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 7305 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£110PassMark multi-core score:2553N. of physical cores:5CPU boost clock speed:1.1 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1744TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Celeron 7305 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.3/10

Overall score

Score
6.3/ 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 62% of models
Score components

40%

4.9

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 62% of processors
7.4

Value for money

Value for money
7.4/ 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–² Better than 54% of models
Score components

70%

6.3

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

â–²Better than 54%
4.9

Technical score

Technical score
4.9/ 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 63% of models
Score components

60%

3.4

Performance

18%

6.9

Architecture

10%

6.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

7.7

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 63%
?

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~ £110
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 7305

Technical score
Technical score
4.9/ 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 63% of models
Score components:

60%

3.4

Performance

18%

6.9

Architecture

10%

6.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

7.7

Integrated graphics

4.9
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.4/ 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–² Better than 54% of models
Score components:

70%

6.3

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

7.4
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
FCBGA1744
This processor uses the FCBGA1744 CPU socket, which is older than that of 73.1% of processors and equal to that of 4.8% of processors.
Chipset
Z790, B660
This processor supports Z790, B660 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 79.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
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
5
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 5 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.3% of processors and equal to 0.4% of processors.
CPU threads
5
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 5 CPU threads, which is fewer than 68.8% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
1.1 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 1.1 GHz which is lower than that of 100% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
1x 1.1 GHz & 4x 0.9 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 1x1.1 GHz & 4x0.9 GHz which is lower than that of 91% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
2,553
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 2,553 in PassMark, which is lower than 89.9% 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 7
This processor is built on the Intel 7 foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 64.8% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
L3 cache
8 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 8 MB which is smaller than that of 50.7% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% of processors.
L2 cache
?
L1 cache
464 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 464 KB which is larger than that of 60.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR4/DDR5, which is newer than that of 77.1% of processors and equal to that of 10.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
5,200 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 5,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 70.6% of processors and equal to 6.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5-5200 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5-5200 MHz, which is higher than that of 69.1% of processors and equal to 1.9% 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.
Intel UHD Graphics
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 48EU
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 48EU integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 59.7% of processors and equal to that in 0.7% 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
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% 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)
55 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 55 W which is lower than that of 59.7% of processors and equal to that of 6.3% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 12 W
Show more

Intel Celeron 7305 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
    P-cores + E-cores
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4
  • 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
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm
  • 62.5% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (5,200 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    5,200 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 2 wider front-end design
    This processor has a higher front-end width than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
    6 vs 4
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
    P-cores + E-cores
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • 62.5% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (5,200 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    5,200 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5-5200 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5-5,200 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 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
  • 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
  • 77.7% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,553 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,553 vs 11,469
  • 67.2% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (838 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    838 vs 2,558
  • 75% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (1.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    1.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 58.2% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (641 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    641 vs 1,535
  • 69.3% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,598 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,598 vs 5,209
  • 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
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (1x1.1 GHz & 4x0.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    1x1.1 GHz & 4x0.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 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 (NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, 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 (FCBGA1744 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1744 vs FP5
  • 77.7% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,553 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,553 vs 11,469
  • 67.2% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (838 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    838 vs 2,558
  • 75% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (1.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    1.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 58.2% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (641 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    641 vs 1,535
  • 69.3% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,598 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,598 vs 5,209
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (1x1.1 GHz & 4x0.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    1x1.1 GHz & 4x0.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 3 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (5 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    5 vs 8
  • 1 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (5 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    5 vs 6
  • 17 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (11 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    11 vs 28
  • 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
  • 13.5% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.6 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.6 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 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)

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Celeron 7305

  • Improved multi-threaded performance compared to older dual-core Celeron and Core i3 chips due to its 5-core architecture
  • High energy efficiency with a 15W TDP, making it ideal for thin, fanless laptops and long battery life
  • Modern feature set for an entry-level CPU, including support for DDR5 memory and PCIe 4.0
  • Capable of handling basic 4K video decoding and everyday office tasks like web browsing and document editing
  • Integrated UHD graphics are sufficient for very light or older gaming (e.g., older titles like Tomb Raider)

What customers don't like about Intel Celeron 7305

  • Extremely weak single-core performance due to low clock speeds (1.1 GHz) and lack of Turbo Boost
  • Prone to freezing or sluggishness when multitasking with modern, resource-heavy apps like Chrome and Outlook simultaneously
  • Lacks Hyper-Threading, limiting it to only 5 threads compared to modern Pentium or i3 alternatives
  • Unsuitable for modern gaming or demanding creative workloads like video editing
  • Poor value for money in some regions where older Core i3 or i5 laptops offer significantly better performance for the same price

Verdict

The Intel Celeron 7305 is an entry-level mobile processor from the Alder Lake-U series, featuring a unique 5-core, 5-thread configuration that includes 1 Performance-core and 4 Efficient-cores with a base frequency of 1.10 GHz. Built on the Intel 7 (10nm) process, it includes 8 MB of Intel Smart Cache, an integrated Intel UHD Graphics unit with 48 execution units, and supports modern memory types like DDR5-4800 and LPDDR5-5200. Its main advantages include a low 15W base power (TDP) suitable for fanless or thin designs, support for up to four displays, and integrated AI acceleration via DL Boost and GNA 3.0. However, its primary drawbacks are the lack of Intel Turbo Boost technology, which results in very low single-core performance, and the absence of Hyper-Threading, making it unsuitable for demanding multitasking or heavy workloads.

Compare Intel Celeron 7305 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 7305 and other processors

No results found