Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Processor 300 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core 3 305 and Intel Processor 300 occupy different tiers in the database, and the recorded measurements reflect a substantial performance separation. The Intel Core 3 305 carries an average benchmark score of 18302, placing it at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Intel Processor 300 sits at the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of 0, as no direct benchmark submissions exist for it in the database. This absence of recorded data for the Processor 300 makes a conventional head-to-head comparison impossible, but the architectural and specification differences provide a clear picture of expected performance.

The Intel Core 3 305 delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13123 and a single-core score of 1852. For context, the nearest rival in the database, the Intel Core i3-14100, shows an average score of 18318, which is only 0.1% higher than the Core 3 305. The Intel Core 5 330 is 0.2% ahead at 18345, and the Intel Core 7 360 is 0.4% ahead at 18374. The AMD Ryzen 5 2600E trails by 0.4% with an average score of 18230. These deltas show that the Core 3 305 sits squarely in a competitive cluster where the differences between these four processors are negligible, all within a 0.8 percentage point band.

In Cinebench R20, the Core 3 305 scores 5511 multi-core and 777 single-core. The Cinebench R15 results show 1322 multi-core and 186 single-core. PassMark measurements for the Core 3 305 include a multi-thread score of 15439, single-thread score of 3977, integer math at 32295, floating point math at 42284, data encryption at 11019, data compression at 146857, extended instructions at 13543, find prime numbers at 115, physics at 1233, and random string sorting at 17623.

The Intel Processor 300 has no benchmark records in the database, meaning no direct score comparisons can be drawn. The processor's 2 cores and 4 threads, paired with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and no boost clock listed, position it as a low-core-count part. The Core 3 305, by contrast, offers 6 cores and 6 threads with a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The multi-thread capability of the Core 3 305 is structurally superior, with three times the physical cores and 50% more threads.

The single-core advantage is less obvious from clock rates alone. The Processor 300 runs at a fixed 3.90 GHz, while the Core 3 305 boosts to 4.30 GHz. The higher boost ceiling on the Core 3 305 suggests a single-thread advantage in burst workloads, although the Processor 300's higher base clock could benefit sustained workloads that do not trigger boost behavior. The database does not include a recorded boost event for the Processor 300, so the comparison must rely on the listed specifications.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel Processor 300 has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Core 3 305 delivers three times the core count and 50% more threads.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core 3 305 has an average benchmark score of 18302, which places it at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs. The Intel Processor 300 has an average benchmark score of 0, with no benchmark submissions recorded in the database, placing it at the 50th percentile.

Q: How does the Intel Core 3 305 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core 3 305 trails the Intel Core i3-14100 by 0.1%, the Intel Core 5 330 by 0.2%, and the Intel Core 7 360 by 0.4%. It leads the AMD Ryzen 5 2600E by 0.4%. All four processors fall within a narrow 0.8 percentage point range in average score.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a single-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Intel Processor 300 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus, and its memory bandwidth is not listed in the database.

Q: What are the process nodes for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 3 305 uses a 3 nm process node and is built on the Wildcat Lake architecture. The Intel Processor 300 uses a 10 nm process node and is built on the Raptor Lake architecture. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of each processor?

A: The Intel Core 3 305 has a launch MSRP of $309. The Intel Processor 300 has a launch MSRP of $82.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural families. The Intel Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake architecture with a 3 nm process node, while the Intel Processor 300 uses the Raptor Lake architecture with a 10 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the lithography difference indicates a generational leap for the Core 3 305.

The Core 3 305 is a mobile-market part on the Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the Processor 300 is a desktop part on the Intel Socket 1700. The socket difference alone prevents any cross-compatibility. The Core 3 305's integrated graphics are listed as Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe unit, while the Processor 300 uses UHD Graphics 710.

Cache layouts differ notably. The Core 3 305 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Processor 300 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Processor 300's per-core cache values scale with its 2-core configuration, while the Core 3 305's cache figures appear to be aggregate values for the full 6-core package.

PCIe support diverges sharply. The Core 3 305 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes. The Processor 300 provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU-only lanes. The Processor 300 offers both a newer PCIe generation and more lanes, which matters for desktop expansion. The Core 3 305's lower lane count and Gen 4 interface fit its mobile positioning.

The release dates show a gap. The Processor 300 launched on 2024-01-07, and the Core 3 305 launched on 2026-04-15. Both remain in active production status. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two processors differ, based on the database records.

| Specification | Intel Core 3 305 | Intel Processor 300 |

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

| Cores | 6 | 2 |

| Threads | 6 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | Not listed |

| TDP | 15 W | 46 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Wildcat Lake | Raptor Lake |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| Die Size | Not listed | 163 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2.5 MB | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | Not listed |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | UHD Graphics 710 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2024-01-07 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | $82 |

| Part Number | SAE3L | SRN3J |

The TDP difference is notable: 15 W for the Core 3 305 versus 46 W for the Processor 300. This reflects the mobile versus desktop split. The Core 3 305 achieves its higher core count and boost clock within a much lower thermal envelope, enabled by the 3 nm process. The Processor 300 uses a 10 nm process and draws nearly three times the power.

The memory bus difference also matters. The Processor 300 uses dual-channel memory, which can improve memory throughput in bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The Core 3 305 uses single-channel memory but lists a specific bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, which the Processor 300's record does not include.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 3 305 wins in multi-threaded processing scenarios. Its 6 cores and 6 threads, combined with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, give it a structural advantage in workloads that scale across cores. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13123 and PassMark multi-thread score of 15439 confirm strong parallel throughput. For mobile users, the 15 W TDP and 3 nm process node make it the clear choice for battery-constrained systems. Its launch in 2026 positions it as a newer design with Intel Xe3 Graphics, which offers a more modern integrated graphics solution than the UHD Graphics 710 in the Processor 300. The Core 3 305 also supports LPDDR5X memory, which is common in thin-and-light laptops.

The Intel Processor 300 wins in desktop-specific scenarios. Its dual-channel memory bus provides a memory bandwidth advantage in theory over the Core 3 305's single-channel bus, and its PCIe Gen 5 support with 16 CPU-only lanes enables faster expansion devices and more direct connectivity. The base clock of 3.90 GHz is substantially higher than the Core 3 305's 1.50 GHz base clock, which benefits workloads that run at sustained base frequencies without relying on boost behavior. For desktop users with DDR4 memory already available, the Processor 300's DDR4 support offers compatibility with existing platforms on the Intel Socket 1700. Its 46 W TDP is higher, which is acceptable in a desktop chassis where cooling is less constrained.

The database places the Core 3 305 at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs, versus the 50th percentile for the Processor 300. This percentile gap indicates that the Core 3 305 outperforms a larger share of the CPU population in average benchmark terms. The Processor 300's lack of recorded benchmark scores limits direct comparisons, but its core and thread counts place it in a lower performance tier by design.

For users needing multi-core compute in a mobile form factor, the Core 3 305 is the only option of the two, as the Processor 300 is a desktop part. For desktop users prioritizing memory bandwidth and PCIe expansion, the Processor 300 has the specification advantages. The Core 3 305's nearest rivals cluster within 0.4% of its average score, so it competes effectively with the Intel Core i3-14100, Intel Core 5 330, Intel Core 7 360, and AMD Ryzen 5 2600E. The Processor 300 has no recorded rivals in the database, leaving its competitive position defined only by its specifications and 50th percentile ranking.