Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data leaves no ambiguity: the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 wins every single head-to-head test against the Intel Core 3 304. Across 17 recorded comparisons, the Core Ultra 5 225 takes all 17, with the Core 3 304 recording zero wins. The average benchmark score of 36,938 for the Core Ultra 5 225 versus 13,745 for the Core 3 304 puts the former at the 85th percentile of all CPUs, while the latter sits at the 68th percentile.

The largest margin appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core Ultra 5 225 scores 25,891 versus 5,263, a delta of 79.7%. This is the single biggest gap in the dataset. The Core 3 304 trails by more than three-quarters of the performance in this sustained multi-threaded rendering workload, indicating a fundamental difference in parallel throughput capability.

Single-core performance shows a narrower but still decisive gap. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 5 225 posts 3,655 against 1,765 for the Core 3 304, a 51.7% lead. PassMark single-thread results confirm the pattern: 4,412 versus 3,614, a 18.1% advantage. The smaller single-thread delta compared to multi-thread deltas suggests that per-core efficiency is closer, but the Core Ultra 5 225 still holds a clear edge in lightly threaded workloads.

Cinebench R15 multi-core shows the Core Ultra 5 225 at 2,609 versus 849, a 67.5% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 6,317 versus 4,160, a 34.1% margin. The R20 single-core test also shows a 34.1% difference, with 891 versus 587. These Cinebench results span multiple renderer versions and consistently favor the Core Ultra 5 225.

PassMark integer math delivers 65,345 for the Core Ultra 5 225 versus 24,640 for the Core 3 304, a 62.3% gap. Floating point math shows 92,038 versus 29,722, a 67.7% gap. Extended instructions score 27,162 versus 9,686, a 64.3% difference. Data compression favors the Core Ultra 5 225 at 302,811 versus 114,775, a 62.1% lead, while data encryption shows 22,285 versus 8,501, a 61.9% difference.

The prime number search workload produces the second-largest proportional gap. The Core Ultra 5 225 scores 358 versus 68 for the Core 3 304, an 81% delta. Physics simulation in PassMark shows 2,342 versus 868, a 62.9% gap. Random string sorting records 36,590 versus 13,659, a 62.7% difference. The PassMark multi-thread score, a composite measurement, lands at 30,459 versus 11,625, a 61.8% gap.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 3 304 does not win a single benchmark in this comparison, so the use-case split is defined by the magnitude of the Core Ultra 5 225 advantage rather than by alternating victories. The Core Ultra 5 225 dominates in every category where the data provides coverage.

For multi-threaded workloads such as video rendering, 3D scene compilation, and scientific computation, the Core Ultra 5 225 delivers between 34.1% and 79.7% higher scores depending on the specific test. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result, with its 79.7% lead, indicates that the Core Ultra 5 225 is particularly strong in sustained all-core workloads. The PassMark multi-thread composite, at 61.8% ahead, reinforces this pattern.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the Core Ultra 5 225 leads by 18.1% in PassMark single-thread and by 51.7% in Cinebench R23 single-core. This suggests that applications with moderate thread counts, such as everyday productivity software and lighter creative tools, will also favor the Core Ultra 5 225.

The Core 3 304 does have one notable attribute: its 15 watt TDP is far lower than the 65 watt TDP of the Core Ultra 5 225. The data does not include power consumption measurements, but the TDP figures indicate the Core 3 304 is positioned for thermally constrained mobile environments. In workloads where the Core 3 304's lower power envelope is the primary constraint, it may be the only viable option, but in pure performance terms it cannot match the Core Ultra 5 225 in any recorded test.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different Intel product lines built on the same 3 nm process node but with different foundries. The Core 3 304 uses Intel as the foundry, while the Core Ultra 5 225 uses TSMC. The Core 3 304 belongs to the Wildcat Lake generation, and the Core Ultra 5 225 belongs to the Arrow Lake generation, with the latter carrying the Arrow Lake-S architecture designation.

Core and thread counts differ substantially. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 225 has 10 cores and 10 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading, as thread counts equal core counts in both cases.

Clock speeds favor the Core Ultra 5 225 on both base and boost. The Core 3 304 runs at 1.50 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost. The Core Ultra 5 225 runs at 3.30 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost. The base clock difference is particularly large, with the Core Ultra 5 225 running at more than double the base frequency of the Core 3 304.

Cache hierarchies differ in both size and organization. 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 5 225 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 225 therefore has substantially more L3 capacity and a larger per-core L2 allocation.

Memory support differs. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 225 supports DDR5 over a dual-channel memory bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 225 has nearly double the memory bandwidth of the Core 3 304.

PCIe connectivity favors the Core Ultra 5 225. The Core 3 304 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra 5 225 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra 5 225 offers both a newer PCIe generation and more than three times the lane count.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the Core Ultra 5 225 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 16 execution units. Socket types also differ: the Core 3 304 uses Intel BGA 1516, indicating a soldered mobile package, while the Core Ultra 5 225 uses Intel Socket 1851, a desktop socket. The Core 3 304 is classified as a Mobile segment part, and the Core Ultra 5 225 is classified as Desktop.

The Core Ultra 5 225 lists 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 3 304 does not list transistor count or die size in the database. Both processors have locked multipliers, and neither supports ECC memory.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has an average benchmark score of 36,938, compared to 13,745 for the Intel Core 3 304. The Core Ultra 5 225 sits at the 85th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 304 sits at the 68th percentile.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 225 scores 25,891 versus 5,263 for the Core 3 304, a 79.7% lead. The PassMark multi-thread score shows 30,459 versus 11,625, a 61.8% gap.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: PassMark single-thread shows 4,412 for the Core Ultra 5 225 versus 3,614 for the Core 3 304, an 18.1% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 3,655 versus 1,765, a 51.7% lead.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores?

A: No. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The Core Ultra 5 225 has 10 cores and 10 threads. Neither supports additional threads per core.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus at 59.7 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 225 supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus at 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Are both processors built on the same process node?

A: Yes, both use a 3 nm process node, but with different foundries. The Core 3 304 uses Intel as the foundry, and the Core Ultra 5 225 uses TSMC.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 outperforms the Intel Core 3 304 in every benchmark recorded in the database. The 17 head-to-head comparisons all favor the Core Ultra 5 225, with margins ranging from 18.1% in PassMark single-thread to 79.7% in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The average benchmark score of 36,938 versus 13,745 places the Core Ultra 5 225 at the 85th percentile and the Core 3 304 at the 68th percentile.

Users who need maximum performance in rendering, computation, compression, encryption, or general multi-threaded work should choose the Core Ultra 5 225 based on the recorded data. Its 10 cores, dual-channel memory at 102.4 GB/s, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache provide the structural basis for its benchmark dominance. The Core 3 304 cannot match any of these measurements.

The Core 3 304 does have a place in the database for scenarios where its 15 watt TDP and mobile BGA 1516 socket are the deciding factors. It is a Mobile segment part with a lower power envelope than the 65 watt desktop-oriented Core Ultra 5 225. For systems constrained by thermal limits or requiring a soldered mobile package, the Core 3 304 is the only one of the two that fits. Its launch MSRP is $309, while the Core Ultra 5 225 launched at $246.

In performance terms, the verdict is unanimous. The Core Ultra 5 225 wins every recorded workload, and the Core 3 304 offers no benchmark-based advantage in any tested category.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 304 | Intel Core Ultra 5 225 |

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

| Series | Not specified | Core Ultra Series 2 |

| Cores | 5 | 10 |

| Threads | 5 | 10 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Not specified | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Generation | Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) |

| Process node | 3 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not specified | 17,800 million |

| Die size | Not specified | 243 mm² |

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

| L2 cache | 2.5 MB | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

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

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | 2026-04-15 | 2025-01-06 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | $246 |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | No |

| Part number | SAE3K | SRQCZSRVF7 |