Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents an unambiguous split: the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX wins every single recorded test, 17 out of 17 head-to-head comparisons. The Intel Core 3 305 does not claim a single victory in any workload category, whether single-threaded, multi-threaded, or specialized instruction tests. This is not a close contest with trade-offs; it is a complete sweep by the higher-tier processor.

The largest margins appear in multi-threaded and parallel workloads. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the Core Ultra 9 275HX scores 19899 against 5511 for the Core 3 305, a 72.3% advantage. PassMark integer math shows an even wider gap: 155218 versus 32295, a 79.2% deficit for the Core 3 305. Floating-point math follows the same pattern, with the Core Ultra 9 275HX posting 191186 against 42284, a 77.9% lead. These are the types of workloads where core count and thread count dominate, and the data confirms the Core Ultra 9 275HX is in a different performance class.

Single-threaded results are closer but still favor the Core Ultra 9 275HX. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 275HX scores 2204 versus 1852, a 16% advantage. PassMark single-thread shows 4713 against 3977, a 15.6% lead. The Core 3 305 is not weak in single-thread performance, but it lags by a meaningful margin. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows a larger gap: 334 versus 186, a 44.3% deficit. This indicates the Core Ultra 9 275HX has a substantial clock speed and architectural advantage that shows even in lightly threaded tasks.

Specialized instruction workloads follow the overall trend. PassMark extended instructions show 47016 versus 13543, a 71.2% lead. Data encryption shows 47112 versus 11019, a 76.6% lead. Data compression shows 608381 versus 146857, a 75.9% lead. Random string sorting shows 74320 versus 17623, a 76.3% lead. Prime number finding shows 448 versus 115, a 74.3% lead. Physics simulation shows 3338 versus 1233, a 63.1% lead. Every category aligns with the same conclusion: the Core Ultra 9 275HX delivers between roughly 16% and 79% more performance, with the largest gaps in parallel and math-heavy tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a 3 nm process node but diverge sharply in almost every other architectural detail. The Intel Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX uses the Arrow Lake-HX codename within the Core Ultra Series 2. The foundry differs as well: Intel fabricates the Core 3 305, while TSMC fabricates the Core Ultra 9 275HX. The Core Ultra 9 275HX also lists a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², details that are not recorded for the Core 3 305.

Core and thread counts represent the most significant structural difference. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The Core Ultra 9 275HX has 24 cores and 24 threads, also without hyperthreading but with four times the physical cores. This directly explains the massive multi-threaded benchmark gaps. Cache configurations reinforce the difference. 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 9 275HX has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The total cache capacity is far larger on the Core Ultra 9 275HX, particularly the L3 cache, which is six times the size.

Clock speeds also favor the Core Ultra 9 275HX. The base clock is 2.70 GHz versus 1.50 GHz, and the boost clock is 5.40 GHz versus 4.30 GHz. This explains the single-threaded advantages even before considering architectural efficiency. The Core Ultra 9 275HX is also multiplier unlocked, while the Core 3 305 is locked. Memory support differs: the Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX supports DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe connectivity also differs, with the Core 3 305 offering Gen 4 with 6 lanes and the Core Ultra 9 275HX offering Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 305 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU. The sockets are different: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 3 305 and Intel BGA 2114 for the Core Ultra 9 275HX. TDP ratings also diverge significantly, with the Core 3 305 at 15 watts and the Core Ultra 9 275HX at 55 watts, a factor that correlates with the performance gap.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core Ultra 9 275HX has four times the core count.

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX in multi-threaded Cinebench R23?

A: The Core Ultra 9 275HX scores 35589 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the Core 3 305 scores 13123. This is a 63.1% advantage for the Core Ultra 9 275HX.

Q: Is the single-thread performance gap large?

A: The gap is moderate. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 275HX scores 2204 versus 1852, a 16% lead. In PassMark single-thread, the scores are 4713 versus 3977, a 15.6% lead. The Core Ultra 9 275HX wins but not by the same margins seen in multi-threaded tests.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Core 3 305 has a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 275HX has a dual-channel memory bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both processors use the same socket?

A: No. The Core 3 305 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX uses Intel BGA 2114.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 9 275HX boosts to 5.40 GHz, while the Core 3 305 boosts to 4.30 GHz.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX has 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz versus 2.70 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.30 GHz versus 5.40 GHz. TDP is 15 watts versus 55 watts. Sockets are Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel BGA 2114.

Cache hierarchies are entirely different. The Core 3 305 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 275HX has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. Memory support shows DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Core 3 305 versus DDR5 only for the Core Ultra 9 275HX. Memory bus width is single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth is 59.7 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s.

PCIe support differs: Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the Core 3 305 versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes for the Core Ultra 9 275HX. Integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU. The Core Ultra 9 275HX is multiplier unlocked; the Core 3 305 is not. The Core Ultra 9 275HX lists a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while these fields are not recorded for the Core 3 305. The Core 3 305 has a launch MSRP of $309, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Core Ultra 9 275HX.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows consistent dominance by the Core Ultra 9 275HX. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the score is 5619.5 versus 1322, a 76.5% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 334 versus 186, a 44.3% lead. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 19899 versus 5511, a 72.3% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2809 versus 777, also a 72.3% lead. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 35589 versus 13123, a 63.1% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2204 versus 1852, a 16% lead. The multi-threaded margins are consistently above 60%, while single-threaded margins range from 16% to 44%.

PassMark results mirror this pattern across all categories. Data compression shows 608381 versus 146857, a 75.9% lead. Data encryption shows 47112 versus 11019, a 76.6% lead. Extended instructions show 47016 versus 13543, a 71.2% lead. Prime number finding shows 448 versus 115, a 74.3% lead. Floating-point math shows 191186 versus 42284, a 77.9% lead. Integer math shows 155218 versus 32295, a 79.2% lead, the largest margin in the entire head-to-head set. Multithread shows 55759 versus 15439, a 72.3% lead. Physics shows 3338 versus 1233, a 63.1% lead. Random string sorting shows 74320 versus 17623, a 76.3% lead. Single-thread shows 4713 versus 3977, a 15.6% lead.

The smallest margins appear in single-threaded PassMark and Cinebench R23 tests, where the Core Ultra 9 275HX leads by roughly 16%. The largest margins appear in integer math and floating-point math, where the lead exceeds 77%. The Core 3 305 is not competitive in any measured category, and the data shows no workload where it comes close to matching the Core Ultra 9 275HX.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports only one conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX outperforms the Intel Core 3 305 in every benchmark category. With 17 wins out of 17 head-to-head tests, the Core Ultra 9 275HX is the superior processor for any workload measured in this database. The Core 3 305 has zero wins, and the smallest deficit is 15.6% in single-threaded performance.

The Core Ultra 9 275HX sits at the 94th percentile versus all CPUs, while the Core 3 305 sits at the 72nd percentile. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 9 275HX is 67469, compared to 18302 for the Core 3 305. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 9 275HX include workstation-class processors like the Intel Xeon w5-3525 and AMD EPYC 4484PX, with score differences under 1%. The nearest rivals for the Core 3 305 include the Intel Core i3-14100 and AMD Ryzen 5 2600E, also within 1%. This places the two processors in entirely different performance tiers.

Users needing maximum multi-threaded throughput, large cache capacity, high memory bandwidth, and Gen 5 PCIe connectivity should select the Core Ultra 9 275HX. Its 24 cores, 36 MB L3 cache, dual-channel 102.4 GB/s memory bus, and 5.40 GHz boost clock deliver the highest scores in every test. The Core 3 305, with 6 cores, 6 MB L3 cache, single-channel memory, and a 4.30 GHz boost clock, offers a lower performance envelope suited to lighter workloads, but the data shows it cannot match the Core Ultra 9 275HX in any measured task. The verdict is clear from the benchmark results: the Core Ultra 9 275HX is the decisive winner.