Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 226V Comparison

The Intel Core 3 304 and Intel Core Ultra 5 226V represent two distinct tiers of Intel’s mobile processor lineup, with the data revealing a clear performance hierarchy. The Core Ultra 5 226V dominates the benchmark suite, securing 16 wins out of 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Core 3 304 manages only a single victory. The average benchmark scores reflect this gap: the Core Ultra 5 226V posts an average score of 19368, placing it in the 73rd percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Core 3 304 averages 13745, sitting in the 68th percentile. This positioning suggests the Core Ultra 5 226V operates in a higher performance class, though the Core 3 304’s narrower wins and lower power envelope indicate a different design priority.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 226V is the clear winner in nearly every computational category, with its largest advantages appearing in multi-threaded and integer-heavy workloads. The data shows a 46.6% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core, a 43.4% advantage in Cinebench R15 multi-core, and a 43.1% margin in PassMark floating point math. These results indicate the Core Ultra 5 226V is built for sustained parallel processing, making it the stronger choice for rendering, scientific simulation, and content creation tasks that scale across cores. Its 8 cores and 8 threads provide a substantial structural advantage over the Core 3 304’s 5 cores and 5 threads, which explains the consistent multi-core wins.

The Core 3 304’s sole victory comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it edges out the Core Ultra 5 226V by 1.2% (1765 versus 1744). This narrow margin suggests that the Core 3 304’s single-threaded peak performance, boosted to 4.30 GHz, is competitive with the Core Ultra 5 226V’s 4.50 GHz boost clock. However, this win is isolated; in the other single-core tests, the Core Ultra 5 226V leads by smaller margins, such as 1.1% in Cinebench R15 single-core and 3.7% in PassMark single-thread. The data implies the Core 3 304 can match lightly threaded performance in specific scenarios, but the Core Ultra 5 226V offers more consistent single-core behavior across different benchmark methodologies.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge significantly in their underlying designs, despite both being built on a 3 nm process. The Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 226V uses the Lunar Lake architecture and is fabricated by TSMC. This foundry difference is notable, as it reflects different manufacturing strategies and potentially different transistor-level optimizations. The Core Ultra 5 226V belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 family, a newer generation with a more advanced architecture, whereas the Core 3 304 sits in the Core 3 line with no series designation.

Cache hierarchies also differ substantially. The Core 3 304 has a total L1 cache of 192 KB, an L2 cache of 2.5 MB, and a shared L3 cache of 6 MB. The Core Ultra 5 226V, by contrast, offers 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and a shared L3 cache of 8 MB. With 8 cores, the Core Ultra 5 226V’s per-core L2 allocation translates to a much larger aggregate cache, which likely contributes to its superior performance in data-heavy workloads. The 2 MB difference in L3 cache further favors the Core Ultra 5 226V for multi-threaded tasks that benefit from larger shared pools.

Memory support and interface features also separate the two. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a single-channel memory bus and a measured bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 226V uses a dual-channel memory bus, though its memory bandwidth figure is not recorded in the database. The Core Ultra 5 226V also supports PCIe Gen 5 with 4 CPU-only lanes, while the Core 3 304 uses PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes. This suggests the Core Ultra 5 226V offers faster interconnect for compatible devices, despite fewer total lanes. The integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 3 304 features Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the Core Ultra 5 226V uses Arc 130V, a more capable graphics solution.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite reveals the scale of the performance gap. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 226V scores 1501 against the Core 3 304’s 849, a 43.4% lead. The R20 multi-core test shows a 34.8% advantage (6381 versus 4160), and the R23 multi-core test posts the largest margin at 46.6% (9848 versus 5263). These results confirm that the Core Ultra 5 226V scales much better with additional cores, delivering nearly double the performance in the most demanding render workload. The single-core Cinebench results are closer: the Core 3 304 wins R23 single-core by 1.2% (1765 versus 1744), but loses R15 single-core by 1.1% (264 versus 267) and R20 single-core by 34.8% (587 versus 900). The R20 single-core result is anomalous compared to the other single-core tests, suggesting a possible measurement variance or workload-specific behavior.

PassMark tests further illustrate the Core Ultra 5 226V’s dominance. In data compression, it scores 170687 versus 114775, a 32.8% lead. Data encryption shows a 33.1% advantage (12710 versus 8501), and extended instructions tests reveal a 34.2% gap (14724 versus 9686). The largest PassMark margin appears in find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 5 226V scores 166 against 68, a 59% difference, indicating a substantial advantage in integer-heavy algorithmic work. Floating point math shows a 43.1% lead (52270 versus 29722), and integer math posts a 36.2% gap (38647 versus 24640). The multithread score favors the Core Ultra 5 226V by 34.9% (17850 versus 11625), while physics tests show a 40.1% difference (1449 versus 868). Random string sorting completes the picture with a 34.4% advantage (20813 versus 13659).

The single-thread PassMark results are closer but still favor the Core Ultra 5 226V by 3.7% (3754 versus 3614). This modest margin, combined with the Core 3 304’s Cinebench R23 single-core win, suggests that the two processors have comparable per-core efficiency, but the Core Ultra 5 226V’s higher boost clock (4.50 GHz versus 4.30 GHz) gives it a slight edge in most single-threaded tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 226V outperforms the Core 3 304 in every multi-core benchmark. Its lead ranges from 34.8% in Cinebench R20 multi-core to 46.6% in Cinebench R23 multi-core, with PassMark multithread showing a 34.9% advantage.

Q: Does the Core 3 304 ever beat the Core Ultra 5 226V?

A: Yes, the Core 3 304 wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 1.2%, scoring 1765 versus 1744. This is the only benchmark where the Core 3 304 comes out ahead.

Q: How do the core and thread counts differ?

A: The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 226V has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Core Ultra 5 226V’s additional cores directly contribute to its large multi-core performance advantages.

Q: Are there differences in memory bandwidth?

A: The Core 3 304 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 226V uses a dual-channel memory bus, but its bandwidth figure is not recorded in the database.

Q: What are the boost clock differences?

A: The Core 3 304 has a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 226V boosts to 4.50 GHz. The Core 3 304’s base clock is 1.50 GHz, and the Core Ultra 5 226V’s base clock is 2.10 GHz.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 5 226V has an average benchmark score of 19368, placing it in the 73rd percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 304 averages 13745, which is in the 68th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The Core 3 304 offers 5 cores and 5 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 226V provides 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 304 and 2.10 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 226V, with boost clocks of 4.30 GHz and 4.50 GHz respectively. Thermal design power measures 15 watts for the Core 3 304 and 17 watts for the Core Ultra 5 226V. The Core 3 304 uses an Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the Core Ultra 5 226V uses Intel BGA 2833.

Cache configurations are markedly different. 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 226V offers 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support sees the Core 3 304 using DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus, while the Core Ultra 5 226V’s memory support is listed as dependent on motherboard with a dual-channel bus. PCIe capabilities differ with Gen 4 and 6 CPU lanes for the Core 3 304 versus Gen 5 and 4 CPU lanes for the Core Ultra 5 226V. Integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core on the Core 3 304, compared to Arc 130V on the Core Ultra 5 226V. The Core 3 304 carries a launch MSRP of $309, while the Core Ultra 5 226V has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The benchmark data directs distinct user segments toward each processor. The Core Ultra 5 226V is the clear choice for workloads that demand high multi-threaded throughput, such as video rendering, 3D modeling, and data processing. Its consistent 30-40% leads across multi-core and integer-heavy tests, combined with its 73rd percentile ranking, indicate a processor built for substantial parallel workloads. The 8-core configuration, dual-channel memory bus, and larger L3 cache all support this profile.

The Core 3 304, while trailing in almost every category, offers a specific advantage for lightly threaded tasks. Its Cinebench R23 single-core win, along with a 68th percentile ranking, suggests it can handle everyday productivity and single-threaded applications competently. The lower 15 watt TDP and single-channel memory design also point toward a more power-conscious implementation, though the data does not include runtime power measurements. For users whose primary applications do not scale beyond a few threads, the Core 3 304’s performance gap narrows considerably, making it a viable option for basic mobile computing despite its overall lower average score of 13745.