Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra 3 205 Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 is the dominant performer in every recorded benchmark, decisively outperforming the Intel Core 3 304 across all workloads. The data shows a 100% win rate for the Ultra 3 205, with the largest margins in multi-core tests and the smallest in single-core tasks, reflecting fundamental architectural and specification differences.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark analysis is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 wins all 17 recorded tests. The Intel Core 3 304 does not secure a single victory, making this comparison a study in the magnitude of the performance gap rather than a balanced duel.

The most significant advantages for the Ultra 3 205 appear in multi-threaded and compute-heavy workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 19856 against 5263 for the Core 3 304, a delta of -73.5%. Similarly, PassMark's find prime numbers test shows the Ultra 3 205 at 268 versus 68, a -74.6% difference. These results indicate the Ultra 3 205 delivers more than three times the throughput in heavily parallel tasks, a gap consistent with its higher core count and substantially higher power envelope.

The single-core results, while still favoring the Ultra 3 205, show a narrower margin. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 3 205 scores 2803 against 1765, a -37% delta. PassMark single-thread results are closer still, with the Ultra 3 205 at 4575 and the Core 3 304 at 3614, a -21% difference. This pattern suggests the architectural efficiency of the Core 3 304 partially compensates for its lower clock speeds, though it cannot overcome the raw advantage of the Ultra 3 205's higher boost frequency.

In memory-sensitive workloads, the gap remains large. PassMark data compression shows the Ultra 3 205 at 260651 versus 114775, a -56% delta. Data encryption results are similar, with the Ultra 3 205 at 18772 versus 8501, a -54.7% difference. These outcomes align with the Ultra 3 205's dual-channel memory bus and higher memory bandwidth, which provide a clear edge for data movement tasks.

The Core 3 304's closest competitive showing is in single-threaded performance, where its lower power draw and smaller design may offer efficiency advantages, but the recorded data shows no benchmark where it leads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent distinct design philosophies and physical configurations. The Intel Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is fabricated on a 3 nm process by Intel. The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 uses the Arrow Lake-S codename with the Arrow Lake architecture, also on a 3 nm process but fabricated by TSMC. Both use 3 nm technology, yet the implementations differ significantly.

The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, meaning no hyper-threading support. The Core Ultra 3 205 has 8 cores and 8 threads, also without hyper-threading. The Ultra 3 205's advantage in core count directly explains its multi-core benchmark dominance. The Core 3 304 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Core Ultra 3 205 operates at a base clock of 3.80 GHz and boosts to 4.90 GHz, giving it a higher frequency ceiling for both sustained and peak workloads.

Cache hierarchies reveal another major split. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 3 205 offers 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 15 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 3 205's larger L3 cache (15 MB versus 6 MB) and per-core L2 allocation provide a substantial buffering advantage for repeated data access and multi-threaded execution.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus, with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 3 205 supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, achieving 102.4 GB/s. The Ultra 3 205's dual-channel configuration nearly doubles the memory bandwidth, which is a critical factor in its PassMark data compression and encryption victories.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 3 304 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 3 205 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra 3 205 offers both a newer PCIe generation and more lanes, enabling higher bandwidth for discrete GPUs and NVMe storage. The Core 3 304 integrates Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe), while the Core Ultra 3 205 integrates Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 16 EU. The Ultra 3 205's integrated graphics likely offers more execution units, though no graphics benchmarks are recorded.

The Core Ultra 3 205 has a TDP of 57 watts, compared to 15 watts for the Core 3 304. This 42-watt difference explains the Ultra 3 205's higher sustained performance, at the cost of greater power consumption. The Core 3 304 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the Core Ultra 3 205 uses Intel Socket 1851, indicating different platform requirements. The Ultra 3 205 is a desktop part, while the Core 3 304 is a mobile part, which contextualizes the performance gap: the Core 3 304 is designed for low-power portable systems, while the Ultra 3 205 targets desktop workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher core count?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. This core advantage is a primary driver of the Ultra 3 205's multi-core benchmark superiority.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare?

A: The Core Ultra 3 205 has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Core 3 304 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Ultra 3 205 is faster in both metrics.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra 3 205 offers 102.4 GB/s bandwidth via a dual-channel DDR5 bus. The Core 3 304 offers 59.7 GB/s via a single-channel bus supporting DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Ultra 3 205 has roughly 72% more bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Core Ultra 3 205 has 15 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core 3 304 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 3 205 also provides 3 MB of L2 cache per core, versus 2.5 MB total for the Core 3 304.

Q: Are the integrated graphics different?

A: Yes. The Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Core Ultra 3 205 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 16 EU. No graphics benchmarks are recorded for either part.

Q: What is the market segment for each?

A: The Core 3 304 is a mobile processor, while the Core Ultra 3 205 is a desktop processor. The Core 3 304 has a 15 watt TDP, and the Core Ultra 3 205 has a 57 watt TDP.

Specification Differences

The following table lists only the recorded fields where the two processors differ.

• Cores: Core 3 304: 5, Core Ultra 3 205: 8
• Threads: Core 3 304: 5, Core Ultra 3 205: 8
• Base Clock: Core 3 304: 1.50 GHz, Core Ultra 3 205: 3.80 GHz
• Boost Clock: Core 3 304: 4.30 GHz, Core Ultra 3 205: 4.90 GHz
• TDP: Core 3 304: 15 W, Core Ultra 3 205: 57 W
• Socket: Core 3 304: Intel BGA 1516, Core Ultra 3 205: Intel Socket 1851
• Codename: Core 3 304: Wildcat Lake, Core Ultra 3 205: Arrow Lake-S
• Architecture: Core 3 304: not recorded, Core Ultra 3 205: Arrow Lake
• Foundry: Core 3 304: Intel, Core Ultra 3 205: TSMC
• Transistors: Core 3 304: not recorded, Core Ultra 3 205: 17,800 million
• Die Size: Core 3 304: not recorded, Core Ultra 3 205: 243 mm²
• L1 Cache: Core 3 304: 192 KB, Core Ultra 3 205: 192 KB (per core)
• L2 Cache: Core 3 304: 2.5 MB, Core Ultra 3 205: 3 MB (per core)
• L3 Cache: Core 3 304: 6 MB (shared), Core Ultra 3 205: 15 MB (shared)
• Memory Support: Core 3 304: DDR5, LPDDR5X, Core Ultra 3 205: DDR5
• Memory Bus: Core 3 304: Single-channel, Core Ultra 3 205: Dual-channel
• Memory Bandwidth: Core 3 304: 59.7 GB/s, Core Ultra 3 205: 102.4 GB/s
• PCIe: Core 3 304: Gen 4, 6 Lanes, Core Ultra 3 205: Gen 5, 20 Lanes
• Integrated Graphics: Core 3 304: Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe), Core Ultra 3 205: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU
• Market Segment: Core 3 304: Mobile, Core Ultra 3 205: Desktop
• Release Date: Core 3 304: 2026-04-15, Core Ultra 3 205: 2025-07-31
• Launch MSRP: Core 3 304: $309, Core Ultra 3 205: $140
• Part Number: Core 3 304: SAE3K, Core Ultra 3 205: SRVFC

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 wins every single one. The largest margin is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Ultra 3 205 scores 19856 versus 5263, a delta of -73.5%. This is the most extreme gap in the dataset, indicating the Ultra 3 205 delivers nearly 3.8 times the multi-core Cinebench performance.

PassMark find prime numbers shows a similar magnitude of difference, with the Ultra 3 205 at 268 and the Core 3 304 at 68, a -74.6% delta. This test is heavily dependent on integer arithmetic and core scaling, where the Ultra 3 205's 8 cores and higher clocks provide a decisive edge.

Cinebench R20 multi-core results show the Ultra 3 205 at 8339 versus 4160, a -50.1% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core shows the Ultra 3 205 at 1177 versus 587, also a -50.1% delta. Interestingly, the single-core R20 margin is the same percentage as the multi-core, indicating that the clock speed advantage alone accounts for this gap. The Core 3 304's boost clock of 4.30 GHz is notably lower than the Ultra 3 205's 4.90 GHz, which directly impacts single-core scores.

PassMark floating point math shows the Ultra 3 205 at 75136 versus 29722, a -60.4% delta. PassMark integer math shows 54755 versus 24640, a -55% delta. These results confirm the Ultra 3 205's superiority in both floating-point and integer workloads, with the floating-point gap being slightly larger.

The narrowest margin is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Ultra 3 205 scores 282 and the Core 3 304 scores 264, a -6.4% delta. This is the only benchmark where the two processors approach parity, suggesting that the Core 3 304's Wildcat Lake architecture has competitive single-thread efficiency when clocked near its boost limit. However, the R15 single-core test is an older workload, and newer tests like R23 single-core show a wider -37% gap.

PassMark single-thread results show the Ultra 3 205 at 4575 versus 3614, a -21% delta. PassMark multithread shows 26167 versus 11625, a -55.6% delta. The multithread test benefits from the core count and memory bandwidth advantages of the Ultra 3 205, while the single-thread test only reflects the clock and IPC differences.

PassMark data compression shows the Ultra 3 205 at 260651 versus 114775, a -56% delta. PassMark random string sorting shows 31083 versus 13659, a -56.1% delta. PassMark extended instructions shows 22578 versus 9686, a -57.1% delta. PassMark physics shows 2016 versus 868, a -56.9% delta. PassMark data encryption shows 18772 versus 8501, a -54.7% delta. Across all PassMark workloads, the Ultra 3 205 maintains a consistent lead of roughly 54% to 75%, with no test falling below a -21% delta.

The Core 3 304's closest performance is in older single-core tests, but it never wins. The data confirms the Ultra 3 205 as the clear choice for any workload requiring high throughput, while the Core 3 304's only recorded advantage is its lower TDP and mobile form factor.

The Verdict

The benchmark data provides a definitive outcome: the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 outperforms the Intel Core 3 304 in every recorded test. The Ultra 3 205 offers 8 cores versus 5, a boost clock of 4.90 GHz versus 4.30 GHz, 15 MB of L3 cache versus 6 MB, and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 59.7 GB/s. These specification advantages translate directly into benchmark results, with multi-core gaps exceeding 70% and single-core gaps reaching 37% in modern workloads.

The Core 3 304 is positioned as a mobile processor with a 15 watt TDP, while the Core Ultra 3 205 is a desktop processor with a 57 watt TDP. The Core 3 304's lower power consumption makes it suitable for portable systems, but the recorded data shows no performance scenario where it leads. Its launch MSRP is $309, while the Core Ultra 3 205 has a launch MSRP of $140.

The percentile rankings support this split. The Core 3 304 sits at the 68th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 3 205 sits at the 82nd percentile. The Core 3 304's average benchmark score is 13745, compared to 31473 for the Core Ultra 3 205. The nearest rivals for the Core 3 304 include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX at a -0.3% delta, while the Core Ultra 3 205's nearest rivals include the Intel Core 7 240H at a 0% delta.

For users prioritizing multi-threaded performance, content creation, or data processing, the Core Ultra 3 205 is the only rational choice based on this data. For users requiring a low-power mobile processor where battery life and thermals are paramount, the Core 3 304 offers a functional, if far less performant, alternative. The data does not support any other conclusion.