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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons, leaving the Intel Core 3 305 with zero victories. The most decisive margins appear in the PassMark integer math test, where the Ultra 9 scores 155076 against the Core 3's 32295, a 79.2% deficit. Floating point math tells a similar story: 194998 versus 42284, a 78.3% gap. The data encryption test shows the Ultra 9 at 48567 compared to 11019, a 77.3% difference, while data compression sees 631885 against 146857, a 76.8% delta.

Multi-core Cinebench results reinforce the pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 9 records 5656.5 versus 1322, a 76.6% difference. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 20236 against 5511, a 72.8% gap, and Cinebench R23 multi-core delivers 36429.5 versus 13123, a 64% difference. The single-core tests narrow the margin but still favor the Ultra 9. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 323.5 versus 186, a 42.5% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core records 2856 against 777, a 72.8% gap. Cinebench R23 single-core is closer: 2187.5 versus 1852, a 15.3% difference. The PassMark single-thread test shows the smallest gap of all, 4618 versus 3977, a 13.9% delta.

The remaining tests follow the same direction. PassMark extended instructions: 49148 versus 13543, a 72.4% gap. Find prime numbers: 460 versus 115, a 75% delta. Multithread: 56902 versus 15439, a 72.9% difference. Physics: 3476 versus 1233, a 64.5% gap. Random string sorting: 77196 versus 17623, a 77.2% delta. Across every measured workload, the Ultra 9 leads by margins ranging from 13.9% to 79.2%.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX dominates every benchmark category in the database. Its strongest relative performance appears in integer math, floating point math, data encryption, and data compression, where the deltas all exceed 76%. These workloads scale with core count and memory bandwidth, and the Ultra 9's 24 cores and dual-channel memory interface align with that demand. The Core 3 305, with 6 cores and single-channel memory, cannot keep pace in parallel tasks.

The closest competition occurs in single-threaded workloads. The PassMark single-thread test shows only a 13.9% gap, and Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 15.3% gap. This suggests the Core 3 305's Wildcat Lake architecture delivers respectable per-core performance despite its lower core count. The boost clock of 4.30 GHz helps close the distance to the Ultra 9's 5.50 GHz boost, though the Ultra 9 still wins every single-thread test.

For workloads that rely on raw core throughput, the Ultra 9 is the clear choice. The data shows no scenario where the Core 3 305 wins, so any application that benefits from multi-core performance, heavy math, encryption, or compression will favor the Ultra 9. The Core 3 305's advantage is not in performance but in a different positioning: lower power consumption at 15W TDP versus 55W, and a smaller physical footprint with fewer cores. The benchmarks do not capture efficiency directly, but the TDP figures in the database suggest the Core 3 305 targets thermally constrained designs.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX records an average benchmark score of 76155, while the Intel Core 3 305 records 18302. The Ultra 9 sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Core 3 sits in the 72nd percentile.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap?

A: The smallest gap is in the PassMark single-thread test, where the Ultra 9 scores 4618 versus the Core 3's 3977, a 13.9% difference. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 15.3% gap (2187.5 versus 1852). Cinebench R15 single-core shows a larger 42.5% gap (323.5 versus 186).

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Neither processor supports hyper-threading according to the thread counts.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285HX supports dual-channel memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 3 305 supports single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9's bandwidth is 71.5% higher.

Q: Are these processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285HX has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 3 305 does not have an unlocked multiplier.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285HX has a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The Core 3 305 has a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The difference is 1.20 GHz.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. The Core Ultra 9 285HX uses 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Core 3 305 uses 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clocks differ: 2.80 GHz for the Ultra 9 versus 1.50 GHz for the Core 3. Boost clocks differ: 5.50 GHz versus 4.30 GHz. TDP is 55W for the Ultra 9 and 15W for the Core 3. The Ultra 9 uses socket Intel BGA 2114, while the Core 3 uses Intel BGA 1516.

Cache configurations diverge significantly. The Core 3 305 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Ultra 9 has 192 KB per core L1, 3 MB per core L2, and 36 MB shared L3. The memory bus differs: dual-channel for the Ultra 9, single-channel for the Core 3. Memory bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s. The Ultra 9 supports ECC memory, while the Core 3 does not.

PCIe capabilities differ: the Ultra 9 supports Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 3 supports Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ: the Ultra 9 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, while the Core 3 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe). The Ultra 9 has an unlocked multiplier and a part number of SRVFJ. The Core 3 has a locked multiplier and a part number of SAE3L. The Core 3 has a launch MSRP of $309; the Ultra 9 has no launch MSRP recorded. Release dates differ: the Core 3 launched on 2026-04-15, while the Ultra 9 launched on 2025-01-12.

Architecture Differences

The architecture split is clear from the database. The Core Ultra 9 285HX belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 and uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-HX codename, fabricated on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename under the Core 3 generation, also on a 3 nm process node but fabricated by Intel, not TSMC.

The Ultra 9's L2 cache is specified as 3 MB per core, which for 24 cores implies a substantial total L2 allocation. The Core 3's L2 is 2.5 MB total. L3 cache totals 36 MB shared for the Ultra 9 versus 6 MB shared for the Core 3. The Ultra 9's memory support is limited to DDR5, while the Core 3 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Ultra 9's ECC support aligns with its higher-end positioning in the database.

The foundry difference is notable: Intel fabricates the Core 3 305, while TSMC fabricates the Ultra 9 285HX. Both use a 3 nm process, but the transistor count and die size data for the Core 3 are not recorded in the database. The Ultra 9's 17,800 million transistors and 243 mm² die size provide context for its 24-core configuration. The Core 3's 6-core design with a 15W TDP suggests a much smaller and more power-efficient implementation, though exact transistor and die data are absent.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion for raw performance: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX is the superior processor in every benchmark recorded. Its average benchmark score of 76155 places it in the 95th percentile, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX at 0.1% behind, the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P at 0.4% behind, and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX at 0.5% behind. The Core 3 305's average score of 18302 places it in the 72nd percentile, with the Intel Core i3-14100 as its closest rival at 0.1% behind. The performance gap between the two processors is not narrow; it spans 64% to 79% in multi-core workloads.

The Core 3 305 does offer a lower TDP of 15W versus 55W, which matters for battery life and thermal management in portable designs. Its suite of single-core scores, while lower, stays within 13.9% to 42.5% of the Ultra 9. For workloads that are single-threaded and power-sensitive, the Core 3 305 could be a reasonable choice. The database does not include efficiency metrics per watt, so a direct comparison of performance-per-watt is not possible from these numbers.

For any application that can use more than 6 cores, the Ultra 9 is the clear pick. The 24-core configuration, 36 MB L3 cache, dual-channel memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, and Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes position it for heavy compute tasks. The Core 3 305's single-channel memory at 59.7 GB/s and Gen 4 PCIe with 6 lanes limit its throughput in memory-intensive and I/O-heavy scenarios. The Ultra 9 also supports ECC memory and has an unlocked multiplier, features absent from the Core 3.

The release timeline favors the Core 3 by over a year, with the Ultra 9 launching on 2025-01-12 and the Core 3 on 2026-04-15. The Core 3 carries a $309 launch MSRP, while the Ultra 9 has no recorded launch price. Based strictly on benchmark data, the Ultra 9 delivers dominant performance across all 17 tests. The Core 3 305 remains a viable option only in power-constrained environments where its 15W TDP and single-channel memory are acceptable trade-offs for the performance deficit.