Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive sweep. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core 3 305. No test in the database favors the Core 3 305, making the performance gap both absolute and consistent across every workload category.

The largest single margin appears in PassMark integer math, where the Ultra 9 285 scores 164,869 against 32,295 for the Core 3 305, a delta of 80.4%. Floating point math shows a similar pattern: 194,988 versus 42,284, a 78.3% difference. These two results indicate that the Ultra 9 285's advantage is not merely a matter of more cores; the per-core execution efficiency and instruction throughput scale far beyond the Core 3 305's capabilities.

Data compression and encryption workloads follow the same trajectory. The Ultra 9 285 records 602,121 in PassMark data compression versus 146,857 for the Core 3 305, a 75.6% gap. Data encryption shows 46,949 against 11,019, a 76.5% deficit for the Core 3 305. Random string sorting, a memory-latency-sensitive test, delivers 73,651 for the Ultra 9 285 and 17,623 for the Core 3 305, a 76.1% spread.

Cinebench results reinforce the pattern. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945 versus 13,123 for the Core 3 305, a 73.2% difference. The single-core R23 test shows 6,909 against 1,852, also a 73.2% gap. Cinebench R20 multicore records 20,556 versus 5,511, and R20 single-core records 2,901 versus 777, both at 73.2%. The consistency of this exact percentage across multiple Cinebench iterations suggests a fixed scaling factor in rendering workloads, likely tied to core count and clock behavior.

The smallest relative gap appears in PassMark single-thread performance. The Ultra 9 285 scores 4,881 against 3,977 for the Core 3 305, an 18.5% advantage. This is the only test where the Core 3 305 comes within a reasonable distance. The single-thread result indicates that the Core 3 305's Wildcat Lake architecture is competitive on a per-clock basis, but the Ultra 9 285 still holds a clear edge in raw single-core throughput.

PassMark physics shows 3,598 versus 1,233, a 65.7% gap. Extended instructions record 45,357 versus 13,543, a 70.1% difference. Find prime numbers delivers 459 versus 115, a 74.9% gap. Multithread performance shows 56,602 versus 15,439, a 72.7% spread. Every workload, from integer-heavy math to encryption to physics simulation, confirms the same conclusion: the Ultra 9 285 dominates across the board.

The Verdict

The data points to two entirely different market positions. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 75,488. Its nearest rivals include AMD EPYC 8224P, which trails by 0.1%, and AMD EPYC 4545P, which leads by 0.2%. This places the Ultra 9 285 firmly in high-end desktop territory, competing with server-class processors.

The Intel Core 3 305 occupies the 72nd percentile with an average score of 18,302. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Core i3-14100, which leads by 0.1%, and the Intel Core 5 330, which leads by 0.2%. The AMD Ryzen 5 2600E trails by 0.4%. This positions the Core 3 305 as a mainstream mobile processor, competitive with entry-level desktop chips from previous generations.

For users whose workloads involve heavy multi-threaded rendering, data compression, encryption, or floating-point math, the Ultra 9 285 is the only choice. The 73% to 80% margins in these categories are not incremental; they represent a different performance class entirely. The data shows no scenario where the Core 3 305 wins, so any workload that stresses the CPU will favor the Ultra 9 285.

For single-threaded tasks, the gap narrows to 18.5%, but the Ultra 9 285 still wins. The Core 3 305's 4.30 GHz boost clock cannot overcome the Ultra 9 285's 5.60 GHz boost clock and architectural advantages. The verdict is unambiguous: the Ultra 9 285 is the superior processor in every measured category, while the Core 3 305 serves a lower-power, mobile segment with acceptable but not exceptional performance.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families and target different physical formats. The Intel Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation. It is built on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, and is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. Both use 3 nm manufacturing, but the foundries differ.

Core counts diverge sharply. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyperthreading. The Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, also without hyperthreading. The Ultra 9 285 packs 17,800 million transistors into a 243 mm² die. The Core 3 305 has no transistor or die size data recorded.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Core 3 305 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 285 lists 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 allocation on the Ultra 9 285 scales with its 24 cores, yielding a substantially larger total cache footprint.

Memory support also separates the two. The Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 3 305 does not support ECC memory; the Ultra 9 285 does. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core 3 305 offers Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 9 285 offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ by architecture generation. The Core 3 305 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The sockets are incompatible: the Core 3 305 uses Intel BGA 1516, a mobile package, while the Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851, a desktop socket. The market segments confirm this split: Mobile for the Core 3 305, Desktop for the Ultra 9 285.

Clock speeds favor the Ultra 9 285. The base clock is 2.50 GHz versus 1.50 GHz, and the boost clock is 5.60 GHz versus 4.30 GHz. Thermal design power reflects the different market positions: 65 watts for the Ultra 9 285, 15 watts for the Core 3 305. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 records 4,881 in PassMark single-thread, 18.5% ahead of the Intel Core 3 305's 3,977. The Ultra 9 285 also leads in Cinebench R23 single-core with 6,909 versus 1,852.

Q: How much faster is the Ultra 9 285 in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945 against 13,123 for the Core 3 305, a 73.2% advantage. The Cinebench R20 multicore test shows 20,556 versus 5,511, also a 73.2% gap.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Ultra 9 285 supports dual-channel DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 3 305 supports single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9 285 also supports ECC memory, while the Core 3 305 does not.

Q: Do both processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: Both are built on a 3 nm process, but the Core 3 305 is manufactured by Intel, while the Ultra 9 285 is manufactured by TSMC.

Q: Which processor supports PCIe Gen 5?

A: Only the Ultra 9 285 supports PCIe Gen 5, with 20 CPU lanes. The Core 3 305 is limited to PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes.

Q: What is the core and thread count for each?

A: The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. Neither processor uses hyperthreading.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is defined by the magnitude of its advantages rather than by any Core 3 305 victory. Workloads that stress integer math, floating-point math, data compression, and encryption see the largest gaps, ranging from 70.1% to 80.4%. These are the domains where the Ultra 9 285's 24 cores and 36 MB of L3 cache produce outsized returns.

Cinebench rendering workloads show a uniform 73.2% gap across R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multi-core tests. This consistency suggests that the rendering pipeline scales predictably with the Ultra 9 285's higher core count and clock speed. Physics simulation shows the smallest multi-threaded gap at 65.7%, but the Ultra 9 285 still holds a commanding lead.

The Core 3 305's closest result is PassMark single-thread, where it trails by 18.5%. This means that for lightly threaded, latency-sensitive applications, the Core 3 305 is less disadvantaged, though still slower. Its 15-watt TDP and mobile BGA 1516 socket indicate a design priority on power efficiency and portability rather than peak performance. The Ultra 9 285, with its 65-watt TDP and desktop Socket 1851, is built for sustained high-throughput workloads.

The data does not support any use case where the Core 3 305 outperforms the Ultra 9 285. The practical distinction is between a mobile processor that handles everyday tasks with modest power draw and a desktop processor that delivers top-tier performance for compute-intensive applications. Users who need maximum throughput in rendering, data processing, or scientific computing will find the Ultra 9 285's margins decisive. Users constrained by power or form factor will accept the Core 3 305's lower scores in exchange for its mobile package and reduced thermal envelope.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field. Core count: 6 for the Core 3 305, 24 for the Ultra 9 285. Thread count: 6 for both, with no hyperthreading. Base clock: 1.50 GHz versus 2.50 GHz. Boost clock: 4.30 GHz versus 5.60 GHz. TDP: 15 watts versus 65 watts.

Socket: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 3 305, Intel Socket 1851 for the Ultra 9 285. Codename: Wildcat Lake versus Arrow Lake-S. Generation: Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) versus Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake). Process node: both 3 nm, but Intel foundry for the Core 3 305 and TSMC for the Ultra 9 285. Transistors: none listed for the Core 3 305, 17,800 million for the Ultra 9 285. Die size: none listed for the Core 3 305, 243 mm² for the Ultra 9 285.

Cache: L1 is 192 KB for the Core 3 305 versus 192 KB per core for the Ultra 9 285. L2 is 2.5 MB versus 3 MB per core. L3 is 6 MB shared versus 36 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. ECC memory: false versus true. PCIe: Gen 4 with 6 lanes versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Market segment: Mobile versus Desktop. Release date: 2026-04-15 versus 2024-12-31. Launch MSRP: $309 for the Core 3 305, $579 for the Ultra 9 285. Multiplier unlocked: false for both. Part number: SAE3L versus SRQD4.