics vary as well: the Core 3 305 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe execution unit, and the Core Ultra 5 338H uses Arc B370.

Clock speeds favor the Ultra 5. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 305 and 1.90 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 338H. Boost clocks reach 4.30 GHz on the Core 3 305 and 4.70 GHz on the Core Ultra 5 338H. Thermal design power also differs, with the Core 3 305 rated at 15 W and the Core Ultra 5 338H at 25 W. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 5 338H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons. No benchmark in the database favors the Core 3 305. The magnitude of the victory varies considerably by workload type.

Multi-core rendering tests show a large advantage. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 5 scores 2504 against 1322 for the Core 3 305, a 47.2% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the pattern: 10213 versus 5511, a 46% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core narrows the margin to 19.6%, with scores of 16331 and 13123. The R23 result suggests that the Core 3 305 scales relatively better as the workload duration increases, but it still trails by a clear margin.

Single-core tests tighten the race. Cinebench R15 single-core gives the Ultra 5 a 39% lead, 305 versus 186. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 46.1% edge, 1441 versus 777. Cinebench R23 single-core compresses the gap to 9.4%, with 2044 versus 1852. PassMark single-thread confirms the smaller single-core gap: 4180 versus 3977, a 4.9% difference.

Integer and floating-point math workloads heavily favor the Ultra 5. PassMark integer math scores 64934 for the Ultra 5 versus 32295 for the Core 3 305, a 50.3% lead. Floating-point math shows a 49.7% edge, 84067 versus 42284. Extended instructions follow the same trend: 23906 versus 13543, a 43.3% advantage.

Encryption and compression tasks amplify the difference. PassMark data encryption scores 21367 versus 11019, a 48.4% lead for the Ultra 5. Data compression delivers 276539 versus 146857, a 46.9% edge. Random string sorting shows a 48.3% gap, 34082 versus 17623.

The largest relative win for the Ultra 5 is in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 304 against 115, a 62.2% advantage. Physics simulation also skews heavily toward the Ultra 5: 2697 versus 1233, a 54.3% lead. PassMark multithread lands at 28717 versus 15439, a 46.2% gap.

The nearest rival data places both chips in similar company. The Core 3 305 sits within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 5 2600E, and within 0.2% of the Intel Core 5 330 and 0.4% of the Intel Core 7 360. The Core Ultra 5 338H sits within 0.3% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H and 0.3% of the Intel Core i7-12800HX. The average score gap between the two processors, 18302 versus 33989, exceeds the spread seen among their respective nearest rivals, confirming that the two chips occupy different performance tiers.

The Verdict

The benchmark data positions the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H as the stronger processor across every recorded workload. Its 12-core configuration, higher boost clock, and dual-channel memory pipeline produce consistent wins in both threaded and lightly threaded tests. Multi-core workloads show the largest gaps, with Cinebench R15 multi-core and PassMark physics both exceeding 47% leads. Even the smallest margin, a 4.9% edge in PassMark single-thread, favors the Ultra 5.

The Intel Core 3 305 remains competitive only in single-core performance relative to its own multi-core showing. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score trails by 9.4%, and PassMark single-thread trails by 4.9%, both far smaller than the multi-core deltas. That pattern indicates the Core 3 305 has a capable single-thread design, but its 6-core, 6-thread layout limits it in heavily threaded applications.

The Core 3 305 also carries a lower thermal design power of 15 W versus 25 W for the Ultra 5, which may matter for systems where power draw is a constraint. Its launch MSRP is $309. The Core Ultra 5 338H has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

For workloads dominated by rendering, encryption, compression, or physics simulation, the Core Ultra 5 338H delivers roughly 46% to 62% more performance in the recorded tests. For single-threaded responsiveness, the Ultra 5 still leads, but by a much narrower margin. The data supports choosing the Core Ultra 5 338H when maximum throughput is the priority, and the Core 3 305 when lower power draw and a lower launch MSRP are the deciding factors.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 305 | Intel Core Ultra 5 338H |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Cores | 6 | 12 |

| Threads | 6 | 12 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra 5 (Panther Lake-H) |

| Process node | 3 nm | 3 nm |

| L1 cache | 192 KB | 192 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 2.5 MB | 2.5 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 6 MB shared | 18 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 136.5 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | Arc B370 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | None recorded |

| Part number | SAE3L | SA4REQ9EW |