Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between these two mobile processors. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, with the Core 3 305 trailing in every single workload category. The magnitude of the Ultra 9's advantage varies considerably depending on the test, ranging from a relatively modest single-thread edge to a crushing multi-thread deficit.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the differences widen as core count becomes more relevant. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core Ultra 9 285H scores 3177.5 against the Core 3 305's 1322, a delta of -58.4% for the smaller chip. That means the Ultra 9 delivers more than double the multi-threaded render performance. The R20 multicore test tells a similar story: 12201 versus 5511, a -54.8% gap. In R23 multicore, the Ultra 9 scores 20781.5 versus 13123, a -36.9% difference, which is the smallest multicore margin in the Cinebench series but still a substantial lead.

Single-core Cinebench results show a tighter, yet still clear, hierarchy. In R15 single-core, the Ultra 9 records 313 versus 186, a -40.6% gap. R20 single-core shows 1722 versus 777, a -54.9% margin. R23 single-core narrows further to 2129.5 versus 1852, a -13% difference. The pattern across all three Cinebench versions indicates that the Core 3 305's single-core performance is closer to the Ultra 9 in newer rendering workloads, but it still loses ground consistently.

The Passmark suite reinforces the multi-thread dominance of the Ultra 9. In Passmark multithread, the Ultra 9 scores 34171 versus the Core 3's 15439, a -54.8% gap. Integer math shows 85922 versus 32295, a -62.4% delta. Floating point math records 109190 versus 42284, a -61.3% gap. Prime number search, a heavily parallel workload, shows the largest relative difference: 330 versus 115, a -65.2% delta. Data compression, encryption, extended instructions, physics, and random string sorting all follow the same direction, with gaps between -49.5% and -57.8%.

The closest contest in the entire dataset is Passmark single-thread, where the Ultra 9 scores 4415 versus the Core 3's 3977, a -9.9% delta. This single-thread result is the only benchmark where the Core 3 305 comes within 10% of its larger sibling, and it suggests that the architectural gap in basic integer and instruction throughput is far smaller than the core-count-driven multi-thread divide.

The average benchmark score confirms the overall separation. The Core 3 305 averages 18302 across all recorded tests, placing it at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core Ultra 9 285H averages 38312, placing it at the 86th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 3 are the Intel Core i3-14100 at 18318 (-0.1% delta), the Intel Core 5 330 at 18345 (-0.2%), the Intel Core 7 360 at 18374 (-0.4%), and the AMD Ryzen 5 2600E at 18230 (+0.4%). For the Ultra 9, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core 9 270H at 38335 (-0.1%), the Intel Core i5-13600HX at 38261 (+0.1%), the Intel Xeon w3-2525 at 38392 (-0.2%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 250 at 38221 (+0.2%). These rival clusters show that the Core 3 305 and the Core Ultra 9 285H occupy entirely different performance tiers, with no overlap in their nearest competition.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H is the clear performance leader in every recorded metric. The Core 3 305 wins zero head-to-head comparisons out of 17. For workloads that scale with core count, such as Cinebench R15 multicore, integer math, floating point math, and prime number search, the Ultra 9's advantage ranges from roughly 60% to 65% ahead of the Core 3. For single-thread tasks, the Ultra 9 remains ahead, but the margin shrinks to under 10% in Passmark single-thread and 13% in Cinebench R23 single-core.

The data supports selecting the Core Ultra 9 285H for any application where multi-threaded throughput is the priority. Rendering, data compression, encryption, physics simulation, and extended instruction workloads all show the Ultra 9 delivering between roughly 50% and 65% more performance than the Core 3 305. The Core 3 305, by contrast, sits at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, which is a respectable position, but it is firmly in a lower performance class, as its nearest rivals are the Core i3-14100 and Core 5 330 rather than the high-end mobile parts that surround the Ultra 9.

The Ultra 9's 86th percentile ranking and its proximity to the Core 9 270H, Core i5-13600HX, Xeon w3-2525, and Ryzen 7 250 place it in the upper tier of mobile processors. The Core 3's 72nd percentile and its proximity to the Core i3-14100, Core 5 330, Core 7 360, and Ryzen 5 2600E place it in the mid-range. The choice is therefore dictated by workload demands: the Ultra 9 for maximum throughput, the Core 3 for a smaller, lower-power footprint with adequate single-thread capability.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 3 nm process node but differ in foundry, microarchitecture, and core organization. The Core 3 305 uses Intel's Wildcat Lake architecture and is built by Intel. The Core Ultra 9 285H uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-H, and is fabricated by TSMC. Both are mobile parts, but they target different segments within that market.

The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading or equivalent simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads, also without SMT. The core count difference is the single largest architectural factor behind the multi-thread performance gap. The Ultra 9's cache hierarchy is also substantially larger: the L1 cache is listed as 192 KB per core, L2 as 3 MB per core, and L3 as 24 MB shared. The Core 3 lists L1 as 192 KB total, L2 as 2.5 MB, and L3 as 6 MB shared. The exact per-core versus total L1 reporting differs between the two entries, but the L3 disparity is unambiguous: 24 MB versus 6 MB.

Memory architecture also diverges. The Core 3 305 uses a single-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core Ultra 9 285H uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. This doubles the available memory bandwidth for the Ultra 9, which directly benefits multi-threaded workloads that saturate memory throughput. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory. ECC memory support differs: the Core 3 does not support ECC, while the Ultra 9 does.

PCIe capabilities differ as well. The Core 3 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 9 provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). This gives the Ultra 9 both a newer PCIe generation and more lanes. The integrated graphics differ: the Core 3 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the Ultra 9 uses Arc Graphics 140T. The part numbers and sockets differ accordingly: the Core 3 uses Intel BGA 1516 with part number SAE3L, while the Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2049 with part number SRQAL.

Specification Differences

The recorded specification differences between the two processors are extensive. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads; the Core Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clock is 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 versus 2.90 GHz for the Ultra 9. Boost clock is 4.30 GHz versus 5.40 GHz. TDP is 15 W versus 45 W. The socket changes from Intel BGA 1516 to Intel BGA 2049.

Cache totals differ: L1 is 192 KB total on the Core 3 versus 192 KB per core on the Ultra 9, L2 is 2.5 MB versus 3 MB per core, and L3 is 6 MB shared versus 24 MB shared. Memory bus width changes from single-channel to dual-channel, and memory bandwidth goes from 59.7 GB/s to 102.4 GB/s. ECC support is absent on the Core 3 and present on the Ultra 9. PCIe specification moves from Gen 4 with 6 lanes to Gen 5 with 8 lanes. Integrated graphics change from Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) to Arc Graphics 140T. The codename changes from Wildcat Lake to Arrow Lake-H, and the generation label changes from Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) to Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-H). The foundry changes from Intel to TSMC. Release dates differ: the Core 3 launched on 2026-04-15, while the Ultra 9 launched on 2025-01-12. The launch MSRP for the Core 3 305 is $309, and the launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 9 285H is $651. Both processors are locked (multiplier unlocked: false), both are active in production, and both are mobile parts.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: How much faster is the Core Ultra 9 285H in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285H scores 20781.5 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the Core 3 305 scores 13123, a -36.9% delta for the Core 3.

Q: What is the smallest performance gap between the two in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The smallest gap is in Passmark single-thread, where the Core Ultra 9 285H scores 4415 versus the Core 3 305's 3977, a -9.9% delta.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each processor?

A: The Core 3 305 has a TDP of 15 W, while the Core Ultra 9 285H has a TDP of 45 W.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but the Core 3 305 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 9 285H uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The Core 3 305 averages 18302, and the Core Ultra 9 285H averages 38312. The Core 3 sits at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 9 sits at the 86th percentile.