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

The Intel Core 3 305 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K occupy opposite ends of Intel’s current desktop and mobile lineup, and the benchmark data reflects a complete performance hierarchy. In the 17 head-to-head comparisons recorded in the database, the Core Ultra 9 285K wins every single test, with the Core 3 305 failing to secure a victory in any workload. This is not a close contest; it is a demonstration of how the two chips are engineered for entirely different segments and power envelopes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive wins for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K come in multi-threaded and data-intensive workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 9 scores 42,522 against the Core 3’s 13,123, a delta of -69.1% from the perspective of the smaller chip. The gap widens further in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Ultra 9 posts 24,003 versus 5,511, a -77% difference. These results indicate that the 24-core, 24-thread configuration of the Ultra 9 provides a massive parallel processing advantage over the 6-core, 6-thread Core 3.

Single-core performance tells a similar story, though the margins are narrower. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 9 scores 2,377 against the Core 3’s 1,852, a -22.1% delta. PassMark single-thread results show a -21.8% difference, with scores of 5,087 and 3,977 respectively. These smaller gaps suggest that while the Ultra 9’s higher boost clock of 5.70 GHz matters, the Core 3’s 4.30 GHz boost is not far behind in lightly threaded tasks. The architecture and clock speed differences still favor the Ultra 9, but the Core 3 is comparatively competitive here.

The largest deltas appear in PassMark’s floating point and integer math tests. The Ultra 9 scores 224,324 in floating point math versus 42,284 for the Core 3, a -81.2% difference. Integer math shows 172,379 versus 32,295, a -81.3% delta. Data compression and encryption follow the same pattern: the Ultra 9 achieves 790,052 in data compression against 146,857, and 57,745 in encryption versus 11,019. These workloads scale heavily with core count and memory bandwidth, and the Ultra 9’s dual-channel 102.4 GB/s memory bus is a decisive factor.

Physics and extended instruction workloads reinforce the pattern. PassMark physics scores 3,938 for the Ultra 9 and 1,233 for the Core 3, a -68.7% delta. Extended instructions show 62,277 versus 13,543, a -78.3% difference. Prime number finding, a pure integer workload, records 541 versus 115, a -78.7% gap. Random string sorting, which stresses memory and cache, gives the Ultra 9 a 94,927 score against 17,623, a -81.4% delta.

The smallest overall margin in the entire dataset is PassMark single-thread performance, where the Ultra 9 leads by just 21.8%. This is the only benchmark where the Core 3 comes within a quarter of the Ultra 9’s score. Every other test shows a gap of at least 48% or more, with most falling between 68% and 81%. The data indicates that the Core 3 is a capable low-power mobile part, but it cannot match the Ultra 9’s desktop-class throughput in any measured category.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 83,807, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 3 305 averages 18,302, which puts it in the 72nd percentile.

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

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285K scores 42,522 compared to the Core 3 305’s 13,123, which is a 69.1% advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 77% gap, with scores of 24,003 and 5,511.

Q: Does the Core 3 305 win any benchmark at all?

A: No. The database records 17 head-to-head benchmarks, and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K wins all 17. The Core 3 305 has zero wins in this comparison.

Q: What is the closest benchmark result between the two?

A: The closest result is PassMark single-thread performance, where the Core Ultra 9 285K scores 5,087 and the Core 3 305 scores 3,977, a 21.8% difference. Cinebench R23 single-core is the next closest at 22.1%.

Q: How do the two processors compare in data encryption?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285K scores 57,745 in PassMark data encryption, while the Core 3 305 scores 11,019. This represents an 80.9% advantage for the Ultra 9.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285K uses a dual-channel memory bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core 3 305 uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9’s bandwidth advantage contributes to its large wins in data-heavy tests.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K wins in every recorded benchmark category, but the magnitude of its victories varies by workload type. Its most dominant wins are in PassMark floating point math (-81.2%), integer math (-81.3%), data compression (-81.4%), and random string sorting (-81.4%). These are workloads that benefit from the combination of 24 cores, 36 MB of shared L3 cache, and dual-channel memory bandwidth. The Ultra 9 also excels in Cinebench multi-core tests, with deltas of -69.1% in R23 and -77% in R20, confirming its strength in rendering and video encoding tasks.

The Intel Core 3 305, despite losing every test, shows its relative strength in single-threaded workloads. Its PassMark single-thread score of 3,977 trails the Ultra 9 by only 21.8%, and its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,852 is 22.1% behind. This suggests the Core 3’s 4.30 GHz boost clock and modern Wildcat Lake architecture deliver respectable per-core performance. For lightly threaded applications like web browsing, office productivity, or legacy software, the Core 3 would not feel dramatically slower than the Ultra 9, even though the raw numbers still favor the larger chip.

The Core 3’s other notable relative performance comes in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it scores 186 versus the Ultra 9’s 359, a 48.2% gap. This is a larger margin than the newer Cinebench versions, indicating that the Ultra 9 benefits more from its architecture in older single-thread tests. The Core 3’s best absolute performance relative to its TDP is in PassMark data compression, where it scores 146,857, which is 18.6% of the Ultra 9’s 790,052. This workload shows that even a low-power mobile chip can handle compression tasks with reasonable efficiency.

For users prioritizing raw throughput in multi-threaded, memory-intensive, or compute-heavy workloads, the Core Ultra 9 285K is the clear choice. For users who need a compact mobile processor for everyday tasks and light single-threaded applications, the Core 3 305’s smaller margins in single-core tests indicate it can handle those duties without the power and thermal requirements of the Ultra 9.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Core Ultra 9 285K has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clocks are 3.70 GHz for the Ultra 9 and 1.50 GHz for the Core 3, while boost clocks are 5.70 GHz and 4.30 GHz respectively. The TDP difference is substantial: 125 W for the Ultra 9 versus 15 W for the Core 3.

Memory support diverges as well. The Ultra 9 supports DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core 3 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9 supports ECC memory, while the Core 3 does not. PCIe lanes differ: the Ultra 9 uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes, while the Core 3 uses Gen 4 with 6 lanes.

The cache hierarchies are completely different. The Ultra 9 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 3 has 192 KB of L1 cache total, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 also has a much larger physical implementation with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 3’s transistor count and die size are not recorded.

The integrated graphics differ: the Ultra 9 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the Core 3 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Ultra 9 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 3 does not. The two chips also use different sockets: the Ultra 9 fits Intel Socket 1851, while the Core 3 uses Intel BGA 1516, which confirms the desktop versus mobile market segment split.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between the two processors is fundamental. The Core Ultra 9 285K uses the Arrow Lake architecture, codenamed Arrow Lake-S, and is part of the Core Ultra Series 2, specifically the Ultra 9 generation. The Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake architecture, codenamed Wildcat Lake, and belongs to the Core 3 generation. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but they are fabricated by different foundries: the Ultra 9 by TSMC and the Core 3 by Intel.

The Ultra 9’s Arrow Lake architecture is designed for high-performance desktop computing, with 24 cores that include performance and efficiency core types, though the database does not specify the core mix. Its 36 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache are sized for large, multi-threaded workloads. The Core 3’s Wildcat Lake architecture targets low-power mobile devices, with 6 cores and a 15 W TDP that allows for fanless or compact designs. Its 6 MB shared L3 cache and 2.5 MB L2 cache reflect the smaller die and lower thermal budget.

The foundry difference is notable. The Ultra 9’s TSMC fabrication and 17,800 million transistors indicate a highly complex, large die built for maximum throughput. The Core 3’s Intel fabrication is not detailed in terms of transistor count or die size, but its 3 nm process and 15 W TDP suggest a highly efficient design optimized for power consumption rather than raw performance.

The memory architecture reinforces the split. The Ultra 9’s dual-channel 102.4 GB/s bandwidth is more than double the Core 3’s single-channel 59.7 GB/s. This directly impacts all memory-bound benchmarks, including data compression, encryption, and random string sorting, where the Ultra 9 leads by over 80%. The Core 3’s support for LPDDR5X memory indicates a mobile focus, allowing for lower power and smaller physical footprints, but at the cost of bandwidth.

The PCIe capabilities also differ by generation and lane count. The Ultra 9’s Gen 5 with 20 lanes supports high-speed storage and graphics connectivity for a desktop platform. The Core 3’s Gen 4 with 6 lanes is sufficient for a mobile system but severely limits expansion options. The integrated graphics difference, with the Ultra 9’s 64 execution units versus the Core 3’s single Xe core, suggests the Ultra 9 can handle more demanding graphics tasks without a discrete GPU, while the Core 3 is limited to basic display output.

The release dates and market segments confirm the product separation. The Ultra 9 launched on 2024-10-23 as a desktop processor, while the Core 3 launched on 2026-04-15 as a mobile part. The production status for both is active, but the Core 3’s later release date and lower TDP indicate it serves the thin-and-light laptop market, whereas the Ultra 9 targets high-end desktop builds with its 125 W TDP and unlocked multiplier for overclocking.