Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 228V Comparison

The Verdict

The database positions these two Intel mobile processors at different performance tiers. The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V records an average benchmark score of 21440, placing it in the 75th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Core 3 304 scores 13745 on average, sitting in the 68th percentile. That is a substantial gap. The Ultra 5 wins 16 of the 17 head-to-head tests, with the Core 3 taking only a single victory.

The Core Ultra 5 228V is the clear choice for anyone whose workload leans on multi-threaded performance, heavy math, or data processing. Its wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core (9932 vs 5263) and PassMark multi-thread (18227 vs 11625) show a processor that delivers roughly double the sustained throughput in rendering and compute tasks. The Ultra 5 also leads in floating-point math by 44.2 percent (53310 vs 29722), and in integer math by 37.9 percent (39679 vs 24640). These are not marginal edges; they are commanding leads across the board.

The Intel Core 3 304 has exactly one head-to-head win, and it is narrow. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 1765 against the Ultra 5's 1758, a 0.4 percent margin. That result suggests the Core 3's single-thread peak is essentially on par with the Ultra 5, but it does not translate into broader single-core dominance. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ultra 5 wins by 1.1 percent (267 vs 264), and in PassMark single-thread, the Ultra 5 leads by 5.8 percent (3836 vs 3614). The Core 3 is not a better single-core chip; it merely edges out the Ultra 5 in one specific test.

For buyers, the data is unambiguous. The Core Ultra 5 228V is the superior processor in nearly every measurable way. The Core 3 304 makes sense only if the specific workload is extremely light and the single Cinebench R23 single-core result is the decisive factor, which is unlikely in real-world use. The Ultra 5's higher average score, higher percentile ranking, and overwhelming head-to-head record make it the default pick from this dataset.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V has an average benchmark score of 21440, compared to 13745 for the Intel Core 3 304. The Ultra 5 also sits in the 75th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 is in the 68th percentile.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 304 win any benchmark against the Ultra 5?

A: Yes, exactly one. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core 3 scores 1765 versus 1758 for the Ultra 5, a 0.4 percent margin. Every other head-to-head test in the database is won by the Ultra 5.

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

A: The Ultra 5 leads by 43.5 percent in Cinebench R15 multi-core (1502.5 vs 849), by 35.9 percent in Cinebench R20 multi-core (6491 vs 4160), and by 47 percent in Cinebench R23 multi-core (9932 vs 5263). These are substantial margins.

Q: What do the PassMark math tests show?

A: The Ultra 5 wins all of them. It leads by 44.2 percent in floating-point math (53310 vs 29722), by 37.9 percent in integer math (39679 vs 24640), and by 59.5 percent in find prime numbers (168 vs 68). The data confirms a large compute advantage for the Ultra 5.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Are both processors on the same manufacturing node?

A: Yes, both are listed on a 3 nm process node. However, the foundries differ: the Core 3 304 is made by Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 228V is made by TSMC.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a 3 nm process node but diverge in nearly every other architectural detail. The Intel Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V uses the Lunar Lake codename and is part of the Core Ultra Series 2. The Ultra 5 is explicitly labeled as a Lunar Lake architecture design; the Core 3 does not have an architecture field listed, only its codename.

Core counts differ significantly. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, while the Ultra 5 has 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither chip uses hyper-threading, so thread counts equal core counts. The Ultra 5's additional 3 cores explain a large portion of its multi-core benchmark dominance.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 3 304 lists L1 cache as 192 KB (total), L2 as 2.5 MB, and L3 as 6 MB shared. The Ultra 5 lists L1 as 192 KB per core, L2 as 2.5 MB per core, and L3 as 8 MB shared. The per-core L2 on the Ultra 5 is a notable difference, as it scales with the core count. With 8 cores, the Ultra 5's total L2 is substantially larger than the Core 3's aggregate L2.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Ultra 5 uses Arc 130V. The database does not provide benchmark scores for these iGPUs, so a performance comparison cannot be made from this data alone.

Memory support diverges. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Ultra 5 lists memory support as "unknown" and "Depends on motherboard," but it has a dual-channel memory bus. No bandwidth figure is recorded for the Ultra 5.

PCIe connectivity differs. The Core 3 304 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes. The Ultra 5 uses Gen 5 with 4 CPU-only lanes. The Ultra 5's newer PCIe generation offers higher per-lane bandwidth, though the Core 3 has more lanes available.

Release timing differs. The Ultra 5 launched on 2024-09-23, while the Core 3 launched on 2026-04-15. The Core 3 is the newer part, but the data shows it does not overcome the Ultra 5's architectural advantages.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show clear divergence in several fields. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads; the Ultra 5 has 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks differ: 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 versus 2.10 GHz for the Ultra 5. Boost clocks also differ: 4.30 GHz for the Core 3 versus 4.50 GHz for the Ultra 5.

Thermal design power is close but not identical. The Core 3 is rated at 15 W, while the Ultra 5 is rated at 17 W. The 2 W difference is minor, but the Ultra 5 delivers far more performance within that slightly higher envelope.

Sockets are different. The Core 3 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Ultra 5 uses Intel BGA 2833. These are not interchangeable platforms.

Memory bus width differs. The Core 3 is single-channel; the Ultra 5 is dual-channel. The Core 3 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s; no bandwidth value is recorded for the Ultra 5.

Cache values differ. The Core 3 lists L1 as 192 KB, L2 as 2.5 MB, and L3 as 6 MB shared. The Ultra 5 lists L1 as 192 KB per core, L2 as 2.5 MB per core, and L3 as 8 MB shared.

PCIe generation and lane count differ. The Core 3 uses Gen 4 with 6 lanes; the Ultra 5 uses Gen 5 with 4 lanes.

The launch MSRP for the Core 3 304 is $309. No launch MSRP is recorded for the Ultra 5.

The Core 3's part number is SAE3K; the Ultra 5's part number is SRPMVSRPMU.

Both processors have locked multipliers, target the mobile market segment, and are listed as active in production. Neither supports ECC memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is lopsided. The Ultra 5 wins 16 tests; the Core 3 wins 1. The largest margin comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 5 scores 168 against the Core 3's 68, a 59.5 percent lead. This is the single biggest percentage gap in the entire comparison.

Cinebench results show a consistent pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 5 scores 1502.5 versus 849, a 43.5 percent lead. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Ultra 5 scores 6491 versus 4160, a 35.9 percent lead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 5 scores 9932 versus 5263, a 47 percent lead. The single-core results are closer: R15 single-core shows a 1.1 percent Ultra 5 lead (267 vs 264), R20 single-core shows a 35.9 percent Ultra 5 lead (916 vs 587), and R23 single-core is the one Core 3 win, by 0.4 percent (1765 vs 1758).

PassMark tests follow the same direction. Data compression: Ultra 5 wins by 34 percent (173924 vs 114775). Data encryption: Ultra 5 wins by 34.8 percent (13032 vs 8501). Extended instructions: Ultra 5 wins by 34.6 percent (14801 vs 9686). Floating-point math: Ultra 5 wins by 44.2 percent (53310 vs 29722). Integer math: Ultra 5 wins by 37.9 percent (39679 vs 24640). Multi-thread: Ultra 5 wins by 36.2 percent (18227 vs 11625). Physics: Ultra 5 wins by 43.6 percent (1538 vs 868). Random string sorting: Ultra 5 wins by 35.7 percent (21254 vs 13659). Single-thread (both recorded variants): Ultra 5 wins by 5.8 percent (3836 vs 3614).

The average benchmark scores reinforce the head-to-head results. The Ultra 5's average of 21440 places it near the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 (21484, a 0.2 percent difference) and slightly above the Intel Core i9-11900H (21367, a 0.3 percent difference). The Core 3's average of 13745 sits near the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (13786, a 0.3 percent difference) and the Intel Core 5 120UL (13594, a 1.1 percent difference). The Core 3 trails the Ultra 5 by roughly 35 percent in average score, which is consistent with the individual test deltas.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V wins across every category of workload represented in the database. Multi-threaded rendering, as measured by Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, shows the Ultra 5 delivering between 35.9 and 47 percent more performance. This makes it the appropriate choice for tasks like video encoding, 3D rendering, and batch processing that scale with core count and cache.

The Ultra 5 also dominates math-heavy workloads. PassMark integer math, floating-point math, and find prime numbers all show leads of 37.9 to 59.5 percent. These results indicate a strong ALU and FPU design, likely benefiting from the 8 cores and the per-core L2 cache structure. Data compression and encryption also favor the Ultra 5 by roughly 34 to 35 percent, suggesting it handles memory-bound and cryptographic workloads more efficiently.

The Core 3 304 has a single recorded win: Cinebench R23 single-core by 0.4 percent. This is a narrow margin and does not indicate a systematic advantage. In the other two single-core Cinebench tests (R15 and R20), the Ultra 5 wins by 1.1 percent and 35.9 percent respectively. The R20 single-core result is particularly notable, as it shows a large gap that contradicts the R23 result. The PassMark single-thread test also favors the Ultra 5 by 5.8 percent.

The data suggests the Core 3 304 is not competitive in any sustained or multi-threaded workload. Its 5 cores, single-channel memory bus, and smaller L3 cache (6 MB vs 8 MB) place it at a structural disadvantage. Even its higher boost clock relative to its base clock does not translate into single-core supremacy, as the Ultra 5's 4.50 GHz boost exceeds the Core 3's 4.30 GHz boost.

For a user prioritizing raw compute, the Ultra 5 is the only rational choice from this dataset. The Core 3 304 might be acceptable for extremely light, single-threaded tasks where the R23 single-core result matters, but the broader data shows the Ultra 5 is faster even in most single-core tests. The percentile rankings (75th vs 68th) and the average score gap (21440 vs 13745) confirm that the Ultra 5 occupies a higher performance class entirely.