Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 125HL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Core 3 304 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 125HL. The head-to-head field is empty, and the Core Ultra 5 125HL has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. This means the comparison must rely on the available scores for the Core 3 304, its percentile ranking, and the architectural data recorded for both processors.

The Core 3 304 has an average benchmark score of 13745, placing it in the 68th percentile of all CPUs tracked. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX at 13786 (0.3% higher), the Intel Core i7-8750H at 13868 (0.9% higher), the Intel Core 5 120UL at 13594 (1.1% lower), and the AMD EPYC 7443 at 13936 (1.4% higher). These deltas are narrow, indicating the Core 3 304 sits in a tightly contested performance band.

The Core 3 304 delivers a multi-core score of 5263 in Cinebench R23, a single-core score of 1765 in the same test, and 4160 in Cinebench R20 multi-core. Its Passmark single-thread score is 3614, while multi-thread reaches 11625. Data compression scores 114775, data encryption 8501, floating point math 29722, integer math 24640, extended instructions 9686, random string sorting 13659, find prime numbers 68, and physics 868. These figures establish a baseline for what the Core 3 304 achieves in isolation, but without Core Ultra 5 125HL scores, no direct win/loss tally exists. The database records zero wins for either processor in head-to-head comparisons.

The absence of benchmark data for the Core Ultra 5 125HL is notable. It is marked as active production, yet its average benchmark score is recorded as 0, and its percentile versus all CPUs is 50. This does not indicate a performance value; it reflects missing measurements. The Core 3 304, by contrast, has a full suite of 17 benchmark entries. Readers should treat any performance claims about the Core Ultra 5 125HL as unverified by the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge sharply in architecture. The Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, built on a 3 nm process node, fabricated by Intel. It has 5 cores and 5 threads, with a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 125HL belongs to the Meteor Lake architecture, specifically the Meteor Lake-PS variant, on a 7 nm process node, also from Intel. It has 14 cores and 18 threads, with a base clock of 1.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz.

The core count difference is substantial: 14 versus 5, and thread count 18 versus 5. The Core Ultra 5 125HL has no hyper-threading distinction recorded, but the thread count exceeds core count by 4, implying some threads are derived from additional cores or hybrid configurations. The Core 3 304 matches threads to cores exactly, indicating a simpler threading model.

Cache configurations differ as well. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 125HL lists L1 as 112 KB per core, L2 as 2 MB per core, and L3 as 18 MB shared. The per-core L2 on the Core Ultra 5 125HL suggests a different cache hierarchy, likely due to the larger core count. The shared L3 of 18 MB is triple that of the Core 3 304’s 6 MB.

The process node gap, 3 nm versus 7 nm, is significant. The Core 3 304 uses a newer manufacturing process, which typically influences power efficiency and transistor density, though the database does not record transistor counts or die sizes for either chip. The Core Ultra 5 125HL’s 7 nm node is two generations older in lithography terms, but it compensates with more cores.

Memory support also differs. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 125HL supports DDR5, with the note that capacity depends on the motherboard, and has a dual-channel memory bus delivering 89.6 GB/s. The dual-channel interface provides 50% more theoretical bandwidth, which can matter for multi-core workloads.

PCIe lanes differ: the Core 3 304 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 5 125HL offers Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). Both use PCIe Gen 4, but the Core Ultra 5 125HL has two additional lanes.

Integrated graphics distinguish the pair. The Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the Core Ultra 5 125HL uses Arc Xe-LPG with 112 execution units. The 112 EU count is far higher, suggesting substantially stronger integrated graphics performance, though the database provides no graphics benchmarks to confirm.

Market segments differ: the Core 3 304 is mobile, the Core Ultra 5 125HL is desktop. Sockets also differ: the Core 3 304 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 5 125HL uses Intel Socket 1851.

The Verdict

Based strictly on recorded data, the Core Ultra 5 125HL cannot be evaluated for performance because it has no benchmark scores. The Core 3 304, with an average score of 13745 and a 68th percentile ranking, is measurable. Its nearest rivals sit within 1.4% either way, so it competes with high-end desktop and workstation processors from AMD and Intel, including the Threadripper PRO 3975WX and EPYC 7443. The Core 3 304’s single-core Cinebench R23 score of 1765 and Passmark single-thread of 3614 indicate strong per-thread capability for a 5-core chip.

The Core Ultra 5 125HL’s architectural advantages, more cores (14 versus 5), more threads (18 versus 5), larger shared L3 (18 MB versus 6 MB), dual-channel memory (89.6 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s), and more PCIe lanes (8 versus 6), suggest it should outperform in multi-threaded scenarios, but the database has no scores to confirm this. The 3 nm process of the Core 3 304 versus 7 nm for the Core Ultra 5 125HL implies better efficiency per transistor, but again, no efficiency metrics are recorded.

For users choosing between the two, the data supports the Core 3 304 for verified performance and a known percentile ranking. The Core Ultra 5 125HL remains an unknown quantity in the database. Its active production status and higher core count are qualitative indicators, but they do not translate into measured results. The Core 3 304’s 68th percentile and tight rival deltas give it a concrete competitive position. The Core Ultra 5 125HL’s 50th percentile is a placeholder, not a performance assessment.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 304 | Intel Core Ultra 5 125HL |

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

| Cores | 5 | 14 |

| Threads | 5 | 18 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 1.20 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| TDP | 15 | 45 |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Wildcat Lake | Meteor Lake |

| Process node | 3 nm | 7 nm |

| L1 cache | 192 KB | 112 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 2.5 MB | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5 (depends on motherboard) |

| Memory bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 89.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | Arc Xe-LPG 112EU |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | 2026-04-15 | 2024-04-07 |

The TDP difference is stark: 15 for the Core 3 304 versus 45 for the Core Ultra 5 125HL. This aligns with the mobile versus desktop split. The release dates differ by roughly two years, with the Core Ultra 5 125HL launching in 2024 and the Core 3 304 in 2026. Both have active production status. The Core 3 304 has a launch MSRP of $309, while the Core Ultra 5 125HL has a launch MSRP of $325.

ECC memory support is false for both. Multiplier unlock is false for both. The part numbers are SAE3K for the Core 3 304 and SRN9D for the Core Ultra 5 125HL.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 125HL has 14 cores, while the Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores.

Q: What is the boost clock difference?

A: The Core Ultra 5 125HL boosts to 4.50 GHz, which is 0.20 GHz higher than the Core 3 304's boost of 4.30 GHz.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare?

A: The Core Ultra 5 125HL provides 89.6 GB/s via dual-channel memory, while the Core 3 304 provides 59.7 GB/s via single-channel memory.

Q: Does the database show any benchmark scores for the Core Ultra 5 125HL?

A: No, the database records no benchmark entries for the Core Ultra 5 125HL, and its average benchmark score is listed as 0.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The Core 3 304 uses a 3 nm process node, while the Core Ultra 5 125HL uses a 7 nm process node.

Q: Which processor has a larger shared L3 cache?

A: The Core Ultra 5 125HL has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 6 MB for the Core 3 304.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 3 304 wins in verified performance data. It has a complete benchmark suite, an average score of 13745, and a 68th percentile rank. Its nearest rivals are within 1.4%, meaning it competes with high-end CPUs like the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and Intel Core i7-8750H. In single-threaded workloads, the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1765 and Passmark single-thread score of 3614 indicate strong per-core efficiency, likely aided by the 3 nm process and 4.30 GHz boost clock. Its lower TDP of 15 also suggests lower power draw, though the database does not provide power measurements.

The Core Ultra 5 125HL wins on paper in raw resource counts. It has 14 cores versus 5, 18 threads versus 5, triple the shared L3 cache (18 MB versus 6 MB), higher memory bandwidth (89.6 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s), more PCIe lanes (8 versus 6), and a higher boost clock (4.50 GHz versus 4.30 GHz). Its integrated graphics, Arc Xe-LPG with 112 execution units, is far more substantial than the Core 3 304’s Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, indicating a significant advantage for graphics-heavy tasks without a discrete GPU. As a desktop part with a 45 TDP, it is positioned for sustained multi-core workloads.

The database does not provide head-to-head results, so no win tally exists. For workloads that rely on verified benchmark outcomes, the Core 3 304 is the only option with measured data. For workloads that depend on core count, cache size, memory bandwidth, or integrated graphics capability, the Core Ultra 5 125HL’s specifications point to advantages, but these remain unconfirmed by any recorded scores. The choice between the two depends on whether the user prioritizes measured performance or architectural capacity, and the database currently supports only the former for the Core 3 304.