Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins every single recorded test, 17 out of 17 head-to-head comparisons. There is no workload category where the Intel Core 3 305 takes a lead, whether in single-threaded, multi-threaded, or specialized instruction tests.

The Core 3 305 sits in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 18,302. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-14100 (18,318, only 0.1% ahead), the Intel Core 5 330 (18,345, 0.2% ahead), and the Intel Core 7 360 (18,374, 0.4% ahead). This places it as a competent entry-level mobile processor, but one that competes with older or lower-tier parts.

The Core Ultra X9 378H, by contrast, ranks in the 89th percentile with an average score of 47,468. Its nearest rivals are substantially more powerful: the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 (47,527, 0.1% ahead), the Intel Core i7-13700KF (47,330, 0.3% behind), and the Intel Core i9-12900F (47,176, 0.6% behind). The X9 378H delivers roughly 2.6 times the average benchmark score of the Core 3 305.

For single-threaded work, the gap narrows considerably. The X9 378H scores 4,453 in PassMark single-thread versus 3,977 for the Core 3 305, a 10.7% advantage. This indicates that the Core 3 305 is not far behind in lightly threaded tasks, making it serviceable for everyday responsiveness. However, for multi-threaded workloads, the difference becomes dramatic: the X9 378H scores 38,298 in PassMark multithread versus 15,439, a 59.7% deficit for the Core 3 305.

The data suggests a clear use-case split. The Core 3 305 fits systems where modest single-thread performance and low power draw matter more than raw throughput. The X9 378H is designed for demanding multi-threaded applications such as video rendering, scientific computing, and heavy data processing, where its 16 cores and higher memory bandwidth deliver decisive advantages.

Architecture Differences

Both processors use a 3 nm process node manufactured by Intel, but they diverge sharply in almost every other architectural aspect. The Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation, while the X9 378H uses the Panther Lake codename and belongs to the Ultra X9 generation (Panther Lake-H).

The core counts differ significantly. The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads, also without hyperthreading, but with nearly three times the physical core count. The base clock of the Core 3 305 is 1.50 GHz with a boost of 4.30 GHz; the X9 378H starts at 2.00 GHz and boosts to 5.00 GHz.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Core 3 305 lists L1 cache as 192 KB total, L2 as 2.5 MB total, and L3 as 6 MB shared. The X9 378H lists L1 as 192 KB per core, L2 as 2.5 MB per core, and L3 as 18 MB shared. This means the X9 378H has substantially more aggregate cache, which helps with data-heavy workloads.

Memory support also differs. The Core 3 305 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The X9 378H supports only LPDDR5X but uses a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, 2.6 times the memory throughput. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe capabilities differ as well. The Core 3 305 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the X9 378H uses Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics differ: the Core 3 305 has Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe), while the X9 378H has Arc B390, a more capable iGPU.

The sockets are incompatible: the Core 3 305 uses Intel BGA 1516, the X9 378H uses Intel BGA 2540. The Core 3 305 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the X9 378H has a TDP of 25 watts. The Core 3 305 launched on April 15, 2026 with a launch MSRP of $309; the X9 378H launched earlier on April 3, 2026 with no recorded MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single-threaded gap appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the X9 378H scores 4,595 versus 1,852 for the Core 3 305, a 59.7% deficit. The same 59.7% delta applies across Cinebench R15 and R20 for both single and multi-core tests, indicating a consistent architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

In PassMark integer math, the X9 378H scores 92,603 versus 32,295, a 65.1% deficit. Floating-point math shows a 63.1% deficit (114,500 versus 42,284). Data encryption shows a 63.1% deficit (29,840 versus 11,019), while data compression shows a 62% deficit (386,591 versus 146,857).

The smallest gaps appear in single-threaded PassMark tests. The X9 378H scores 4,453 versus 3,977, only a 10.7% advantage. This suggests that for basic office tasks, web browsing, or light coding, the Core 3 305 is not far behind. The gap widens substantially in PassMark physics (3,404 versus 1,233, a 63.8% deficit) and find prime numbers (357 versus 115, a 67.8% deficit).

Random string sorting shows a 60.5% deficit (44,648 versus 17,623), while extended instructions show a 56.8% deficit (31,315 versus 13,543). The multithread PassMark test shows a 59.7% deficit (38,298 versus 15,439), matching the Cinebench deltas.

The consistency of the 59.7% delta across multiple Cinebench versions and PassMark multithread is notable. It suggests the performance ratio between these two processors is stable across different rendering and compute workloads, and it aligns with the core count difference: 16 cores versus 6 cores, a ratio of 2.67, which is close to the observed performance ratio of approximately 2.5.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H scores 32,553 versus 13,123 for the Intel Core 3 305, a 59.7% deficit for the latter.

Q: How close are the two in single-threaded PassMark performance?

A: The X9 378H scores 4,453 versus 3,977 for the Core 3 305, a 10.7% advantage. This is the narrowest gap in the entire head-to-head comparison.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The X9 378H has 153.6 GB/s with dual-channel LPDDR5X support, while the Core 3 305 has 59.7 GB/s with single-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X support.

Q: Do both processors use the same socket?

A: No. The Core 3 305 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the X9 378H uses Intel BGA 2540. They are not interchangeable.

Q: What is the core count for each?

A: The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither supports hyperthreading.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The X9 378H boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the Core 3 305 boosts to 4.30 GHz. The base clocks are 2.00 GHz and 1.50 GHz, respectively.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 305 | Intel Core Ultra X9 378H |

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

| Cores | 6 | 16 |

| Threads | 6 | 16 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.30 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H) |

| L1 cache | 192 KB total | 192 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 2.5 MB total | 2.5 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 6 MB shared | 18 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | LPDDR5X |

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

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | Arc B390 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | Not recorded |

| Release date | April 15, 2026 | April 3, 2026 |

| Percentile vs all CPUs | 72 | 89 |

| Average benchmark score | 18,302 | 47,468 |