Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265T Comparison
Intel Core 3 305
Core Ultra 7 265T
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265T
Where Each One Wins
The benchmark record is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core 3 305. The Core 3 305 does not register a single victory in any measured workload, whether single-threaded, multi-threaded, or specialized instruction tests. The Core Ultra 7 265T dominates across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore and single-core tests, as well as every PassMark workload including data compression, encryption, prime number finding, floating-point math, integer math, multithreading, physics simulation, random string sorting, and single-thread performance.
The use-case split therefore falls along capability tiers rather than workload preferences. The Core Ultra 7 265T is the appropriate choice for any application that benefits from higher core counts, faster boost clocks, and greater memory bandwidth. The Core 3 305, with its 6 cores and 6 threads, targets lighter mobile workloads where power consumption and physical footprint matter more than raw throughput. The data shows the Core 3 305 sits at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 7 265T reaches the 90th percentile, a gap that reflects their distinct market positions.
For single-threaded responsiveness, the Core Ultra 7 265T still leads, but the margin narrows considerably. The PassMark single-thread score difference is only 8.3% in favor of the Core Ultra 7 265T (4338 vs 3977). This suggests that for everyday tasks that rely on one core, the Core 3 305 is not far behind. However, in every multi-threaded or heavily parallel workload, the Core Ultra 7 265T extends its lead dramatically, often by 58% or more. The Core 3 305 is best understood as a compact, efficient processor for mobile systems where the workload is light and intermittent. The Core Ultra 7 265T is the choice for desktop systems running sustained multi-threaded loads such as rendering, compilation, or data processing.
FAQ
Q: How does the Intel Core 3 305 compare to the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T in average benchmark score?
A: The Core Ultra 7 265T has an average benchmark score of 47697, while the Core 3 305 scores 18302. The Core Ultra 7 265T is approximately 160% higher in average score.
Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads.
Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?
A: In PassMark single-thread testing, the Core Ultra 7 265T scores 4338 versus 3977 for the Core 3 305, a delta of 8.3% in favor of the Core Ultra 7 265T.
Q: How large is the multi-threaded performance gap?
A: In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core Ultra 7 265T scores 31558 versus 13123 for the Core 3 305, a delta of 58.4% in favor of the Core Ultra 7 265T. The PassMark multithread test shows a similar gap: 37084 versus 15439, also a 58.4% delta.
Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?
A: The Core Ultra 7 265T has dual-channel memory support with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 3 305 has single-channel memory support with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.
Q: What are the release dates for these two processors?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T was released on January 6, 2025. The Intel Core 3 305 was released on April 15, 2026.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The largest single-test margin appears in PassMark integer math, where the Core Ultra 7 265T scores 104943 against 32295 for the Core 3 305, a delta of 69.2%. Floating-point math shows a similar pattern: 129817 versus 42284, a 67.4% gap. These two tests reveal the fundamental throughput difference between a 20-core desktop processor and a 6-core mobile part.
Prime number finding shows a 64.3% delta (322 vs 115), while data encryption shows a 62.9% delta (29687 vs 11019). Data compression and random string sorting both show 60.3% deltas (370158 vs 146857 and 44400 vs 17623, respectively). The physics test has the smallest multi-threaded gap at 48.4% (2391 vs 1233), still a substantial lead for the Core Ultra 7 265T.
Cinebench results are consistent across all three versions. R15 multicore: 3180 vs 1322, a 58.4% delta. R15 single-core: 449 vs 186, a 58.6% delta. R20 multicore: 13254 vs 5511, a 58.4% delta. R20 single-core: 1871 vs 777, a 58.5% delta. R23 multicore: 31558 vs 13123, a 58.4% delta. R23 single-core: 4455 vs 1852, a 58.4% delta. The consistency of the delta across different Cinebench versions indicates a stable architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.
PassMark extended instructions show a 52.7% delta (28609 vs 13543). The multithread test shows 37084 vs 15439, a 58.4% delta. The narrowest margin in the entire comparison is PassMark single-thread: 4338 vs 3977, an 8.3% delta. This is the only test where the Core 3 305 comes close to matching the Core Ultra 7 265T, reflecting the relatively high boost clock of the Core 3 305 at 4.30 GHz compared to 5.30 GHz for the Core Ultra 7 265T.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 265T has 20 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks are identical at 1.50 GHz, but boost clocks differ: 4.30 GHz for the Core 3 305 versus 5.30 GHz for the Core Ultra 7 265T. Thermal design power is 15 watts for the Core 3 305 and 35 watts for the Core Ultra 7 265T.
The sockets are different: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 3 305 versus Intel Socket 1851 for the Core Ultra 7 265T. Memory support also differs: the Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 7 265T supports DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory.
PCIe connectivity differs significantly: the Core 3 305 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 7 265T offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 3 305 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the Core Ultra 7 265T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.
The market segments are distinct: the Core 3 305 is a mobile processor, while the Core Ultra 7 265T is a desktop processor. The Core 3 305 has a launch MSRP of $309, and the Core Ultra 7 265T has a launch MSRP of $384. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Production status for both is active.
Architecture Differences
The Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation (Wildcat Lake). The Core Ultra 7 265T uses the Arrow Lake-S codename, belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, and is built on the Arrow Lake architecture. Both processors are manufactured on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ: Intel fabricates the Core 3 305, while TSMC fabricates the Core Ultra 7 265T.
Cache layouts are substantially 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 265T has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 265T additionally reports transistor count and die size: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 3 305 does not report transistor count or die size in the database.
The Core Ultra 7 265T uses a dual-channel memory bus and supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, enabling significantly higher memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s) and faster peripheral connectivity. The Core 3 305 uses a single-channel memory bus and supports PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes, limiting memory bandwidth to 59.7 GB/s. The integrated graphics solutions also reflect different design philosophies: the Core 3 305 embeds a compact Xe3 Graphics solution with a single Xe core, while the Core Ultra 7 265T carries a larger Arc Xe-LPG Graphics implementation with 64 execution units.
The release timeline places the Core Ultra 7 265T earlier, with a January 6, 2025 release date, while the Core 3 305 arrives later with an April 15, 2026 release date. Both processors are actively produced. The architectural gap between a desktop-oriented Arrow Lake design and a mobile-oriented Wildcat Lake design explains the benchmark dominance of the Core Ultra 7 265T across all measured workloads.