Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265 Comparison
Intel Core 3 305
Core Ultra 7 265
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The benchmark data presents a decisive sweep in favor of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265, which records wins in all 17 head-to-head comparisons. The Core 3 305 does not register a single victory across any of the Cinebench or Passmark tests. The margin of defeat varies substantially depending on the workload, offering meaningful insight into where the architectural gap is narrowest and where it becomes a chasm.
In Cinebench R20 multicore, the Core Ultra 7 265 scores 6268 against 5511 for the Core 3 305, a delta of 12.1 percent. This is the closest result in the entire comparison, suggesting that the Core 3 305 holds up relatively better in this particular test. The Cinebench R20 singlecore test also shows the same 12.1 percent gap, with scores of 884 versus 777. These two results stand as the most competitive moments for the Core 3 305, though they still favor the larger processor.
The Passmark single-thread tests show a similar but slightly larger difference. The Core Ultra 7 265 posts 4689 in both passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread, while the Core 3 305 records 3977 in both, producing a 15.2 percent deficit. This indicates that while the Core Ultra 7 265 has superior single-thread performance, the gap is not as dramatic as what appears in multi-threaded workloads.
Moving to multi-threaded and heavily parallel tasks, the differences grow considerably. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core Ultra 7 265 scores 4255 against 1322 for the Core 3 305, a 68.9 percent difference. The same 68.9 percent delta appears in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the scores are 42216 and 13123 respectively. The Cinebench R23 singlecore test also shows the identical 68.9 percent gap, with 5960 versus 1852. This consistency across both R15 and R23 suggests a fundamental throughput advantage rather than a test-specific anomaly.
The Passmark suite reveals the largest disparities in math-oriented workloads. The floating point math test shows the Core Ultra 7 265 at 172776 versus 42284 for the Core 3 305, a 75.5 percent gap. Integer math follows closely with 134773 against 32295, a 76 percent difference. Data encryption shows a 72.8 percent gap with scores of 40456 and 11019. Data compression records 522983 versus 146857, a 71.9 percent difference. Random string sorting shows 63833 against 17623, a 72.4 percent gap. Finding prime numbers posts 418 versus 115, a 72.5 percent difference. Extended instructions show 41478 versus 13543, a 67.3 percent gap. The multithread Passmark test shows 49682 against 15439, a 68.9 percent difference. Physics testing shows 2923 versus 1233, which at 57.8 percent is the smallest deficit outside the single-thread and R20 results.
The data indicates that the Core Ultra 7 265 dominates in every category, but the margins tell a nuanced story. The 12.1 percent gap in Cinebench R20 and the 15.2 percent gap in Passmark single-thread suggest that the Core 3 305 is not far behind in lightly threaded or specific rendering tasks. The 70 percent plus gaps in math, compression, encryption, and multi-core Cinebench tests point to a massive parallel throughput advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different Intel families and target different market segments. The Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation, while the Core Ultra 7 265 uses the Arrow Lake-S codename under the Arrow Lake architecture and the Core Ultra Series 2 family. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. The Core 3 305 lists Intel as the foundry, while the Core Ultra 7 265 lists TSMC.
The core configurations diverge sharply. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads, also without hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 7 265 provides 14 additional physical cores and 14 additional threads, which largely explains the multi-threaded benchmark dominance.
Clock speeds also differ. The Core 3 305 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 265 has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 265 has both a higher idle clock and a higher maximum boost, contributing to its single-thread advantage.
Cache hierarchies show structural differences. 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 7 265 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 7 265 is substantial, and the shared L3 is five times larger than the Core 3 305's entire shared pool.
The Core Ultra 7 265 also has a notably larger physical footprint. The database lists its transistor count at 17,800 million and its die size at 243 mm². The Core 3 305 has no transistor count or die size recorded. The production status for both is active.
Memory support differs in type and width. The Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 265 supports only DDR5 but uses a dual-channel memory bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The dual-channel configuration gives the Core Ultra 7 265 roughly 72 percent more memory bandwidth, which affects data-intensive workloads.
PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 3 305 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 7 265 offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 7 265 provides both a newer PCIe standard and more than three times the lanes.
Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 305 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe unit. The Core Ultra 7 265 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 32 execution units. The 32 EU configuration is a substantial graphics upgrade over the single Xe unit.
Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers. The Core 3 305 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket and targets the mobile segment, while the Core Ultra 7 265 uses Intel Socket 1851 and targets the desktop segment.
Where Each One Wins
The benchmark data shows no test where the Core 3 305 wins outright. However, the relative margins in certain tests indicate where the Core 3 305 is comparatively stronger. The Cinebench R20 multicore and singlecore tests show only a 12.1 percent gap, the smallest in the entire dataset. The Passmark single-thread tests show a 15.2 percent gap. These results suggest that the Core 3 305 is competitive in lightly threaded tasks and in the specific rendering workload measured by Cinebench R20.
The Core Ultra 7 265 wins decisively in all multi-threaded and parallel workloads. The largest margins appear in Passmark integer math at 76 percent and floating point math at 75.5 percent. Data encryption, data compression, random string sorting, and prime number finding all show gaps between 71.9 and 72.8 percent. These are compute-heavy tasks that benefit from additional cores and higher memory bandwidth.
The Cinebench R15 and R23 tests, both multicore and singlecore, show a consistent 68.9 percent gap. This consistency suggests that the Core Ultra 7 265 delivers a uniform advantage across these rendering benchmarks, regardless of thread count. The passmark_multithread test also shows a 68.9 percent gap, matching the Cinebench pattern.
The physics test shows the smallest multi-threaded gap at 57.8 percent, with the Core Ultra 7 265 scoring 2923 against 1233. While still a large deficit, this indicates that the Core 3 305 handles physics simulation relatively better than it handles math, compression, or encryption workloads.
The Passmark extended instructions test shows a 67.3 percent gap, slightly smaller than the Cinebench and multithread gaps. This suggests that the Core 3 305's instruction set efficiency is comparatively closer to the Core Ultra 7 265 than its raw core count would imply.
For use-case segmentation, the data indicates the Core 3 305 could serve scenarios where single-thread performance matters most and where power constraints favor a lower core count. The Core Ultra 7 265 is clearly positioned for multi-threaded rendering, mathematical computation, data processing, and any workload that can utilize 20 cores.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in several specification fields. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz versus 2.40 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.30 GHz versus 5.30 GHz. The thermal design power is 15 watts for the Core 3 305 and 65 watts for the Core Ultra 7 265.
The sockets differ: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 3 305 versus Intel Socket 1851 for the Core Ultra 7 265. The architecture field is null for the Core 3 305 but lists Arrow Lake for the Core Ultra 7 265. The codenames are Wildcat Lake and Arrow Lake-S respectively. The generations are listed as Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) and Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake).
The process node is 3 nm for both, but the foundry differs: Intel for the Core 3 305 and TSMC for the Core Ultra 7 265. The Core Ultra 7 265 has 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size; the Core 3 305 has no recorded values for either.
Cache configurations differ. The Core 3 305 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 265 has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3. Memory support lists DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Core 3 305 versus DDR5 only for the Core Ultra 7 265. Memory buses are single-channel versus dual-channel, with bandwidths of 59.7 GB/s and 102.4 GB/s.
PCIe support shows Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the Core 3 305 versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes for the Core Ultra 7 265. Integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU. Market segments are Mobile versus Desktop. Release dates are 2026-04-15 for the Core 3 305 and 2025-01-06 for the Core Ultra 7 265. The launch MSRP is $309 for the Core 3 305 and $394 for the Core Ultra 7 265. Both have locked multipliers and no ECC support.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads.
Q: What is the performance gap in Cinebench R23 multicore?
A: The Core Ultra 7 265 scores 42216 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the Core 3 305 scores 13123. The Core Ultra 7 265 leads by 68.9 percent.
Q: How does single-thread performance compare?
A: In the Passmark single-thread tests, the Core Ultra 7 265 scores 4689 and the Core 3 305 scores 3977, a 15.2 percent gap. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, the Core Ultra 7 265 scores 5960 against 1852, a 68.9 percent gap.
Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications?
A: The Core 3 305 has a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 265 has a dual-channel memory bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.
Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?
A: No, neither the Core 3 305 nor the Core Ultra 7 265 lists ECC memory support.
Q: What market segments do these processors target?
A: The Core 3 305 targets the mobile segment with an Intel BGA 1516 socket. The Core Ultra 7 265 targets the desktop segment with an Intel Socket 1851.
The Verdict
The recorded data positions the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 as the dominant processor in every measured benchmark. Its 17 wins out of 17 head-to-head comparisons, combined with a 93rd percentile ranking versus all CPUs, place it in a different performance class than the Core 3 305, which sits at the 72nd percentile. The average benchmark score of 64640 for the Core Ultra 7 265 versus 18302 for the Core 3 305 represents a 3.5x difference in overall throughput.
The Core 3 305 belongs to the mobile segment with a 15 watt TDP, a single-channel memory bus, and 6 cores. Its most competitive showings are in Cinebench R20, where the gap narrows to 12.1 percent, and in Passmark single-thread tests, where the gap is 15.2 percent. For tasks that rely primarily on single-thread performance and fit within a low-power mobile envelope, the Core 3 305 offers a closer match to the Core Ultra 7 265 than the multi-threaded results suggest.
The Core Ultra 7 265 is the clear choice for desktop users running multi-threaded workloads. Its 20 cores, 30 MB of shared L3 cache, dual-channel memory at 102.4 GB/s, and 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide the infrastructure for the 70 percent plus advantages seen in math, compression, encryption, and rendering benchmarks. The 65 watt TDP and desktop socket indicate a design intended for sustained performance rather than power efficiency.
The data does not support any scenario where the Core 3 305 outperforms the Core Ultra 7 265. The only question is how close the Core 3 305 can come in specific workloads, and the answer varies from 12.1 percent in Cinebench R20 to 76 percent in Passmark integer math. Users requiring the highest thread throughput, the largest cache, or the fastest memory bandwidth should select the Core Ultra 7 265. Users constrained to mobile platforms with the BGA 1516 socket and needing only modest single-thread performance may find the Core 3 305 adequate, but they will sacrifice significant multi-threaded capability.