OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Celeron 6305 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£90PassMark multi-core score:2037N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1449TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Celeron 6305 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.9/10

Overall score

Score
5.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components

40%

3.7

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 82% of processors
7.1

Value for money

Value for money
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components

70%

5.9

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 66%
3.7

Technical score

Technical score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

60%

1.8

Performance

18%

6.1

Architecture

10%

6.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.1

Platform

1%

7.8

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 93%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £90
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Celeron 6305

Technical score
Technical score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components:

60%

1.8

Performance

18%

6.1

Architecture

10%

6.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.1

Platform

1%

7.8

Integrated graphics

3.7
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components:

70%

5.9

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.1
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1449
This processor uses the FCBGA1449 CPU socket, which is older than that of 81.5% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 88.2% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 80.4% of processors and equal to 19.6% of processors.
CPU threads
2
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 2 CPU threads, which is fewer than 94.3% of processors and equal to 5.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
N/A
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.8 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x1.8 GHz which is lower than that of 95.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
2037
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 2037 in PassMark, which is lower than 94% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 50.8% of processors and equal to that of 19.5% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 10 nm SuperFin
This processor is built on the Intel 10 nm SuperFin foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 53% of processors and equal to that of 2.5% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 71.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.8% of processors.
L2 cache
2.5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2.5 MB which is smaller than that of 51.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
L1 cache
160 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 160 KB which is smaller than that of 82.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4X
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR4X, which is newer than that of 61.4% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
3,733 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 3,733 MHz, which is higher than that of 58.4% of processors and equal to 1.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4X-3733 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR4X-3733 MHz, which is higher than that of 55.5% of processors and equal to 0.3% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 61.7% of processors and equal to that in 1.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
48
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 48 GPU execution units, which is more than 82.1% of processors and equal to 4.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
400 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 400 MHz which is higher than that of 68.4% of processors and equal to that of 8.3% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode)
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 61.3% of processors and equal to 10.3% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 79.2% of processors and equal to that of 15.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 78.3% of processors and equal to that of 15.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
15 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 15 W which is lower than that of 93.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 4.4% of processors and equal to that of 85.3% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 15 W
Show more

Intel Celeron 6305 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.5x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 76.6% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    15 W vs 64 W
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 10 nm SuperFin vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 10 nm SuperFin vs Intel 14 nm
  • 17.5% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (146 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    146 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 2.78x cheaper
    Intel Celeron 6305 is cheaper than the average processor (£90 vs £250).
    £90 vs £250
  • 2.5x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 10 nm SuperFin vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 10 nm SuperFin vs Intel 14 nm
  • 17.5% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (146 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    146 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4
  • 27.3% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (59.7 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    59.7 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 2x more GPU execution units
    This processor has more GPU execution units than the average processor (48 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    48 vs 24
  • 76.6% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    15 W vs 64 W
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 82.2% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2037 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,037 vs 11,469
  • 86% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (727 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    727 vs 5,209
  • 54% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,177 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,177 vs 2,558
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 85.2% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (416 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    416 vs 2,804.5
  • 51.1% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (750 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    750 vs 1,535
  • 55.7% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (217 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    217 vs 490
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 2.5% worse value for money
    Intel Celeron 6305 has worse value for money than the average processor (7.11 vs 7.3).
    7.11 vs 7.29
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1449 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1449 vs FP5
  • 82.2% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2037 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,037 vs 11,469
  • 86% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (727 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    727 vs 5,209
  • 54% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,177 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,177 vs 2,558
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 85.2% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (416 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    416 vs 2,804.5
  • 51.1% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (750 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    750 vs 1,535
  • 55.7% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (217 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    217 vs 490
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (2 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    2 vs 8
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    2 vs 4
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 10 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (18 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    18 vs 28
  • 58.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (160 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    160 KB vs 384 KB
  • 55.6% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    4 MB vs 9 MB
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Celeron 6305

  • Excellent value for money for budget-conscious users
  • Surprising integrated graphics performance for its class, capable of running light games like The Sims 4 and GTA V at low settings
  • Energy-efficient 10nm architecture leads to good battery life and low heat output
  • Solid performance for basic office work, virtual classes, and web browsing when paired with an SSD
  • Supports modern features like Wi-Fi 6 and higher RAM speeds (up to 3733 MHz)

What customers don't like about Intel Celeron 6305

  • Lacks Hyper-Threading and Turbo Boost, limiting it to only 2 cores and 2 threads
  • Performance is considered poor for multitasking or modern demanding applications
  • Extremely slow out-of-the-box if paired with a mechanical HDD or eMMC storage
  • Easily hits 100% CPU usage during basic tasks like Zoom calls or multiple browser tabs
  • Not suitable for heavy gaming or professional content creation

Verdict

The Intel Celeron 6305 is a power-efficient, dual-core SoC based on the 10nm SuperFin Tiger Lake-U architecture, featuring two Willow Cove cores and two threads with a fixed base frequency of 1.80 GHz. It includes 4 MB of Intel Smart Cache, supports up to 64 GB of DDR4-3200 or LPDDR4x-3733 RAM, and integrates Intel UHD Graphics with 48 execution units capable of supporting up to four displays. Main advantages include its low 15W TDP for enhanced battery life in laptops, support for modern technologies like WiFi 6, and improved integrated graphics performance over previous generations. However, its primary drawbacks are the lack of Intel Turbo Boost and Hyper-Threading, which significantly limits multitasking and high-demand performance compared to Core-series processors.

Compare Intel Celeron 6305 with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Celeron 6305 and other processors

No results found