Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265H Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy between these two mobile processors. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the database, 17 victories to zero for the Intel Core 3 305. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 7 265H is 41621, which places it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 305 records an average benchmark score of 18302, placing it in the 72nd percentile.

The Core Ultra 7 265H is the appropriate choice for workloads that demand substantial multi-threaded performance, content creation capability, and heavy data processing. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-14650HX with an average score of 41576, a 0.1 percent difference, and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X with an average score of 41376, a 0.6 percent difference. This places the Core Ultra 7 265H in the company of high-end desktop and mobile processors.

The Core 3 305 targets a different segment. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Core i3-14100 with an average score of 18318, a 0.1 percent difference, and the Intel Core 5 330 with an average score of 18345, a 0.2 percent difference. The Core 3 305 performs at the level of an entry-level desktop processor from a previous generation, which makes it suitable for basic productivity, light multitasking, and energy-conscious mobile designs.

For users who require maximum throughput, the Core Ultra 7 265H is the clear choice. The data shows no scenario in the recorded benchmarks where the Core 3 305 comes out ahead. The Core 3 305 is the processor to select when the design priorities are minimal power consumption, a compact footprint, and modest performance expectations.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge significantly in their fundamental architecture. The Intel Core 3 305 is built on the Wildcat Lake codename, part of the Core 3 generation, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-H, part of the Core Ultra Series 2.

Both processors are manufactured on a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries. The Core 3 305 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 7 265H is fabricated by TSMC. This foundry difference does not translate into direct performance parity, as the benchmark results demonstrate.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning it has no hyperthreading capability. The Core Ultra 7 265H has 16 cores and 16 threads. This is a 10-core and 10-thread advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265H, which directly explains its dominance in multi-threaded workloads.

Clock speeds also favor the Core Ultra 7 265H. The base clock for the Core 3 305 is 1.50 GHz with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 265H operates at a 2.20 GHz base clock and boosts to 5.30 GHz. The boost clock advantage of 1.00 GHz contributes to the single-thread performance gap.

Cache configurations are markedly different. 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 265H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The L3 cache difference is substantial: 24 MB versus 6 MB, a 4x advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265H.

Memory support is another point of differentiation. Both processors support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, but the Core 3 305 uses a single-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core Ultra 7 265H uses a dual-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Core Ultra 7 265H also supports ECC memory, while the Core 3 305 does not.

PCI Express capabilities differ as well. The Core 3 305 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra 7 265H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The integrated graphics also differ: the Core 3 305 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe, while the Core Ultra 7 265H uses Arc Graphics 140T.

Power envelopes are distinct. The Core 3 305 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Core Ultra 7 265H has a TDP of 28 watts. The Core Ultra 7 265H consumes more power but delivers significantly higher performance. Sockets differ accordingly: the Core 3 305 uses Intel BGA 1516, and the Core Ultra 7 265H uses Intel BGA 2049.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 7 265H dominates every recorded benchmark. The largest margin appears in passmark_find_prime_numbers, where the Core Ultra 7 265H scores 335 against 115 for the Core 3 305, a 65.7 percent advantage. This workload exercises integer arithmetic and loop performance, where the extra cores and higher clocks are decisive.

In passmark_integer_math, the Core Ultra 7 265H scores 85479 against 32295, a 62.2 percent advantage. The passmark_floating_point_math result shows 109123 versus 42284, a 61.3 percent advantage. These math-heavy tests reflect the raw computational throughput advantage of the 16-core processor.

Data encryption performance shows a 57.6 percent advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265H, with scores of 26005 versus 11019. Data compression follows closely at 56.1 percent, with scores of 334711 versus 146857. Random string sorting shows a 56.7 percent advantage, with scores of 40742 versus 17623.

Cinebench multi-core results are consistently in favor of the Core Ultra 7 265H. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the scores are 2989 versus 1322, a 55.8 percent advantage. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 12131 versus 5511, a 54.6 percent advantage. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 19940 versus 13123, a 34.2 percent advantage. The R23 margin is smaller than R15 and R20, but still decisive.

PassMark multithread scores are 34027 versus 15439, a 54.6 percent advantage. PassMark physics scores are 2497 versus 1233, a 50.6 percent advantage. Extended instructions scores are 26805 versus 13543, a 49.5 percent advantage.

Single-thread performance also favors the Core Ultra 7 265H, though by smaller margins. Cinebench R15 singlecore shows 307 versus 186, a 39.4 percent advantage. Cinebench R20 singlecore shows 1712 versus 777, a 54.6 percent advantage. Cinebench R23 singlecore shows 2080 versus 1852, an 11 percent advantage. PassMark single-thread shows 4334 versus 3977, an 8.2 percent advantage.

The single-thread margins in Cinebench R23 and PassMark are the closest results in the entire benchmark set. The Core 3 305 is within 11 percent of the Core Ultra 7 265H in Cinebench R23 singlecore and within 8.2 percent in PassMark single-thread. This indicates that the Core 3 305 has competitive single-core efficiency, but the Core Ultra 7 265H still leads in every test.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265H leads by 55.8 percent in Cinebench R15 multicore and 54.6 percent in Cinebench R20 multicore. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the advantage is 34.2 percent.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Core 3 305 supports 59.7 GB/s with a single-channel memory bus. The Core Ultra 7 265H supports 102.4 GB/s with a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 7 265H support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Core Ultra 7 265H supports ECC memory. The Core 3 305 does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the cache difference between the two processors?

A: 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 265H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265H has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The Core 3 305 has a boost clock of 4.30 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H wins in every benchmark category recorded. Its largest advantages are in prime number finding, integer math, floating-point math, encryption, and compression. These workloads benefit directly from the 16 cores, 16 threads, and 24 MB of L3 cache.

For content creation and rendering, the Cinebench results show a consistent advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265H. The R15 and R20 multicore scores indicate a 54.6 to 55.8 percent lead, while the R23 multicore score shows a 34.2 percent lead. These results make the Core Ultra 7 265H the stronger choice for video rendering, 3D modeling, and batch processing tasks.

The Core Ultra 7 265H also excels in data-heavy operations. Its data encryption score of 26005 is more than double the 11019 of the Core 3 305. Data compression at 334711 versus 146857 shows a similar pattern. Random string sorting at 40742 versus 17623 further confirms this advantage. For database work, file archiving, or any workload that moves large amounts of data, the Core Ultra 7 265H is the better processor.

The Intel Core 3 305 does have one meaningful point in its favor: power consumption. With a TDP of 15 watts versus 28 watts for the Core Ultra 7 265H, the Core 3 305 requires less power. This makes it suitable for fanless designs, ultra-portable devices, or systems where battery life is the primary concern. The trade-off is clear: the Core 3 305 delivers roughly half the multi-threaded performance at roughly half the power envelope.

The single-thread performance gap is the narrowest area of comparison. The Core 3 305 trails by only 8.2 percent in PassMark single-thread and 11 percent in Cinebench R23 singlecore. For everyday applications that rely primarily on single-core responsiveness, such as web browsing, document editing, or light productivity software, the Core 3 305 offers acceptable performance despite its other limitations.

The Core Ultra 7 265H is the processor for users who prioritize performance above all else. Its 88th percentile ranking and its rival list, which includes the Intel Core i7-14650HX and AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, place it in high-performance territory. The Core 3 305, with its 72nd percentile ranking and rivals like the Intel Core i3-14100, serves the entry-level mobile segment.

In summary, the data shows no workload where the Core 3 305 outperforms the Core Ultra 7 265H. The choice between them comes down to the acceptable balance between power consumption and performance. The Core Ultra 7 265H delivers superior results across all 17 recorded benchmarks. The Core 3 305 offers a lower power draw and a smaller physical footprint, but sacrifices performance in every measured category.