Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between these two processors is heavily lopsided. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 3 304 wins a single test. That lone victory comes in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Core 3 304 scores 264 against 210 for the Ultra 5 235, a 25.7% advantage. This result is curious because the Ultra 5 235 wins every other single-threaded test, including Cinebench R20 single-core (875 vs 587), Cinebench R23 single-core (2085 vs 1765), and PassMark single-thread (4516 vs 3614). The R15 result appears to be an outlier in the dataset, as it contradicts the pattern established across all other single-thread measurements.

Outside of that anomaly, the Ultra 5 235 dominates every workload category. The largest gaps appear in multi-threaded and compute-heavy tasks. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 5 235 scores 14769 against 5263 for the Core 3 304, a 64.4% deficit for the smaller chip. PassMark floating-point math shows a similar story: 117951 versus 29722, a 74.8% gap. Data compression workloads favor the Ultra 5 235 by 70.6% (390711 vs 114775). Integer math delivers 87948 versus 24640, a 72% difference. The pattern is consistent across all PassMark sub-tests, with the Ultra 5 235 leading by margins between 20% and 81.7%.

The Core 3 304 does hold a percentile ranking of 68 versus all CPUs, while the Ultra 5 235 sits at 89. The average benchmark score for the Core 3 304 is 13745, placing it between the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (13786, 0.3% ahead) and the Intel Core 5 120UL (13594, 1.1% behind). The Ultra 5 235 averages 46062, nearly matching the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (46030, 0.1% behind) and the Intel Core i9-13900HX (46098, 0.1% ahead). These rival comparisons show that the Ultra 5 235 competes with high-end mobile and workstation parts, while the Core 3 304 sits closer to mid-range notebook processors.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different Intel families with fundamentally different designs. The Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation. The Ultra 5 235 uses the Arrow Lake-S codename and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. Both are fabricated on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. Intel produces the Core 3 304, while TSMC manufactures the Ultra 5 235.

Core counts diverge sharply. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, with no hyper-threading. The Ultra 5 235 has 14 cores and 14 threads, also without hyper-threading. The Core 3 304 runs at a 1.50 GHz base clock and boosts to 4.30 GHz. The Ultra 5 235 starts at 3.40 GHz and boosts to 5.00 GHz. Thermal design power differs substantially: the Core 3 304 is rated at 15 watts, while the Ultra 5 235 draws 65 watts.

Cache hierarchies follow different philosophies. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 235 lists 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The per-core L2 allocation on the Ultra 5 235 means its total L2 scales with core count, giving it far more cache headroom for multi-threaded workloads. Memory support also differs: the Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ultra 5 235 supports DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

PCIe connectivity separates the platforms. The Core 3 304 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Ultra 5 235 provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe unit, while the Ultra 5 235 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 execution units. Neither chip supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The market segments and sockets reflect their intended platforms. The Core 3 304 targets mobile with an Intel BGA 1516 socket. The Ultra 5 235 targets desktop with Intel Socket 1851. The Ultra 5 235 has a recorded transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the Core 3 304 does not list transistor or die size data. The Ultra 5 235 released on 2025-01-06, while the Core 3 304 released on 2026-04-15.

FAQ

Q: Why does the Core 3 304 win Cinebench R15 single-core despite losing every other single-thread test?

A: The recorded data shows the Core 3 304 scoring 264 in Cinebench R15 single-core versus 210 for the Ultra 5 235, a 25.7% advantage. This result conflicts with all other single-thread measurements, where the Ultra 5 235 leads by margins between 15.3% (Cinebench R23) and 20% (PassMark single-thread). The R15 result appears inconsistent with the broader dataset.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Ultra 5 235 has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multi-threading, so thread counts equal core counts for both.

Q: How do the memory systems differ?

A: The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X on a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 5 235 supports DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The dual-channel configuration on the Ultra 5 235 provides 71.5% more bandwidth than the Core 3 304.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each processor?

A: The Core 3 304 is rated at 15 watts. The Ultra 5 235 is rated at 65 watts. The Ultra 5 235 uses over four times the thermal envelope of the Core 3 304.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Ultra 5 235 boosts to 5.00 GHz. The Core 3 304 boosts to 4.30 GHz. The Ultra 5 235 also has a higher base clock at 3.40 GHz versus 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 304.

Q: How do the integrated graphics compare?

A: The Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe unit. The Ultra 5 235 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 execution units. The Ultra 5 235 has substantially more graphics execution resources.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core 3 304 | Intel Core Ultra 5 235 |

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

| Cores | 5 | 14 |

| Threads | 5 | 14 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 243 mm² |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 24 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 24EU |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

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

| Launch MSRP | $309 | $257 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The dataset contains 17 head-to-head comparisons, with the Ultra 5 235 winning 16 and the Core 3 304 winning 1. The most decisive Ultra 5 235 victories come in compute-heavy PassMark workloads. The largest gap appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 5 235 scores 371 against 68 for the Core 3 304, an 81.7% deficit for the smaller chip. Floating-point math follows at 117951 versus 29722, a 74.8% gap. Integer math shows 87948 versus 24640, a 72% difference. Random string sorting delivers 48980 versus 13659, a 72.1% gap. Data encryption shows 29293 versus 8501, a 71% difference. Extended instructions score 32752 versus 9686, a 70.4% gap. Data compression delivers 390711 versus 114775, a 70.6% difference. PassMark multi-thread scores 37816 versus 11625, a 69.3% gap. Physics tests show 2570 versus 868, a 66.2% difference.

Cinebench multi-core results continue the trend. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the largest Cinebench gap: 14769 versus 5263, a 64.4% deficit for the Core 3 304. Cinebench R20 multi-core follows with 6202 versus 4160, a 32.9% gap. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 1488 versus 849, a 42.9% difference.

Single-thread tests tell a more nuanced story. The Ultra 5 235 leads PassMark single-thread with 4516 versus 3614, a 20% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2085 versus 1765, a 15.3% gap. Cinebench R20 single-core delivers 875 versus 587, a 32.9% difference. The sole exception is Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Core 3 304 scores 264 versus 210, a 25.7% win.

The average benchmark scores contextualize the overall performance difference. The Core 3 304 averages 13745, while the Ultra 5 235 averages 46062. That places the Ultra 5 235 roughly 3.35 times higher in average score. The nearest rival data confirms the positioning: the Core 3 304 sits within 1.4% of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX, Intel Core i7-8750H, Intel Core 5 120UL, and AMD EPYC 7443, while the Ultra 5 235 sits within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375, Intel Core i9-13900HX, AMD EPYC 4364P, and AMD EPYC 7303.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 delivers substantially higher scores across nearly every measured workload. Its 14-core configuration, 5.00 GHz boost clock, dual-channel memory, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache combine to produce results that place it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 304, with 5 cores, a 4.30 GHz boost, single-channel memory, and 6 MB of L3, sits in the 68th percentile and competes with a different performance class entirely.

The Ultra 5 235 makes its strongest case in multi-threaded and compute-heavy workloads. Its 64.4% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 70% or greater leads across PassMark compression, encryption, extended instructions, floating-point, integer math, and random string sorting indicate that any workload using multiple cores will strongly favor this chip. The 14-core count versus 5 cores explains most of this gap, as does the larger cache allocation and higher memory bandwidth.

The Core 3 304 has one recorded advantage: the Cinebench R15 single-core result. But this win stands alone against four other single-thread tests where the Ultra 5 235 leads. The consistency of the Ultra 5 235 across PassMark single-thread, Cinebench R20 single-core, and Cinebench R23 single-core suggests the R15 result does not represent a repeatable advantage. The Core 3 304 also offers a much lower 15 watt TDP, making it suitable for power-constrained mobile designs, while the 65 watt Ultra 5 235 targets desktop systems.

The benchmark database indicates that the Ultra 5 235 is the higher-performing processor for essentially all measured tasks. Its rival comparisons place it alongside processors like the Intel Core i9-13900HX and AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375, while the Core 3 304 aligns with mid-range notebook parts like the Intel Core i7-8750H and Intel Core 5 120UL. For workloads that benefit from multiple cores, high cache capacity, or fast memory bandwidth, the Ultra 5 235 is the clear choice. The Core 3 304 offers a lower-power mobile option with a single anomalous benchmark win, but the recorded data does not support a performance advantage in any sustained workload category.