Intel Core i3-N305 vs Intel Core i5-8400H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a split picture between the Intel Core i5-8400H and the Intel Core i3-N305, with the i3-N305 taking 6 of the 8 recorded head-to-head wins. The most decisive victory for the i3-N305 comes in the Cinebench R15 single-core test, where it scores 164.7 versus the i5-8400H's 90, a 45.4% advantage. This is the largest margin recorded in either direction across all compared tests.

The i3-N305 also leads in both Cinebench R20 tests by identical margins. In multicore, it scores 3349 against 2684, a 19.9% edge, and in single-core it scores 472 against 378, also a 19.9% edge. The Cinebench R15 multicore test shows a smaller but still clear win for the i3-N305, with 829 versus 644, a 22.3% difference. Geekbench multicore goes to the i3-N305 as well, 3881 versus 3656, though the margin there is narrower at 5.8%.

The i5-8400H claims two wins, and one is substantial. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 6392 against the i3-N305's 5092, a 25.5% advantage. That is the largest margin in either direction for any multicore test in this comparison. The other win for the i5-8400H is in Geekbench single-core, where it scores 1281 versus 1049, a 22.1% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i3-N305 takes a modest win at 995 versus 902, a 9.3% margin.

The overall average benchmark scores place the two processors very close in the database. The i5-8400H has an average benchmark score of 2003, while the i3-N305 sits at 1979. The i5-8400H ranks at the 45th percentile among all CPUs, and the i3-N305 is just behind at the 44th percentile. The nearest rival data for the i5-8400H shows AMD Ryzen 7 2800H at 2002 (0.1% delta, meaning the i5-8400H is effectively tied with it), Intel Xeon D-1712TR at 2004 (0.1% delta), Intel Core i5-8400T at 2001 (0.1% delta, again a near tie), and Intel Core i5-8400H at 2005 (0.1% delta). For the i3-N305, the closest comparables are Intel Core i5-7600K at 1976 (0.1% delta), Intel Xeon E3-1245 v5 at 1973 (0.3% delta), AMD Ryzen Embedded V1756B at 1986 (0.3% delta), and Intel Core i5-8279U at 1990 (0.4% delta). These rival clusters confirm that neither of the two compared parts is dramatically off the pace of the other overall.

What stands out is that the i3-N305 wins most tests, but the i5-8400H wins the test that often reflects sustained all-core workloads in the Cinebench R23 suite. The data does not show a single overall victor; it shows two different performance profiles depending on the workload.

Where Each One Wins

The i3-N305 dominates in the Cinebench R15 and R20 suites, both single-core and multicore variants. This points to a processor that handles short, bursty rendering tasks and general single-threaded responsiveness with clear efficiency. The 45.4% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core is especially notable, as that test is sensitive to per-thread performance and frequency behavior. The i3-N305 also wins Geekbench multicore at 3881, indicating strong parallelism in everyday workloads like video playback, office applications, and web browsing.

The i5-8400H wins Cinebench R23 multicore by 25.5%, which is the most significant multicore margin in the head-to-head data. This suggests that in longer multicore workloads, the i5-8400H's architecture has an advantage that manifests as the workload scales beyond the short duration of R15 or R20 tests. The Geekbench single-core win for the i5-8400H at 1281 shows it also holds a clear single-thread advantage in that particular test, though that result is contradicted by the Cinebench single-core tests where the i3-N305 leads.

For users whose workload closely matches the Cinebench R23 multicore pattern, the i5-8400H is the better choice. For everything else in the compared tests, the i3-N305 is ahead. The data does not say the i5-8400H is generally slower; it says the i3-N305 wins six of eight tests, but the one that the i5-8400H wins by the largest margin is a heavyweight rendering benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The i5-8400H uses Coffee Lake-H architecture on a 14 nm process, while the i3-N305 uses Gracemont architecture on a 10 nm process. Coffee Lake-H is the codename for the i5-8400H and Coffee Lake is the architecture name listed. The i3-N305 is part of the Alder Lake-N generation series, using Gracemont as both architecture and codename.

Core counts differ significantly. The i5-8400H has 4 cores and 8 threads, meaning it uses Hyper-Threading style multi-threading. The i3-N305 has 8 cores and 8 threads, meaning it has more physical cores but no extra threads per core.

Cache layouts are distinct. The i5-8400H has L1 cache at 64 KB per core and L2 cache at 64 KB per core, with a shared L3 at 12 MB. The i3-N305 has L1 at 96 KB per core, L2 at 96 KB per core (the pack lists 2 MB per module for L2), and a shared L3 at 6 MB. L3 total for the i3-N305 is listed as 6 MB shared, and no die size is recorded for the i3-N305. The i5-8400H has a die size of 126 mm².

Memory support also differs widely. The i5-8400H supports DDR4 memory support, while the i3-N305 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, single-channel memory bus, and a peak memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s with a PCIe interface of Gen 3 with 9 Lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics and GPU model differences are present. The i5-8400H has UHD 630 graphics, and the i3-N305 has UHD Graphics 770. Neither supports error-correcting memory (ECC) for either.

The i5-8400H has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. The i5-8400H TDP is 45 W. The i5-8400H socket is Intel BGA 1440. The i5-8400H market segment is Mobile, and its production status is End-of-life. Its release date was 2018-04-01. Its part number is SR3Z1. The i5-8400H base clock is 2.50 GHz and boost is 4.10 GHz.

The i3-N305 has a base clock of 100.00 GHz (the listed value is 100.00, which is the multiplier value in the factory data) and boost clock of 3.80 GHz. Its TDP is 15 W, socket is Intel BGA 1264, market segment is Mobile, production status is Active, release date was 2023-01-02, part number is SRMDQ, and it had a launch MSRP of $309.

The process node difference of 14 nm versus 10 nm is a key architectural generational gap. The i3-N305 uses a newer, smaller process that typically enables higher transistor density and lower power draw per operation, while the i5-8400H uses the older 14 nm node.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-core performance in most tests?

A: The Intel Core i3-N305 wins single-core in Cinebench R15 (164.7 vs 90, a 45.4% lead), Cinebench R20 (472 vs 378, 19.9% lead), and Cinebench R23 (995 vs 902, 9.3% lead). The Intel Core i5-8400H wins single-core in Geekbench (1281 vs 1049, a 22.1% lead).

Q: Which processor wins in multicore performance?

A: The i3-N305 wins Cinebench R15 multicore (829 vs 644, 22.3% lead), Cinebench R20 multicore (3349 vs 2684, 19.9% lead), and Geekbench multicore (3881 vs 3656, 5.8% lead). The i5-8400H wins Cinebench R23 multicore (6392 vs 5092, a 25.5% lead).

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

A: The i5-8400H has an average benchmark score of 2003, and the i3-N305 has 1979, a difference of 24 points. The i5-8400H is at the 45th percentile and the i3-N305 at the 44th percentile.

Q: How do their core counts and threads compare?

A: The i5-8400H has 4 cores and 8 threads. The i3-N305 has 8 cores and 8 threads. Both have 8 threads total, but they achieve it differently.

Q: What are the process nodes for each processor?

A: The i5-8400H uses a 14 nm process, and the i3-N305 uses a 10 nm process.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The i5-8400H has a TDP of 45 W, while the i3-N305 has a TDP of 15 W. The i3-N305 is designed for lower power consumption.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in the following recorded specifications:

• Cores: i5-8400H has 4, i3-N305 has 8
• Threads: i5-8400H has 8, i3-N305 has 8
• Base clock: i5-8400H is 2.50 GHz, i3-N305 is 100.00 GHz (multiplier value listed as 100.00)
• Boost clock: i5-8400H is 4.10 GHz, i3-N305 is 3.80 GHz
• TDP: i5-8400H is 45 W, i3-N305 is 15 W
• Socket: i5-8400H is Intel BGA 1440, i3-N305 is Intel BGA 1264
• Architecture: i5-8400H is Coffee Lake, i3-N305 is Gracemont
• Codename: i5-8400H is Coffee Lake-H, i5-8400H is Coffee Lake-H, i3-N305 is Gracemont
• Generation: i5-8400H is Core i5 (Coffee Lake-H), i3-N305 is Core i3 (Alder Lake-N)
• Process node: i5-8400H is 14 nm, i3-N305 is 10 nm
• Die size: i5-8400H is 126 mm², i3-N305 is not recorded
• L1 cache: i5-8400H is 64 KB per core, i3-N305 is 96 KB per core
• L2 cache: i5-8400H is 256 KB per core, i3-N305 is 2 MB per module
• L3 cache: i5-8400H is 12 MB shared, i3-N305 is 6 MB shared
• Memory support: i5-8400H is DDR4, i3-N305 is DDR4 and DDR5
• Memory bus: i5-8400H is not recorded, i3-N305 is Single-channel
• Memory bandwidth: i5-8400H is not recorded, i3-N305 is 38.4 GB/s
• PCIe: i5-8400H is not recorded, i3-N305 is Gen 3, 9 Lanes (CPU only)
• Integrated graphics: i5-8400H is UHD 630, i3-N305 is UHD Graphics 770
• Production status: i5-8400H is End-of-life, i3-N305 is Active
• Release date: i5-8400H is 2018-04-01, i3-N305 is 2023-01-02
• Launch MSRP: i5-8400H is not recorded, i3-N305 is $309 (stated once as launch MSRP)

The i3-N305 also records a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s and PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). The i5-8400H has no recorded memory bandwidth or PCIe data.

The Verdict

The data indicates that a user picking between these two processors should look at the specific workloads they run. The i3-N305 wins six of the eight compared benchmarks, with a decisive 25.5% margin for the i5-8400H in Cinebench R23 multicore. If the workload is centered on Cinebench R23 multicore rendering, the i5-8400H is the better pick. If the workload is closer to Cinebench R15 multicore, Cinebench R20 multicore, or Geekbench multicore, the i3-N305 wins those. For single-core workloads in Cinebench R15, R20, or R15 single-core, or Cinebench R23 single-core, the i3-N305 leads.

The i5-8400H has a higher average benchmark score of 2003 versus 1979, but that difference is small. The i5-8400H also has a 45th percentile versus the i3-N305 at the 44th percentile.

The i3-N305 has a lower TDP of 15 W, making it more suitable for lower-power mobile devices. The i5-8400H has a TDP of 45 W, indicating a more power-hungry design. The i3-N305 uses 8 cores and 8 threads, giving it more cores than the i5-8400H's 4 cores.

The i3-N305 has a higher core count at 8, which aligns with its wins in most multicore tests. The i3-N305 has a 6 MB L3 cache shared L3, while the i5-8400H has 12 MB shared L3. The i3-N305 has a 96 KB per core L1 cache and 2 MB per module L2 cache.

The i5-8400H has a 14 nm process and the i3-N305 has a 10 nm process. The i3-N305 has a 10 nm process and the i5-8400H has a 14 nm process.

The i3-N305 has a launch MSRP of $309, stated once as launch MSRP. The i5-8400H has no launch MSRP recorded.

The i3-N305 has a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, and the i5-8400H has a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. The i5-8400H has a base clock of 2.50 GHz, and the i3-N305 has a base clock of 100.00 GHz (multiplier value).

Both parts are mobile processors, and the data does not declare a universal winner. Users who prioritize the longer Cinebench R23 multicore workload and Geekbench single-core should choose the i5-8400H. Users who want the broader set of wins across Cinebench R15, R20, and Geekbench multicore, plus lower power consumption, should choose the i3-N305.