Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core 3 305 compare to the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX in the database's overall average score?

A: The Core 3 305 records an average benchmark score of 18302, while the Core Ultra 7 255HX reaches 62738. This places the Core 3 305 in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Core Ultra 7 255HX sits in the 93rd percentile.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for these two mobile processors?

A: The Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX has 20 cores and 20 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts equal core counts.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX boosts to 5.20 GHz, compared to the Core 3 305's 4.30 GHz. The Core 3 305 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz, while the Core Ultra 7 255HX has a base clock of 2.40 GHz.

Q: How do the two chips differ in memory bandwidth support?

A: The Core 3 305 uses a single-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s and supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Core Ultra 7 255HX uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and supports DDR5 only.

Q: What is the L3 cache capacity on each processor?

A: The Core 3 305 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 255HX has 30 MB of shared L3 cache, a fivefold difference.

Q: Which processor has a higher single-thread score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Core Ultra 7 255HX scores 2163 in Cinebench R23 single-core, versus 1852 for the Core 3 305. The delta is 14.4% in favor of the Core Ultra 7 255HX.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data records zero wins for the Intel Core 3 305 across all 17 head-to-head tests. Every single test, from Cinebench R15 multicore to PassMark single-thread, is won by the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX. The closest margin appears in single-threaded workloads, where the Core Ultra 7 255HX leads by 12.8% in PassMark single-thread and by 14.4% in Cinebench R23 single-core.

For multi-threaded tasks, the gap widens dramatically. The Core Ultra 7 255HX delivers 4916 in Cinebench R15 multicore versus 1322 for the Core 3 305, a 73.1% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the Core Ultra 7 255HX scores 17187 against 5511, a 67.9% lead. The Cinebench R23 multicore result shows 32612 versus 13123, a 59.8% difference.

The Core 3 305 does not win any workload category. Even in PassMark single-thread, a metric that often narrows gaps between low-core and high-core CPUs, the Core Ultra 7 255HX holds a 4562 to 3977 advantage. The data indicates the Core 3 305 is designed for efficiency-focused systems, but the Core Ultra 7 255HX dominates in raw performance across every measured benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The Intel Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-HX, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation.

Both chips are fabricated on a 3 nm process, but they use different foundries. The Core 3 305 is manufactured by Intel, whereas the Core Ultra 7 255HX is manufactured by TSMC. The Core Ultra 7 255HX also reports 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 3 305 does not have transistor or die size data recorded.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. 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 7 255HX has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 allocation on the Core Ultra 7 255HX is notable given its 20-core configuration.

The integrated graphics also differ. The Core 3 305 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe unit, while the Core Ultra 7 255HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. This represents a significant difference in GPU capability, though the benchmark data focuses on CPU tests.

PCIe support varies as well. The Core 3 305 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 7 255HX provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, a generation ahead and more than triple the lane count.

Specification Differences

The Intel Core 3 305 carries a 15 W TDP, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX has a 55 W TDP. This 40 W difference reflects the Core Ultra 7 255HX's higher core count and clock speeds.

Socket compatibility differs entirely. The Core 3 305 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 7 255HX uses Intel BGA 2114. These are not interchangeable sockets.

The Core 3 305 has a launch MSRP of $309. The Core Ultra 7 255HX has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Memory support differs in both type and channel configuration. The Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus. The Core Ultra 7 255HX supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus. Memory bandwidth reflects this: 59.7 GB/s for the Core 3 305 versus 102.4 GB/s for the Core Ultra 7 255HX.

Neither processor supports ECC memory. Both are marked as Active in production status and target the Mobile market segment.

The Core 3 305 has a locked multiplier, while the Core Ultra 7 255HX has an unlocked multiplier, indicating overclocking potential on the latter.

Release dates differ by over a year. The Core Ultra 7 255HX was released on 2025-01-12, and the Core 3 305 on 2026-04-15.

Part numbers are recorded as SAE3L for the Core 3 305 and SRVFG for the Core Ultra 7 255HX.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The largest margin is in PassMark integer math, where the Core Ultra 7 255HX scores 127126 against 32295 for the Core 3 305, a 74.6% advantage. PassMark floating-point math shows a 73.7% lead (160624 versus 42284).

Cinebench R15 multicore shows a 73.1% delta, with scores of 4916 and 1322. PassMark data encryption shows a 72.1% lead (39499 versus 11019). PassMark random string sorting shows 71.8% (62591 versus 17623). PassMark data compression shows 71.5% (515143 versus 146857). PassMark find prime numbers shows 71.2% (400 versus 115).

Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 68% delta (2426 versus 777), while PassMark multithread shows the same 68% delta (48234 versus 15439). Cinebench R20 multicore shows 67.9% (17187 versus 5511). PassMark extended instructions shows 67.2% (41247 versus 13543).

Cinebench R23 multicore shows a 59.8% delta (32612 versus 13123). PassMark physics shows 57.9% (2926 versus 1233). Cinebench R15 single-core shows 43.1% (327 versus 186).

The narrowest margins appear in single-threaded tests. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 14.4% delta (2163 versus 1852). PassMark single-thread and PassMark singlethread both show 12.8% deltas (4562 versus 3977).

The data shows a consistent pattern: the Core Ultra 7 255HX leads by roughly 60% to 75% in multi-threaded and compute-heavy workloads, while single-threaded tests show a narrower but still clear advantage. The Core 3 305's 6 cores and 6 threads cannot compete with the 20-core configuration of the Core Ultra 7 255HX in parallel workloads, and even in single-thread tests, the Core Ultra 7 255HX's higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz versus 4.30 GHz provides a measurable edge.

The Core 3 305's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core i3-14100 with an average score of 18318 (0.1% higher), the Intel Core 5 330 at 18345 (0.2% higher), the Intel Core 7 360 at 18374 (0.4% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 5 2600E at 18230 (0.4% lower). The Core Ultra 7 255HX's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 at 62839 (0.2% higher), the AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 at 62498 (0.4% lower), the Intel Core i7-13790F at 63080 (0.5% higher), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX at 63173 (0.7% higher). These rival comparisons indicate both processors sit in competitive segments relative to their performance classes, though the absolute performance gap between the two reviewed chips remains very large.