Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

The Intel Core 3 305 and Intel Core Ultra X7 358H are both mobile processors from Intel, but they occupy distinctly different performance tiers. The Core 3 305, a 6-core Wildcat Lake chip, is positioned as an efficient entry-level option, while the Core Ultra X7 358H, a 16-core Panther Lake-H part, is a high-performance offering for demanding workloads. Benchmark data from the database shows a clear hierarchy: the Core Ultra X7 358H wins all 17 head-to-head tests, with an average benchmark score of 40967 compared to 18302 for the Core 3 305. This places the Ultra chip in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 305 sits at the 72nd percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data paints a one-sided picture. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, from single-threaded tests to heavily parallel workloads. The closest margin is in the PassMark single-thread test, where the Ultra X7 scores 4124 versus 3977 for the Core 3 305, a difference of only 3.6 percent. This indicates that while the Ultra chip does lead in single-thread performance, its advantage there is modest compared to its dominance in multi-threaded tasks.

The Core Ultra X7 358H's biggest wins come in workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth. Its 16 cores and dual-channel memory bus allow it to pull far ahead in integer math, floating point math, and data compression. For example, the Ultra X7 scores 83147 in PassMark integer math, more than 2.5 times the 32295 of the Core 3 305. Similarly, in floating point math, the Ultra X7 reaches 103842 against 42284, a 59.3 percent advantage. These results confirm that the Ultra X7 is the clear choice for compute-heavy applications such as video rendering, scientific simulation, and large-scale data processing.

The Core 3 305, by contrast, has no winning benchmarks in this comparison. However, its data shows a different strength: efficiency. With a 15 watt TDP versus the 25 watt TDP of the Ultra X7, the Core 3 305 delivers a substantial portion of the Ultra chip's single-thread performance at a lower power envelope. Its single-core scores, such as 1852 in Cinebench R23, are only 11 percent behind the Ultra X7's 2080, despite the Core 3 305 running at a lower base clock of 1.50 GHz versus 1.90 GHz. This suggests the Core 3 305 is better suited for battery-conscious systems where sustained multi-core performance is less critical.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Ultra X7 also has a higher base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, compared to 1.50 GHz and 4.30 GHz for the Core 3 305.

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

A: The Ultra X7 leads in all single-thread benchmarks. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra X7 scores 2080 against 1852 for the Core 3 305, an 11 percent advantage. In PassMark single-thread, the Ultra X7 scores 4124 versus 3977, a 3.6 percent lead.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two chips?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra X7 scores 337 versus 115 for the Core 3 305, a 65.9 percent advantage. This test is highly sensitive to integer processing and memory latency, areas where the Ultra X7's additional cores and dual-channel memory provide a significant edge.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Ultra X7 supports only LPDDR5X. The Ultra X7 also uses a dual-channel memory bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Core 3 305 is single-channel with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a larger cache?

A: The Ultra X7 has significantly more cache. It features 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Core 3 305 has 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3.

Q: Are there differences in integrated graphics?

A: Yes. The Core 3 305 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the Ultra X7 uses an Arc B390 integrated GPU. The database does not provide comparative graphics benchmark scores, so the graphics performance delta cannot be quantified.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results consistently favor the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H, but the size of the lead varies widely across tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra X7 scores 3027 versus 1322 for the Core 3 305, a 56.3 percent advantage. The R20 multi-core test shows a similar pattern: 12011 for the Ultra X7 against 5511, a 54.1 percent gap. The R23 multi-core test narrows the relative difference to 30 percent, with the Ultra X7 scoring 18747 and the Core 3 305 reaching 13123. This trend suggests that the Ultra X7's advantage grows as the benchmark becomes more demanding on memory and core scaling.

Single-core results tell a different story. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ultra X7 scores 301.5 versus 186, a 38.3 percent lead. The R20 single-core test shows a 54.2 percent gap, with scores of 1695 and 777. However, by R23 single-core, the lead shrinks to 11 percent, with 2080 versus 1852. This indicates that the Ultra X7's per-core advantage is not uniform across all test versions, and the Core 3 305's single-core performance is relatively close in the latest Cinebench iteration.

PassMark tests reveal where the Ultra X7 truly separates itself. In integer math, the Ultra X7 scores 83147 against 32295, a 61.2 percent lead. Floating point math shows a 59.3 percent gap, with scores of 103842 and 42284. Data compression results are also lopsided: 332508 for the Ultra X7 versus 146857, a 55.8 percent difference. The smallest PassMark gap is in single-thread performance, where the Ultra X7 leads by only 3.6 percent, scoring 4124 against 3977. This close single-thread result, combined with the large multi-core gaps, confirms that the Ultra X7's core count and memory subsystem are the primary drivers of its overall performance advantage.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Ultra X7 has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 305 and 1.90 GHz for the Ultra X7, with boost clocks of 4.30 GHz and 4.80 GHz respectively. Thermal design power also differs, with the Core 3 305 rated at 15 watts and the Ultra X7 at 25 watts.

Memory support is a key differentiator. The Core 3 305 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Ultra X7 supports only LPDDR5X. The memory bus is single-channel on the Core 3 305 and dual-channel on the Ultra X7, leading to a major bandwidth difference: 59.7 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s. The Ultra X7 also uses a different socket, Intel BGA 2540, compared to Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 3 305.

PCIe support differs as well. The Core 3 305 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Ultra X7 uses Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. Cache configurations are also dissimilar: the Core 3 305 has 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3, while the Ultra X7 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The integrated graphics differ too, with Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) on the Core 3 305 and Arc B390 on the Ultra X7. The launch MSRP for the Core 3 305 is $309, while the Ultra X7 has no listed launch MSRP in the database.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel's 3 nm process node and are manufactured by Intel, but they come from different codenames and generations. The Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, part of the Core 3 generation, while the Ultra X7 is based on Panther Lake, from the Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H) generation. This architectural split explains many of the performance and feature differences.

The Core 3 305 is a simpler design with 6 cores and no hyperthreading, resulting in 6 threads. Its single-channel memory controller limits memory bandwidth to 59.7 GB/s, which constrains multi-threaded performance in memory-intensive tasks. The chip uses PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes, providing a moderate expansion capability. Its integrated graphics, Intel Xe3 with 1 Xe core, is positioned for basic display output and light GPU tasks.

The Ultra X7 358H is a significantly more complex part. With 16 cores and 16 threads, it offers more than double the parallel execution resources of the Core 3 305. Its dual-channel memory controller delivers 153.6 GB/s, which is over 2.5 times the bandwidth of the Core 3 305. The Ultra X7 also features a larger cache hierarchy, with per-core L1 and L2 allocations and a shared L3 pool of 18 MB, compared to the smaller shared 6 MB L3 on the Core 3 305. The PCIe Gen 5 interface with 4 lanes offers higher per-lane bandwidth than the Gen 4 implementation on the Core 3 305, despite fewer total lanes.

The integrated graphics also reflect a generational leap. The Ultra X7 uses Arc B390, a more capable GPU than the Xe3 core in the Core 3 305. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, so the exact GPU performance difference cannot be stated, but the architectural distinction indicates the Ultra X7 is designed for more demanding visual workloads. The production status for both chips is listed as Active, with the Ultra X7 releasing on 2026-01-04 and the Core 3 305 on 2026-04-15. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both target the mobile market segment.