Intel Core Ultra 3 205 vs Intel Processor 300 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap between these two desktop processors. The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 delivers substantially higher scores across every recorded workload, while the Intel Processor 300 has no recorded benchmark entries in the database. Direct head-to-head comparisons are therefore unavailable, but the existing measurements for the Core Ultra 3 205 provide a clear picture of its standing.

In Cinebench R23, the Core Ultra 3 205 scores 19,856 points in the multicore test and 2,803 points in the singlecore test. The Cinebench R20 results follow the same pattern: 8,339 multicore and 1,177 singlecore. The Cinebench R15 run yields 2,001 multicore and 282 singlecore. These scores place the chip at the 82nd percentile among all CPUs tracked in the database.

PassMark results reinforce the multicore strength. The multithread score is 26,167, while the single-thread score is 4,575. In specialized workloads, the Core Ultra 3 205 shows notable peaks: data compression reaches 260,651, floating point math hits 75,136, and integer math lands at 54,755. Random string sorting records 31,083, extended instructions score 22,578, and data encryption finishes at 18,772. The physics test produces 2,016, and the find prime numbers test yields 268.

The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 3 205 is 31,473. Its nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core 7 240H with an average score of 31,483 and a delta of 0%, the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX at 31,495 with a delta of -0.1%, the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H at 31,508 with a delta of -0.1%, and the Intel Core i5-13500 at 31,510 with a delta of -0.1%. The Core Ultra 3 205 sits within a fraction of a percent of these processors, indicating that its aggregate performance is comparable to a set of significantly higher-tier parts.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Core Ultra 3 205 uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-S desktop variant, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2. The Intel Processor 300 uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-S. These are fundamentally different silicon generations with distinct construction methods.

The Core Ultra 3 205 is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Intel Processor 300 is built on a 10 nm process at Intel, with a 163 mm² die size. The transistor count for the Intel Processor 300 is not recorded in the database. The fabrication differences alone explain a large portion of the performance gap, as the newer node allows for denser, more efficient logic.

Core counts differ sharply. The Core Ultra 3 205 has 8 cores and 8 threads, all physical, with no hyper-threading. The Intel Processor 300 has 2 cores and 4 threads, using hyper-threading to reach its thread count. The Core Ultra 3 205 therefore provides four times the physical core count. Clock behavior also differs: the Core Ultra 3 205 has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, while the Intel Processor 300 has a base clock of 3.90 GHz and no recorded boost clock.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Core Ultra 3 205 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 15 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Processor 300 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 3 205 offers substantially larger per-core caches and more than double the L3 capacity.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core Ultra 3 205 supports DDR5 only, on a dual-channel bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Intel Processor 300 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus, but its memory bandwidth is not recorded. The Core Ultra 3 205 also provides 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, while the Intel Processor 300 provides 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. Both parts lack ECC memory support, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core Ultra 3 205 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 16 execution units. The Intel Processor 300 uses UHD Graphics 710. The Core Ultra 3 205 contains a newer GPU architecture, though no specific graphics benchmark scores are recorded for either processor.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Processor 300 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the boost clock of each processor?

A: The Core Ultra 3 205 has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Intel Processor 300 has no boost clock recorded in the database; its base clock is 3.90 GHz.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare?

A: The Core Ultra 3 205 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 15 MB of shared L3. The Intel Processor 300 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core Ultra 3 205 supports DDR5 only, with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Processor 300 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus, with no bandwidth recorded.

Q: What socket does each processor use?

A: The Core Ultra 3 205 uses Intel Socket 1851. The Intel Processor 300 uses Intel Socket 1700.

Q: Are there recorded benchmark scores for the Intel Processor 300?

A: The database contains no benchmark entries for the Intel Processor 300. Its average benchmark score is recorded as 0, and it has no nearest rivals listed.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 3 205 | Intel Processor 300 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 2 |

| Threads | 8 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 3.80 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | Not recorded |

| TDP | 57 W | 46 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Raptor Lake |

| Codename | Arrow Lake-S | Raptor Lake-S |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 243 mm² | 163 mm² |

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

| L2 Cache | 3 MB per core | 1.25 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 15 MB shared | 6 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | Not recorded |

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 5, 20 lanes | Gen 5, 16 lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU | UHD Graphics 710 |

| Release Date | 2025-07-31 | 2024-01-07 |

| Launch MSRP | $140 | $82 |

| Part Number | SRVFC | SRN3J |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 82 | 50 |

Both processors share several traits: dual-channel memory buses, no ECC support, no unlocked multiplier, active production status, and desktop market segment.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 wins in every category where data exists. Its 8 physical cores deliver a large advantage in multithreaded workloads, as shown by the Cinebench R23 multicore score of 19,856 and the PassMark multithread score of 26,167. The 3 nm TSMC process, larger caches, and higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz combine to produce strong single-thread results as well, with a Cinebench R23 singlecore score of 2,803 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4,575. The 82nd percentile ranking indicates that this processor sits above the majority of all CPUs in the database.

The Intel Processor 300 has no recorded benchmark scores, so no workload wins can be attributed to it from measured data. Its specifications do indicate certain qualitative advantages. The base clock of 3.90 GHz is slightly higher than the Core Ultra 3 205 base clock of 3.80 GHz, which can benefit lightly threaded tasks that remain at base frequency. The dual memory support for DDR4 and DDR5 offers flexibility in platform choice, and the lower TDP of 46 W versus 57 W suggests more modest thermal output. The smaller die size of 163 mm² and the earlier release date also distinguish it, though these are not performance advantages.

For workloads that depend on many parallel threads, rendering, compression, encryption, or physics simulation, the measurements favor the Core Ultra 3 205 decisively. For single-thread responsiveness, the Core Ultra 3 205 still leads based on recorded scores, despite the Intel Processor 300 having a higher base clock. The absence of benchmark data for the Intel Processor 300 means no direct comparison can be made, but the existing Core Ultra 3 205 results place it in a competitive position against processors with much higher nominal tiering, such as the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX and Intel Core i5-13500. Those rivals differ by only 0.1% or less in average score, which places the Core Ultra 3 205 in a tightly contested performance band.