Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data records 17 benchmark comparisons between the Intel Core 3 304 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F wins all 17. The largest margin is in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 5 225F scores 352 against 68 for the Core 3 304, a delta of -80.7%. That is a massive gap in a heavily integer-math workload.

Multi-core rendering tests show a similar pattern. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 5 225F posts 16467 versus 5263, a -68% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 11059 versus 4160, a -62.4% delta. The R15 multi-core test lands at 2660 versus 849, a -68.1% delta. These are not close contests; the Ultra 5 roughly triples the Core 3's multi-threaded output in every Cinebench version.

Single-core results are far tighter. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 5 225F scores 1893 against 1765, a -6.8% delta. Cinebench R15 single-core records 287 versus 264, a -8% delta. The gap widens in PassMark single-thread, where the Ultra 5 hits 4397 and the Core 3 manages 3614, a -17.8% delta. The Core 3 is not far behind in per-core Cinebench performance, but the Ultra 5 still leads in every recorded single-thread metric.

Productivity workloads follow the multi-core trend. PassMark integer math shows 66417 versus 24640, a -62.9% delta. Floating point math records 92554 versus 29722, a -67.9% delta. Data compression scores 310843 against 114775, a -63.1% delta. Extended instructions reach 28027 versus 9686, a -65.4% delta. Random string sorting lands at 37325 versus 13659, a -63.4% delta. The Ultra 5's advantage in each of these is consistently around 60-65%.

Memory-sensitive and physics tasks reinforce the outcome. PassMark physics scores 2430 for the Ultra 5 and 868 for the Core 3, a -64.3% delta. PassMark multithread totals 31004 versus 11625, a -62.5% delta. Data encryption records 22648 versus 8501, a -62.5% delta.

The only area where the Core 3 304 narrows the margin is single-core Cinebench, but even there it loses. The 17-0 sweep is comprehensive. No test in the database shows the Core 3 ahead, not even by a small amount.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split in intended use. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F is the stronger processor in every benchmark category recorded. Its 85th percentile ranking among all CPUs, versus the Core 3 304's 68th percentile, places it in a different performance class. The average benchmark score of 37313 for the Ultra 5 dwarfs the 13745 average of the Core 3.

The Core 3 304 has one notable advantage: power draw. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the Ultra 5's 65 W TDP. The Core 3 also targets the mobile segment with an Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the Ultra 5 is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1851. The Core 3 304 integrates Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe), whereas the Ultra 5 225F has no integrated graphics at all.

For a compact, low-power mobile system where battery life and thermals dominate, the Core 3 304 makes sense. Its single-core Cinebench scores are within 7-8% of the Ultra 5, so light tasks will not feel dramatically slower. But for desktop workloads where performance matters, the Ultra 5 225F is the only rational pick. Its multi-core scores are 62-68% higher across the board, and its single-thread PassMark score is 17.8% better.

The nearest rivals in the database confirm the gap. The Core 3 304 sits within 1.4% of the AMD EPYC 7443 and 1.1% of the Intel Core 5 120UL in average score. The Ultra 5 225F sits within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen 7 160 and Intel Core i7-13700, and within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 7 7735H. These are very different leagues. The Ultra 5 competes with upper-midrange desktop parts, while the Core 3 competes with older mobile and low-power server chips.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F wins in every benchmark category: multi-core rendering, single-core rendering, integer math, floating point math, data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, physics, multithread, random string sorting, and single-thread PassMark. It is the clear choice for any CPU-bound desktop workload.

The Intel Core 3 304 wins only on power efficiency and portability. Its 15 W TDP allows for fanless or low-noise designs in thin laptops. It has integrated graphics, which the Ultra 5 lacks, so a Core 3 system does not require a discrete GPU for basic display output. The Core 3's single-channel memory bus (59.7 GB/s) limits memory throughput, but for light office tasks, web browsing, and media playback, the performance is adequate.

The Ultra 5 225F's dual-channel memory bus (102.4 GB/s) nearly doubles memory bandwidth. That helps in memory-heavy workloads like data compression and physics simulations. Its PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes also exceeds the Core 3's PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes, enabling faster NVMe storage and more expansion options.

In short, the Core 3 304 wins on system integration and power budget. The Ultra 5 225F wins on raw compute and platform capability. There is no benchmark where the Core 3 beats the Ultra 5.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has better multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F is far ahead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 16467 versus 5263, a -68% delta. Similar gaps appear in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests.

Q: How close is single-core performance?

A: The Ultra 5 225F still leads, but by a smaller margin. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 1893 versus 1765, a -6.8% delta. PassMark single-thread shows 4397 versus 3614, a -17.8% delta.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core 3 304 has integrated graphics, specifically Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe). The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F has no integrated graphics.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Core 3 304 has a 15 W TDP. The Ultra 5 225F has a 65 W TDP. The Core 3 is designed for mobile use with a BGA 1516 socket, while the Ultra 5 is a desktop part on Socket 1851.

Q: Which CPU supports faster memory?

A: The Ultra 5 225F supports dual-channel DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Core 3 304 supports single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

Q: How do their overall average scores compare?

A: The Ultra 5 225F has an average benchmark score of 37313 and sits in the 85th percentile. The Core 3 304 has an average of 13745 and sits in the 68th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, part of the Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) generation. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F uses the Arrow Lake-S codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, specifically the Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) generation. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs: the Core 3 uses Intel's own foundry, while the Ultra 5 uses TSMC.

The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The Ultra 5 225F has 10 cores and 10 threads, also without hyperthreading. The Ultra 5 doubles the core count, which explains its large multi-threaded lead.

Cache structures differ significantly. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 5 225F has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 5's larger L3 and per-core L2 allocations support higher sustained throughput.

The Core 3 304 integrates Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Ultra 5 225F has no integrated graphics, which is typical for an F-series desktop part. The Core 3 targets mobile with a BGA 1516 socket; the Ultra 5 targets desktop with Socket 1851.

The Ultra 5 225F uses a dual-channel memory bus with DDR5 support and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 3 304 uses a single-channel bus with DDR5 and LPDDR5X support and 59.7 GB/s. The Ultra 5 also provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, versus the Core 3's PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes.

Transistor count and die size are only recorded for the Ultra 5: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. No such data exists for the Core 3 in the database.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification field.

• Cores and threads: Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads; Ultra 5 225F has 10 cores and 10 threads.
• Base clock: Core 3 304 runs at 1.50 GHz; Ultra 5 225F runs at 3.30 GHz.
• Boost clock: Core 3 304 boosts to 4.30 GHz; Ultra 5 225F boosts to 4.90 GHz.
• TDP: Core 3 304 is rated at 15 W; Ultra 5 225F is rated at 65 W.
• Socket: Core 3 304 uses Intel BGA 1516; Ultra 5 225F uses Intel Socket 1851.
• Codename: Core 3 304 is Wildcat Lake; Ultra 5 225F is Arrow Lake-S.
• Foundry: Core 3 304 uses Intel; Ultra 5 225F uses TSMC.
• L2 cache: Core 3 304 has 2.5 MB total; Ultra 5 225F has 3 MB per core.
• L3 cache: Core 3 304 has 6 MB shared; Ultra 5 225F has 20 MB shared.
• Memory support: Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X; Ultra 5 225F supports only DDR5.
• Memory bus: Core 3 304 is single-channel; Ultra 5 225F is dual-channel.
• Memory bandwidth: Core 3 304 reaches 59.7 GB/s; Ultra 5 225F reaches 102.4 GB/s.
• PCIe: Core 3 304 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes; Ultra 5 225F provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes.
• Integrated graphics: Core 3 304 has Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe); Ultra 5 225F has none.
• Market segment: Core 3 304 is mobile; Ultra 5 225F is desktop.
• Release date: Core 3 304 launched on 2026-04-15; Ultra 5 225F launched on 2025-01-06.
• Launch MSRP: Core 3 304 was $309; Ultra 5 225F was $231.
• Part number: Core 3 304 is SAE3K; Ultra 5 225F is SRQD2SRVF9.

Both are active production parts, neither has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory. The Core 3 304's launch MSRP is higher than the Ultra 5 225F's, a notable inversion given the latter's far higher benchmark scores. The Ultra 5 225F's earlier release date and lower MSRP make it the more established and better-priced desktop option in the recorded data.