Intel Core i3-N305 vs Intel Xeon E-2276M Comparison

The Intel Xeon E-2276M and Intel Core i3-N305 represent two very different approaches to mobile computing. The Xeon is a legacy, high-power workstation part, while the i3 is a modern, efficient chip designed for a wide range of tasks. The benchmark data reveals a fascinating split, where the i3-N305 dominates in raw compute tests like Cinebench, but the Xeon E-2276M fights back in Geekbench and long-form multi-core workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is the sheer dominance of the Core i3-N305 in the Cinebench R15 and R20 suites. In the Cinebench R15 multicore test, the i3-N305 scores 829 against the Xeon's 544, a 34.4% advantage. The single-core gap is even more pronounced, with the i3-N305 hitting 164.7 points versus 76 points for the Xeon, a staggering 53.9% difference. This pattern continues in Cinebench R20, where the i3-N305 leads by 32.3% in multicore (3349 vs 2268) and by 32.2% in single-core (472 vs 320). These are not marginal wins; they are clear, generational leaps in per-clock and per-thread performance.

However, the story changes in the newer Cinebench R23 test. Here, the Xeon E-2276M takes its first victory, scoring 5400 in the multicore test against the i3-N305's 5092. This is a 6% lead for the Xeon, suggesting that its higher thermal and power limits allow it to sustain performance in longer, more demanding workloads. The i3-N305 still wins the R23 single-core test decisively, with a 995 score versus 762, a 23.4% margin, but the multicore result shows the Xeon's 6-core, 12-thread configuration can prevail when the power envelope is fully utilized.

The split becomes even more intriguing in the Geekbench results. The Xeon E-2276M sweeps the Geekbench tests, winning the multicore test with a score of 5159 against the i3-N305's 3881, a 32.9% lead. The single-core Geekbench test also goes to the Xeon, with 1440 points versus 1049, a 37.3% advantage. This starkly contrasts with the Cinebench results, indicating that the two processors have very different performance profiles depending on the workload's characteristics. The data shows the Xeon wins 3 out of 8 head-to-head benchmarks, while the i3-N305 wins 5, but the magnitude of the wins varies significantly. The i3-N305's victories are often by large margins in some tests, while the Xeon's wins are either by a small margin in R23 or by a large margin in Geekbench.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2276M has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 1996, compared to the Intel Core i3-N305's 1979. This puts them within 1% of each other in overall performance, despite their very different benchmark win patterns.

Q: What is the performance difference between the two in the Cinebench R23 multicore test?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2276M wins this test with a score of 5400, which is 6% higher than the Intel Core i3-N305's score of 5092.

Q: How do they compare in the Geekbench multicore test?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2276M is the clear winner here, scoring 5159 against the Intel Core i3-N305's 3881. This represents a 32.9% lead for the Xeon.

Q: Which processor has a higher core count?

A: The Intel Core i3-N305 has 8 cores, while the Intel Xeon E-2276M has 6 cores. However, the Xeon supports 12 threads, while the i3-N305 does not have hyper-threading and supports 8 threads.

Q: What is the TDP (thermal design power) of each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2276M has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Intel Core i3-N305 has a much lower TDP of 15 watts.

Q: What is the difference in their memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2276M has a dual-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The Intel Core i3-N305 uses a single-channel bus and has a lower bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The foundational differences between these two CPUs are vast. The Intel Xeon E-2276M is built on the Coffee Lake architecture, specifically the Coffee Lake-H codename, using a 14 nm process node. It is part of the Xeon E-2200 series and was released in 2019, making it an end-of-life product. In contrast, the Intel Core i3-N305 is based on the Gracemont architecture, which is a newer, efficiency-focused design. It uses a 10 nm process node and belongs to the Core i3 (Alder Lake-N) generation, released in 2023 and still in active production.

The core designs are fundamentally different. The Xeon E-2276M features 6 large, high-performance cores with 12 threads, while the i3-N305 uses 8 smaller Gracemont efficiency cores with 8 threads. This explains the benchmark discrepancies. The i3-N305's newer cores have a much higher single-threaded throughput, which is why it dominates in single-core tests. However, the Xeon's larger cores and support for 12 threads allow it to pull ahead in the Geekbench multicore test, which may be more sensitive to sustained performance and memory bandwidth.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Xeon E-2276M has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, with a large 12 MB shared L3 cache. The i3-N305 has a larger L1 cache at 96 KB per core but a smaller 2 MB L2 cache per module and only 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon's larger L3 cache is a significant advantage for workloads that benefit from a large shared pool of data.

Memory support is another major divergence. The Xeon E-2276M supports DDR4 memory over a dual-channel bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory, a critical feature for server and workstation reliability. The i3-N305 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory but only over a single-channel bus, resulting in a lower bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. It does not support ECC memory.

Other differences include the socket (BGA 1440 for the Xeon, BGA 1264 for the i3-N305), the PCIe lanes (16 for the Xeon, 9 for the i3-N305), and the integrated graphics (UHD Graphics P630 for the Xeon, UHD Graphics 770 for the i3-N305). The Xeon is also marked as a Server/Workstation part, while the i3-N305 is a Mobile part, reflecting their intended use cases.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split in use cases. The Intel Core i3-N305 is the superior choice for most general-purpose computing tasks, especially those that are bursty or single-threaded. Its wins in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests, along with its multicore wins in R15 and R20, show that it is faster for everyday applications, web browsing, and even many content creation workloads. Its significantly lower TDP of 15 watts also makes it far more suitable for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermals are a priority.

The Intel Xeon E-2276M, despite being older and having a higher TDP of 45 watts, demonstrates strengths in specific areas. Its win in the Cinebench R23 multicore test suggests it can sustain high multi-threaded performance over longer periods. More importantly, its decisive victories in the Geekbench tests, with a 32.9% lead in multicore and a 37.3% lead in single-core, indicate a different performance profile that some software may favor. The Xeon also offers ECC memory support and a dual-channel memory bus, features that are non-negotiable for certain professional and server applications.

For most users, the Intel Core i3-N305 offers the better performance-per-watt and wins in more benchmarks. The Intel Xeon E-2276M should be considered by users who require ECC memory, need to run software that is optimized for its specific architecture, or are building a system where its specific Geekbench strengths are relevant. The Xeon's higher average score of 1996 versus 1979, while marginal, also suggests that it has a slight edge in overall aggregate performance, even if the i3-N305 wins more individual tests.

Specification Differences

• Cores: 6 (Xeon E-2276M) vs 8 (i3-N305)
• Threads: 12 (Xeon E-2276M) vs 8 (i3-N305)
• Base Clock: 2.80 GHz (Xeon E-2276M) vs 100.00 GHz (i3-N305)
• Boost Clock: 4.70 GHz (Xeon E-2276M) vs 3.80 GHz (i3-N305)
• TDP: 45 W (Xeon E-2276M) vs 15 W (i3-N305)
• Socket: Intel BGA 1440 (Xeon E-2276M) vs Intel BGA 1264 (i3-N305)
• Architecture: Coffee Lake (Xeon E-2276M) vs Gracemont (i3-N305)
• Process Node: 14 nm (Xeon E-2276M) vs 10 nm (i3-N305)
• L1 Cache: 64 KB per core (Xeon E-2276M) vs 96 KB per core (i3-N305)
• L2 Cache: 256 KB per core (Xeon E-2276M) vs 2 MB per module (i3-N305)
• L3 Cache: 12 MB shared (Xeon E-2276M) vs 6 MB shared (i3-N305)
• Memory Support: DDR4 (Xeon E-2276M) vs DDR4, DDR5 (i3-N305)
• Memory Bus: Dual-channel (Xeon E-2276M) vs Single-channel (i3-N305)
• Memory Bandwidth: 42.7 GB/s (Xeon E-2276M) vs 38.4 GB/s (i3-N305)
• ECC Memory: True (Xeon E-2276M) vs False (i3-N305)
• PCIe Lanes: 16 (Xeon E-2276M) vs 9 (i3-N305)
• Integrated Graphics: UHD Graphics P630 (Xeon E-2276M) vs UHD Graphics 770 (i3-N305)
• Market Segment: Server/Workstation (Xeon E-2276M) vs Mobile (i3-N305)
• Production Status: End-of-life (Xeon E-2276M) vs Active (i3-N305)
• Release Date: 2019-05-28 (Xeon E-2276M) vs 2023-01-02 (i3-N305)
• Part Number: SRFCK (Xeon E-2276M) vs SRMDQ (i3-N305)

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-N305 is the winner in the majority of the tested benchmarks, claiming 5 out of 8 head-to-head matchups. Its primary victories are in single-core performance across all Cinebench versions, where its modern Gracemont cores provide a massive advantage. It also wins the Cinebench R15 and R20 multicore tests, making it the stronger choice for most multi-threaded productivity tasks that are not extremely prolonged.

The Intel Xeon E-2276M wins the remaining 3 benchmarks. Its most significant victories are in both Geekbench tests, which could indicate better performance in workloads that leverage its dual-channel memory bandwidth and higher thread count. The Xeon also wins the Cinebench R23 multicore test, suggesting it has a higher sustained performance ceiling for long-running, heavily-threaded applications. This makes the Xeon a more appropriate choice for specific professional workloads where these characteristics are essential, such as certain scientific simulations or rendering tasks that are known to favor its architecture. The Xeon's support for ECC memory is another key differentiator, making it the only choice for systems that require error-correcting memory for data integrity.