OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Core i5 8305G Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£260PassMark benchmark result:6905N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.8 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA2270TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

Intel Core i5 8305G Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.4

Overall score

Score
4.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
Score components

90%

4.4

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 78% of processors
4.4

Technical score

Technical score
4.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
Score components

60%

4.0

Performance

18%

4.7

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.1

Power & Thermal

4%

7.5

Platform

1%

7.2

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 73% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £260

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 Core i5 8305G

Technical score
Technical score
4.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
Score components:

60%

4.0

Performance

18%

4.7

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.1

Power & Thermal

4%

7.5

Platform

1%

7.2

Integrated Graphics

4.4
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core i5 8305G has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
5.9/ 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 80% of models
Score components:

60%

4.4

Overall score

40%

9.2

Price

5.9
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA2270
CPU socket
FCBGA2270
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA2270 CPU socket, which is older than that of 65.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Chipset
Intel 100 Series
Chipset
Intel 100 Series
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
This processor supports Intel 100 Series chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 51% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
N. of physical cores
4
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 50.7% of processors and equal to 28.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
CPU threads
8
â–¼ Worse than 46% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 35.2% of processors and equal to 19.1% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
â–² Better than 30% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 2 threads per core, which is more than 30.3% of processors and equal to 69.7% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.8 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.8 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.8 GHz which is lower than that of 68.5% of processors and equal to that of 4.1% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.8 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.8 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.8 GHz which is lower than that of 62.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Semiconductor size
14 nm
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 50.6% of processors and equal to that of 33.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.2% of processors and equal to that of 29.3% of processors.
L3 cache
6 MB
L3 cache
6 MB
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 6 MB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
L2 cache
1 MB
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 66.9% of processors and equal to that of 17.7% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
L1 cache
256 KB
â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 59.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3L/DDR4
DDR memory version
DDR3L/DDR4
â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR3L/DDR4, which is older than that of 77.7% of processors and equal to that of 5.4% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 63% of processors and equal to 12.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 66.4% of processors and equal to 11.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 28.4% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Intel HD Graphics 630
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 630
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 630
â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 630 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 73.9% of processors and equal to that in 2.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
20
Integrated GPU execution units
20
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 20 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 51.5% of processors and equal to 4.4% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
â–² Better than 42% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 350 MHz which is higher than that of 42.3% of processors and equal to that of 26.1% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 69.9% of processors and equal to that of 16.3% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Base power (PL1)
65 W
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 70.1% of processors and equal to that of 16.7% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
no
Configurable TDP
no
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Core i5 8305G vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
    • 77.1% lower multi-core score
      Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
      1,108
      â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
      Market range: <763 – >14k
      This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,108 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
      1,108 vs 4,829
    • 2 fewer CPU cores
      N. of physical cores
      4
      â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
      Market range: <2 – >12
      This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
      4 vs 6
    • No configurable TDP
      Configurable TDP
      no
      â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
      This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
    • 20.2% weaker single-core performance
      PassMark single-core benchmark score
      1996
      â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
      Market range: <1.4k – >4k
      This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1996 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
      1,996 vs 2,500
    • 24.7% lower single-core score
      Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
      1,108
      â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
      Market range: <561 – >2.7k
      This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,108 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
      1,108 vs 1,471
    • 11.6% lower boost clock
      CPU boost clock speed
      3.8 GHz
      â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
      Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
      This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
      3.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
    • 34.7% lower PassMark score
      PassMark benchmark result
      6,905
      â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
      Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
      This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,905 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
      6,905 vs 10,572.5
    • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
      PCIe lane count
      8
      â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
      Market range: <10 – >30
      This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
      8 vs 16
    • 12.1% worse value for money
      Intel Core i5 8305G has worse value for money than the average processor (5.85 vs 6.6).
      5.85 vs 6.56
    • Narrower instruction support
      Instruction sets
      MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES
      â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
      This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
      MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
    • 2 years older release date
      Release date
      2018
      â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
      Market range: <2k – >2k
      This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2018 vs 2020).
      February 2018
      2018 vs 2020
    • 77.1% lower multi-core score
      Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
      1,108
      â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
      Market range: <763 – >14k
      This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,108 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
      1,108 vs 4,829
    • 2 fewer CPU cores
      N. of physical cores
      4
      â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
      Market range: <2 – >12
      This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
      4 vs 6
    • 20.2% weaker single-core performance
      PassMark single-core benchmark score
      1996
      â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
      Market range: <1.4k – >4k
      This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1996 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
      1,996 vs 2,500
    • 24.7% lower single-core score
      Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
      1,108
      â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
      Market range: <561 – >2.7k
      This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,108 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
      1,108 vs 1,471
    • 11.6% lower boost clock
      CPU boost clock speed
      3.8 GHz
      â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
      Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
      This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
      3.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
    • 34.7% lower PassMark score
      PassMark benchmark result
      6,905
      â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
      Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
      This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,905 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
      6,905 vs 10,572.5
    • Lower base clock
      CPU base clock speed
      4 x 2.8 GHz
      â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
      This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
      4x2.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
    • 16.7% larger process node
      Semiconductor size
      14 nm
      â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
      Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
      This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
      14 nm vs 12 nm
    • 50% less L2 per core
      L2 per core
      0.25 MB/core
      â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
      Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
      This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
      0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
    • 60% smaller L2 cache
      L2 cache
      1 MB
      â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
      Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
      This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
      1 MB vs 2.5 MB
    • 12.5% less L3 per core
      L3 per core
      1.5 MB/core
      â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
      Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
      This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
      1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
    • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
      L1 cache
      256 KB
      â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
      Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
      This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
      256 KB vs 384 KB
    • 25% smaller L3 cache
      L3 cache
      6 MB
      â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
      Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
      This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
      6 MB vs 8 MB
    • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
      PCIe lane count
      8
      â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
      Market range: <10 – >30
      This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
      8 vs 16
    • Older DDR support
      DDR memory version
      DDR3L/DDR4
      â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
      This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4).
      DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4
    • 18.1% lower memory bandwidth
      Maximum memory bandwidth
      37.5 GB/s
      â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
      Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
      This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (37.5 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
      37.5 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
    • Lower JEDEC memory speed
      Max memory speed (JEDEC)
      DDR4-2400 MHz
      â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
      This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
      DDR4-2,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
    • 18.2% lower memory speed
      Maximum memory speed
      2,400 MHz
      â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
      Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
      This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2400 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
      2,400 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
    • Narrower media codec support
      Integrated media encoders/decoders
      H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec
      Category Benchmark
      This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
      H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
    • Inferior integrated GPU
      Integrated GPU model
      Intel HD Graphics 630
      â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
      This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 630 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
      Intel HD Graphics 630 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
    • No configurable TDP
      Configurable TDP
      no
      â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
      This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
    • 44.4% higher base power
      Base power (PL1)
      65 W
      â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
      Market range: <15 W – >90 W
      This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
      65 W vs 45 W
    • 44.4% higher TDP
      TDP (Thermal design power)
      65 W
      â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
      Market range: <15 W – >90 W
      This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
      65 W vs 45 W

    Video reviews

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

    Expert reviews

    In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

    L
    laptopmag.com
    22/10/2026
    Summary of the review
    Dell XPS 15 2-in-1 - Full Review and Benchmarks
    I
    itpro.com
    22/10/2026
    Summary of the review
    Dell XPS 15 2-in-1 review: Best in class
    A
    arstechnica.com
    01/05/2018
    Summary of the review
    Dell XPS 15 2-in-1 review: Meet the child of Intel and AMD’s unholy union
    H
    hothardware.com
    01/04/2018
    Summary of the review
    Dell XPS 15 2-In-1 (9575) Review - Laptops
    N
    notebooks-und-mobiles.de
    15/07/2018
    Summary of the review
    Intel Core i5-8305G (Kaby Lake G) review", "Testing the Intel Core i5-8305G (Kaby Lake G)
    (Translated)Show original
    H
    hardwareluxx.de
    27/07/2018
    Summary of the review
    Intel's Most Powerful NUC: Hades Canyon Review
    (Translated)Show original
    C
    connect-living.de
    26/02/2019
    Summary of the review
    Dell XPS 15 2-in-1 (9575) review - connect-living
    (Translated)Show original
    H
    heise.de
    06/07/2018
    Summary of the review
    Dell XPS 15 2-in-1 Review: Hybrid Laptop with AMD Vega Graphics
    (Translated)Show original
    V
    valid.x86.fr
    Undated
    Summary of the review
    CPU-Z Benchmark for Intel Core i5-8305G (1T)
    (Translated)Show original
    L
    laptopmedia.com
    29/03/2020
    Summary of the review
    Review of the Acer Aspire 7 (A715-73G) – The proto-ConceptD 5 revealed
    (Translated)Show original
    L
    laptopmedia.com
    25/06/2018
    Summary of the review
    Dell XPS 15 9575 2-in-1 Review – A Premium Workstation Convertible
    (Translated)Show original
    T
    tomshw.it
    30/03/2018
    Summary of the review
    Dell XPS 15 2-in-1: Performance, Battery Life, and Configurations
    (Translated)Show original

    Third-party reviews

    What we like about Intel Core i5 8305G

    • Integrated Radeon RX Vega M GL graphics provide strong performance for thin and compact laptops
    • Capable of handling demanding creative tasks like image and light video editing
    • Features 4 cores and 8 threads, offering solid multitasking for everyday use
    • Efficient performance-to-size ratio, allowing for smaller chassis designs compared to traditional laptops with dedicated GPUs
    • Good overall battery efficiency for non-gaming tasks

    What we don't like about Intel Core i5 8305G

    • High TDP (65W) requires robust cooling solutions to prevent quick heating
    • Lower performance in modern, graphically intensive games compared to newer dedicated GPUs
    • Multiplier is locked, which limits potential for overclocking
    • Becoming obsolete for high-end professional applications and modern AAA gaming as of 2025/2026
    • Lower DirectX version support compared to modern standards can impact compatibility with newer software

    Verdict

    The Intel Core i5-8305G is a high-performance 'Kaby Lake-G' mobile processor launched in 2018, featuring 4 cores, 8 threads, a 2.80 GHz base frequency, and a 3.80 GHz turbo clock. Its standout characteristic is the integration of a discrete-class AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL GPU with 4GB of dedicated HBM2 memory on a single 65W package, designed for ultra-thin gaming laptops and small form factor PCs. Key pros include its space-saving design that offers graphics performance comparable to a GTX 1050, support for up to six displays, and efficient multitasking capabilities. However, its high TDP for a mobile chip can lead to significant heat generation and rapid battery drain during intensive tasks, and it is now considered a discontinued legacy product with limited modern driver support.

    Compare Intel Core i5 8305G 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 Core i5 8305G and other processors

    No results found