Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus records an average benchmark score of 79574, while the Intel Core 3 305 scores 18302. The Ultra 9 sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Core 3 is in the 72nd percentile.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each chip?

A: The Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 3 305 does not support ECC memory.

Q: How do the two compare in single-threaded performance?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 2356, which is 21.4% higher than the Core 3 305's 1852. In PassMark single-thread, the gap narrows to 19.7%, with scores of 4951 versus 3977.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus delivers 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth through a dual-channel bus, while the Core 3 305 provides 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel bus.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus boosts up to 5.50 GHz, compared to 4.30 GHz for the Core 3 305.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from distinct Intel design lines. The Intel Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation, fabricated on Intel's 3 nm process. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename, belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 (Ultra 9, Arrow Lake-HX generation), and is also built on a 3 nm node but by TSMC rather than Intel.

The silicon differences are substantial. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus integrates 17,800 million transistors across a 243 mm² die. The Core 3 305 has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database. Cache hierarchies diverge sharply: the Core 3 305 offers 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3.

Memory support also separates the pair. Both accept DDR5, but the Core 3 305 adds LPDDR5X support, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is limited to DDR5. The Ultra 9 runs a dual-channel memory bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Core 3 305 runs single-channel at 59.7 GB/s. ECC memory is available only on the Ultra 9.

PCIe connectivity differs by generation and lane count. The Core 3 305 uses PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 3 305 carries Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe unit, while the Ultra 9 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an unlocked multiplier and uses socket Intel BGA 2114. The Core 3 305 has a locked multiplier and fits socket Intel BGA 1516. Production status is active for both, with release dates in 2026: the Core 3 305 on April 15 and the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus on March 16.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with zero wins for the Intel Core 3 305. The average score difference is massive: 79574 versus 18302, a factor of over four. The Ultra 9 ranks in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 sits at the 72nd percentile.

The Core 3 305 does have one advantage in the specification sheet: its 15 W TDP versus the 55 W TDP of the Ultra 9. For systems where power draw and thermal output are the primary constraints, the Core 3 305 represents the lower-power option. It also supports LPDDR5X memory, which the Ultra 9 does not.

For workloads that depend on multi-core throughput, the Ultra 9 is the only sensible choice from this data. Its 24 cores and 24 threads, larger L3 cache (36 MB versus 6 MB), and dual-channel memory provide the structural basis for its decisive lead. The single-core gap, while smaller, still favors the Ultra 9 by roughly 20% across Cinebench R23 and PassMark tests.

The Core 3 305 is not competitive in raw performance. Its 6 cores, 6 threads, and smaller caches place it far behind. The launch MSRP for the Core 3 305 is $309; the Ultra 9 has no recorded launch MSRP. The data does not support a scenario where the Core 3 305 wins on performance. It only wins on power efficiency and memory flexibility.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 305 | Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 6 | 24 |

| Threads | 6 | 24 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.30 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 55 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2114 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-HX Refresh |

| Generation | Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-HX) |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die size | Not recorded | 243 mm² |

| L1 cache | 192 KB | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 2.5 MB | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

| Memory bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | Not recorded |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus dominates every recorded benchmark. The largest margin appears in PassMark integer math, where the Ultra 9 scores 164839 against 32295 for the Core 3 305, a delta of 80.4% in favor of the Ultra 9. PassMark floating-point math shows a similar 79% gap: 201773 versus 42284.

Cinebench multi-core tests reinforce the pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 9 scores 5981 versus 1322, a 77.9% advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 21198 versus 5511, a 74% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core delivers 39684 versus 13123, a 66.9% lead. The multi-core deltas consistently exceed 65%, reflecting the Ultra 9's 24 cores against the Core 3's 6 cores.

PassMark data compression shows the Ultra 9 at 658724 versus 146857, a 77.7% difference. Data encryption follows at 50008 versus 11019, a 78% gap. Extended instructions score 51290 versus 13543, a 73.6% difference. Find prime numbers shows 519 versus 115, a 77.8% gap. Random string sorting yields 80327 versus 17623, a 78.1% difference. PassMark multithread scores 59439 versus 15439, a 74% gap.

Single-core results are closer but still decisive. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 340 versus 186, a 45.3% advantage for the Ultra 9. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2992 versus 777, a 74% gap. Cinebench R23 single-core narrows to 2356 versus 1852, a 21.4% lead. PassMark single-thread scores 4951 versus 3977, a 19.7% gap. PassMark physics records 3387 versus 1233, a 63.6% difference.

The smallest margin in the entire dataset is the PassMark single-thread test at 19.7%, which still favors the Ultra 9. The largest margin is PassMark integer math at 80.4%. Across all 17 tests, the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus never trails by any amount. The data shows a processor that outperforms its rival in every measured category, with the single-thread gap representing the only area where the Core 3 305 comes within striking distance.