Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H across all 17 benchmark comparisons, with the Intel Core 3 305 failing to win a single test. The most dramatic separation occurs in the Cinebench multi-core workloads, where the Core Ultra X7 368H consistently outperforms the Core 3 305 by roughly 53.5%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra X7 368H scores 28221 against 13123 for the Core 3 305, a delta of 53.5%. The pattern holds in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Core Ultra X7 368H posts 11852 versus 5511, again a 53.5% advantage.

Single-core performance tells a similar story, though the margins are slightly larger in percentage terms. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the Core Ultra X7 368H at 3984 against 1852 for the Core 3 305, a 53.5% delta. Cinebench R15 single-core records 401 versus 186, a 53.6% gap. The Core Ultra X7 368H also leads in Cinebench R15 multi-core with 2844 against 1322, a 53.5% difference, and in Cinebench R20 single-core with 1673 versus 777, a 53.6% delta.

The PassMark suite reveals where the largest relative gaps appear. The Core Ultra X7 368H leads by 64.2% in the find prime numbers test, scoring 321 against 115. Integer math shows a 63.3% advantage, with scores of 88083 and 32295 respectively. Floating point math follows at 60% ahead, 105681 versus 42284. Data encryption shows a 56.3% gap, with 25228 against 11019. Physics tests record 2857 for the Core Ultra X7 368H versus 1233 for the Core 3 305, a 56.8% difference.

The closest contest in the entire comparison is PassMark single-thread performance. Here the Core Ultra X7 368H scores 4005 against 3977 for the Core 3 305, a mere 0.7% advantage. This is the only benchmark where the two processors approach parity. Data compression shows a 53.1% gap, 312927 versus 146857. Extended instructions record 25669 against 13543, a 47.2% delta, which is the smallest multi-core margin outside of single-thread. Multithread performance shows 32956 versus 15439, a 53.2% difference. Random string sorting completes the picture with 38093 against 17623, a 53.7% gap.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the dominance. The Core Ultra X7 368H posts an average of 40518 across the benchmark suite, while the Core 3 305 averages 18302. The Core Ultra X7 368H sits at the 87th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 72nd percentile for the Core 3 305.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra X7 368H wins every measurable category in the database, but the scale of its advantage varies by workload type. The most decisive wins come in integer-heavy and prime-number workloads, where the 16-core architecture delivers 63.3% and 64.2% advantages respectively. These tests exercise parallel integer execution, and the Core Ultra X7 368H's additional cores provide substantial throughput gains.

Multi-threaded rendering workloads, represented by the Cinebench series, show consistent 53.5% to 53.6% advantages for the Core Ultra X7 368H. This uniformity across R15, R20, and R23 suggests the performance gap scales linearly with core count in these workloads. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads, so the per-core efficiency appears similar in rendering tasks.

Memory-intensive workloads such as data compression and random string sorting show 53.1% and 53.7% advantages for the Core Ultra X7 368H. These tests benefit from the dual-channel memory bus and higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, compared to the single-channel 59.7 GB/s of the Core 3 305. The Core Ultra X7 368H also has 18 MB of shared L3 cache versus 6 MB, which reduces memory access pressure in these workloads.

The single-thread test is the only category where the Core 3 305 nearly matches its rival. The 0.7% gap in PassMark single-thread scores indicates that the Core 3 305, despite having a lower boost clock of 4.30 GHz versus 5.00 GHz, delivers comparable single-core throughput. This suggests the Wildcat Lake architecture achieves strong per-core efficiency, though the Core Ultra X7 368H still edges ahead.

For workloads that scale with core count, the Core Ultra X7 368H is clearly superior. For single-threaded applications, the difference is negligible in practical terms. The Core 3 305 does not win any category outright, but its single-thread showing is the closest it comes to competitive performance.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 3 nm process node and Intel as the foundry, but diverge significantly in core configuration. The Core 3 305 uses 6 cores and 6 threads with a base clock of 1.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Core Ultra X7 368H uses 16 cores and 16 threads with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading, as both have equal core and thread counts.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The Core 3 305 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra X7 368H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L1 and L2 figures are identical, which indicates similar core designs, but the Core Ultra X7 368H benefits from three times the shared L3 capacity.

The codenames reflect different architectural generations. The Core 3 305 uses Wildcat Lake, while the Core Ultra X7 368H uses Panther Lake with the Panther Lake-H generation designation. The Core Ultra X7 368H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, while the Core 3 305 has no series designation in the database.

Memory support differentiates the two clearly. The Core 3 305 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra X7 368H supports only LPDDR5X but uses a dual-channel memory bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, more than 2.5 times the memory bandwidth of the Core 3 305. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 3 305 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes, while the Core Ultra X7 368H provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU-only lanes. The newer PCIe generation on the Core Ultra X7 368H offers higher per-lane bandwidth, though it has fewer lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 3 305 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the Core Ultra X7 368H uses Arc B390.

The socket and TDP values separate the two for platform compatibility. The Core 3 305 uses Intel BGA 1516 with a 15 W TDP, while the Core Ultra X7 368H uses Intel BGA 2540 with a 25 W TDP. The Core 3 305 has a launch MSRP of $309, while the Core Ultra X7 368H has no recorded launch MSRP. Both processors are active production parts and are not multiplier-unlocked.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is the superior processor in every measured category. Its 16 cores and 16 threads provide substantial multi-threaded advantages, with margins ranging from 47.2% in extended instructions to 64.2% in prime number finding. The 87th percentile ranking versus the 72nd percentile for the Core 3 305 places the Core Ultra X7 368H in a higher overall performance tier.

The Core 3 305 is competitive only in single-threaded workloads, where its 3977 PassMark score trails the Core Ultra X7 368H by just 0.7%. This makes the Core 3 305 a reasonable choice for applications that are strictly single-threaded and where the lower 15 W TDP is advantageous. The Core 3 305 also has broader memory support with both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, whereas the Core Ultra X7 368H is limited to LPDDR5X.

For multi-threaded workloads, rendering, data compression, encryption, or mathematical operations, the database shows no scenario where the Core 3 305 outperforms the Core Ultra X7 368H. The Core Ultra X7 368H also offers higher boost clocks, more L3 cache, dual-channel memory bandwidth, and a newer PCIe generation. The Core 3 305 offers a lower TDP and a launch MSRP of $309, which may matter for specific platform constraints.

The choice between these two processors depends on workload requirements. The Core Ultra X7 368H is the clear performance leader across the benchmark suite. The Core 3 305 provides near-parity single-thread performance with significantly lower power consumption and a recorded launch price. Users with multi-threaded workloads should select the Core Ultra X7 368H. Users with strict power budgets and single-threaded applications may find the Core 3 305 sufficient, though it does not win any benchmark in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins all multi-core tests. It scores 28221 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 13123 for the Core 3 305, a 53.5% advantage.

Q: How close is single-thread performance between the two?

A: The PassMark single-thread test shows the Core Ultra X7 368H at 4005 and the Core 3 305 at 3977, a 0.7% difference. This is the smallest gap in the entire comparison.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor supports multithreading beyond its core count.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The Core 3 305 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra X7 368H uses a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, which is about 2.5 times higher.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Core Ultra X7 368H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 3 305 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, which is three times less.

Q: What are the TDP values for these mobile processors?

A: The Core 3 305 has a TDP of 15 W. The Core Ultra X7 368H has a TDP of 25 W. The Core 3 305 consumes less power despite its lower performance.

Q: Do both processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are fabricated on a 3 nm process node by Intel. They differ in architecture, with the Core 3 305 using Wildcat Lake and the Core Ultra X7 368H using Panther Lake.