Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265F Comparison
Intel Core 3 305
Core Ultra 7 265F
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265F
Where Each One Wins
The benchmark data paints an unusually clear picture: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 3 305 does not win a single one. This is not a close contest by any conventional measure, and the margin of victory varies substantially depending on the workload type.
The Core Ultra 7 265F shows its largest advantages in multi-threaded and compute-intensive tasks. In PassMark integer math, it scores 138078 against 32295, a delta of -76.6 percent from the Core 3's perspective, meaning the Ultra 7 is roughly 4.3 times faster. Floating point math shows a similar pattern: 173855 versus 42284, a -75.7 percent delta. These are workloads that scale with core count, and the Ultra 7 has 20 cores versus 6 for the Core 3.
The single-threaded results are closer but still favor the Ultra 7. In PassMark single-thread, the Ultra 7 scores 4750 against 3977, a -16.3 percent delta. This is the narrowest gap in the entire dataset, indicating that the Core 3's single-core performance is respectable but not competitive with the higher clocked Ultra 7. The Cinebench single-core tests show a wider gap, with the Ultra 7 leading by -68.8 percent in both R15 and R20 single-core, and -68.7 percent in R23 single-core.
Workloads involving encryption and prime number finding show the largest deltas. PassMark data encryption has a -72.1 percent delta, and find prime numbers has a -72.4 percent delta. These tasks often benefit from both core count and memory bandwidth, and the Ultra 7 has a dual-channel memory bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth versus the Core 3's single-channel 59.7 GB/s.
The Core 3 305 does have one meaningful advantage in the data: power consumption. Its TDP is 15 watts versus 65 watts for the Ultra 7. However, the benchmark scores do not reflect any workload where this lower power envelope translates into a performance win. The Core 3's market segment is mobile, while the Ultra 7 is desktop, which explains the different design priorities.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different Intel design lineages with distinct physical characteristics. The Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation, while the Core Ultra 7 265F uses the Arrow Lake-S codename as part of the Core Ultra Series 2, with the Arrow Lake architecture. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs: Intel fabricates the Core 3 305, while TSMC fabricates the Core Ultra 7 265F.
The Core Ultra 7 265F has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², figures not provided for the Core 3 305. The core counts are dramatically different: 6 cores and 6 threads for the Core 3, versus 20 cores and 20 threads for the Ultra 7. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading, so threads equal cores in both cases.
Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Core 3 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. For a 6-core chip, the Core 3's L2 is roughly 416 KB per core, while the Ultra 7 provides 3 MB per core, a much larger allocation. The L3 advantage for the Ultra 7 is 30 MB versus 6 MB, which matters for workloads with large working sets.
Memory support differs as well. The Core 3 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Ultra 7 supports only DDR5. The memory bus is single-channel for the Core 3 and dual-channel for the Ultra 7, producing bandwidth figures of 59.7 GB/s and 102.4 GB/s respectively. Neither supports ECC memory.
PCIe capabilities are also distinct. The Core 3 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 7 offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). This gives the Ultra 7 both a newer PCIe generation and more than three times the lane count.
The integrated graphics situation is notable. The Core 3 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the Ultra 7 has no integrated graphics (listed as N/A). This means the Core 3 can operate without a discrete GPU in a mobile context, while the Ultra 7 requires a separate graphics card. The sockets differ: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 3, Intel Socket 1851 for the Ultra 7. The Core 3 is a mobile part, the Ultra 7 a desktop part.
Clock speeds favor the Ultra 7 in both base and boost. The Core 3 runs at 1.50 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost. The Ultra 7 runs at 2.40 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost. The boost delta of 1.00 GHz is substantial, and the base clock delta of 0.90 GHz is also meaningful for sustained workloads.
The Verdict
The recorded data supports a straightforward selection process. For any workload where performance matters, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is the clear choice. Its 20 cores, larger caches, dual-channel memory, and higher clocks produce wins across all 17 benchmark comparisons. The average benchmark score of 64438 for the Ultra 7 versus 18302 for the Core 3 places them in different performance tiers entirely, with the Ultra 7 at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs and the Core 3 at the 72nd percentile.
The nearest rival data reinforces this gap. The Core 3's closest competitor is the Intel Core i3-14100, with an average score of 18318 and a delta of -0.1 percent. The Core Ultra 7's nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 7 265, with an average score of 64640 and a delta of -0.3 percent. Neither processor is close to the other in the performance hierarchy.
The Core 3 305 does have legitimate use cases, but they are not performance-driven. Its 15 watt TDP, mobile socket, and integrated graphics make it suitable for low-power mobile systems where battery life and thermal constraints take priority over raw throughput. The Ultra 7's 65 watt TDP and desktop socket preclude such usage.
The launch MSRP for the Core 3 305 is $309, while the Core Ultra 7 265F has a launch MSRP of $379. The Core Ultra 7 delivers roughly 3.5 times the average benchmark score for a $70 higher launch MSRP, making the performance per dollar strongly favor the Ultra 7 in the database's measurements.
FAQ
Q: Does the Intel Core 3 305 win any benchmark against the Core Ultra 7 265F?
A: No. The head-to-head data records 17 tests, and the Core Ultra 7 265F wins all 17. The Core 3 305 has zero wins in the dataset.
Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?
A: The largest delta appears in PassMark integer math, where the Core Ultra 7 scores 138078 against 32295, a -76.6 percent difference from the Core 3's perspective. PassMark floating point math is close behind at -75.7 percent.
Q: How do the single-thread scores compare?
A: The narrowest gap is in PassMark single-thread, where the Core Ultra 7 scores 4750 versus 3977 for the Core 3, a -16.3 percent delta. The Cinebench single-core tests show wider gaps, with deltas of -68.8 percent in R15 and R20, and -68.7 percent in R23.
Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?
A: The Intel Core 3 305 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics (N/A), requiring a discrete GPU for display output.
Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?
A: The Core 3 305 has a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, supporting DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Core Ultra 7 265F has a dual-channel memory bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, supporting DDR5 only.
Q: How do the core counts and cache sizes differ?
A: The Core 3 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 has 20 cores and 20 threads, with 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Cinebench suite shows consistent margins across all six tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core Ultra 7 scores 4231 against 1322, a -68.8 percent delta. The R15 single-core result is 597 versus 186, also -68.8 percent. R20 multicore shows 17631 versus 5511, a -68.7 percent delta, and R20 single-core shows 2488 versus 777, -68.8 percent. R23 multicore delivers 41980 versus 13123, -68.7 percent, and R23 single-core delivers 5926 versus 1852, -68.7 percent. The consistency of these deltas suggests the performance ratio is stable across Cinebench's rendering workloads.
PassMark results vary more widely. Data compression shows 507018 versus 146857, a -71 percent delta. Data encryption shows 39468 versus 11019, a -72.1 percent delta. Extended instructions show 39235 versus 13543, a -65.5 percent delta, the smallest PassMark gap outside single-thread tests. Find prime numbers shows 416 versus 115, a -72.4 percent delta. Floating point math shows 173855 versus 42284, a -75.7 percent delta. Integer math shows 138078 versus 32295, a -76.6 percent delta, the largest gap in the dataset. Multithread shows 49410 versus 15439, a -68.8 percent delta. Physics shows 3172 versus 1233, a -61.1 percent delta, the smallest gap in the entire dataset. Random string sorting shows 62439 versus 17623, a -71.8 percent delta. Single-thread shows 4750 versus 3977, a -16.3 percent delta, the narrowest margin recorded.
The physics result is interesting because it shows the smallest PassMark delta at -61.1 percent, yet still a decisive win for the Ultra 7. Physics simulation often depends on memory latency and per-core efficiency, areas where the Core 3's lower clocks and smaller caches are less disadvantaged than in throughput-heavy integer math. The single-thread gap of -16.3 percent aligns with the boost clock difference of 4.30 GHz versus 5.30 GHz, though the relationship is not directly proportional.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in nearly every recorded specification. Core count: 6 versus 20. Thread count: 6 versus 20. Base clock: 1.50 GHz versus 2.40 GHz. Boost clock: 4.30 GHz versus 5.30 GHz. TDP: 15 watts versus 65 watts. Socket: Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel Socket 1851. Codename: Wildcat Lake versus Arrow Lake-S. Generation: Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) versus Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake). Process node: both 3 nm, but foundry is Intel versus TSMC.
Cache configurations differ in both size and structure. L1 is 192 KB for the Core 3 versus 192 KB per core for the Ultra 7. L2 is 2.5 MB versus 3 MB per core. L3 is 6 MB shared versus 30 MB shared. Memory support: DDR5 and LPDDR5X versus DDR5 only. Memory bus: single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. PCIe: Gen 4 with 6 lanes versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes, both CPU only. Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) versus N/A. Market segment: Mobile versus Desktop. Launch MSRP: $309 versus $379. Transistor count and die size are only provided for the Ultra 7: 17,800 million transistors and 243 mm². Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory.