Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235A Comparison
Intel Core 3 304
Core Ultra 5 235A
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235A
FAQ
Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A records an average benchmark score of 48201, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 3 304 averages 13745, which places it in the 68th percentile.
Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?
A: The Core Ultra 5 235A scores 32633 versus 5263 for the Core 3 304, a difference of 83.9% in favor of the Ultra 5 part.
Q: What is the single-threaded performance gap between the two?
A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 5 235A scores 4607 against 1765 for the Core 3 304, a 61.7% advantage. PassMark single-thread results show 4557 versus 3614, a 20.7% edge for the Ultra 5.
Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?
A: The Core Ultra 5 235A has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads.
Q: What are the launch MSRP values for these processors?
A: The Intel Core 3 304 has a launch MSRP of $309, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A has a launch MSRP of $269.
Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?
A: No. Both the Intel Core 3 304 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A have ECC memory support marked as false in the database.
Architecture Differences
The Intel Core 3 304 is built on the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation. It uses a 3 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The chip has 5 cores and 5 threads, indicating no hyper-threading support. Base clock is 1.50 GHz with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Thermal design power is 15 watts. The processor uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket and targets the mobile market segment. Cache configuration consists of 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory support includes DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe connectivity is Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core.
The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Arrow Lake architecture, and carries the Arrow Lake-S codename. It is also built on a 3 nm process, but the foundry is TSMC. The chip has 14 cores and 14 threads. Base clock is 3.40 GHz with a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Thermal design power is 65 watts. The socket is Intel Socket 1851, and the market segment is desktop. Transistor count is 17,800 million with a die size of 243 mm². Cache organization differs: 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe connectivity is Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 execution units.
The two processors diverge significantly in core count, clock speeds, cache layout, memory channels, PCIe generation, socket type, market segment, and integrated graphics. The Core 3 304 is a low-power mobile part, while the Core Ultra 5 235A is a higher-power desktop part. The foundry difference, Intel versus TSMC, is notable despite both using 3 nm processes.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A wins all 17 recorded benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core 3 304. The largest margin appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Ultra 5 scores 32633 versus 5263, a delta of 83.9%. The smallest margin is in PassMark single-thread, where the Ultra 5 scores 4557 versus 3614, a 20.7% advantage.
In multi-core workloads, the Ultra 5 consistently dominates. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 3289 versus 849, a 74.2% difference. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 13705 versus 4160, a 69.6% difference. PassMark multithread shows 38392 versus 11625, a 69.7% difference. PassMark physics shows 2437 versus 868, a 64.4% difference.
The single-core gap is substantial but narrower. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 464 versus 264, a 43.1% difference. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1934 versus 587, a 69.6% difference. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 4607 versus 1765, a 61.7% difference. PassMark single-thread shows 4557 versus 3614, a 20.7% difference.
Specialized workloads show similar patterns. PassMark data compression favors the Ultra 5 at 393800 versus 114775, a 70.9% difference. Data encryption shows 30136 versus 8501, a 71.8% difference. Extended instructions show 31625 versus 9686, a 69.4% difference. Integer math shows 88626 versus 24640, a 72.2% difference. Floating point math shows 118778 versus 29722, a 75% difference. Random string sorting shows 49489 versus 13659, a 72.4% difference. Find prime numbers shows 392 versus 68, an 82.7% difference.
The benchmark data indicates a consistent and overwhelming performance gap across every measured workload. The smallest gap, 20.7% in PassMark single-thread, still represents a meaningful advantage for the Ultra 5.
The Verdict
The benchmark record is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A outperforms the Intel Core 3 304 in every single recorded test. The average benchmark score of 48201 for the Ultra 5 versus 13745 for the Core 3 places the former in the 90th percentile of all CPUs and the latter in the 68th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 5 include the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 with a delta of 0.1%, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX with a delta of -0.2%, and the AMD EPYC 4345P with a delta of -0.6%. The Core 3 304 sits near the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX with a delta of -0.3% and the Intel Core i7-8750H with a delta of -0.9%, indicating it competes in a much lower performance tier.
Users requiring multi-core throughput for rendering, data compression, encryption, or scientific computing should select the Core Ultra 5 235A. The 83.9% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core and the 75% advantage in floating point math demonstrate a decisive capability gap. Users prioritizing single-thread responsiveness will also favor the Ultra 5, which holds a 20.7% to 61.7% advantage depending on the benchmark. The Core 3 304, with its 15 watt TDP and mobile socket, serves a different purpose: low-power mobile deployment where the 5-core configuration and modest cache hierarchy are acceptable trade-offs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core 5 120UL with a delta of 1.1%, which suggests the Core 3 304 is positioned near other low-power mobile parts.
The data does not support any scenario where the Core 3 304 wins on raw performance. The Core Ultra 5 235A is the superior processor by every measured metric.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ on nearly every specification field recorded in the database.
Core count: the Core 3 304 has 5 cores; the Core Ultra 5 235A has 14 cores. Thread count follows the same pattern: 5 threads versus 14 threads.
Base clock: 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 304 versus 3.40 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 235A. Boost clock: 4.30 GHz versus 5.00 GHz.
Thermal design power: 15 watts for the Core 3 304 versus 65 watts for the Core Ultra 5 235A.
Socket: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 3 304 versus Intel Socket 1851 for the Core Ultra 5 235A.
Codename: Wildcat Lake for the Core 3 304 versus Arrow Lake-S for the Core Ultra 5 235A. Generation: Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) versus Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake).
Foundry: Intel for the Core 3 304 versus TSMC for the Core Ultra 5 235A.
Transistor count and die size are only recorded for the Core Ultra 5 235A: 17,800 million transistors and 243 mm².
Cache: the Core 3 304 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 235A has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3.
Memory support: DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Core 3 304 versus DDR5 for the Core Ultra 5 235A. Memory bus: single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s.
PCIe: Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the Core 3 304 versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes for the Core Ultra 5 235A.
Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core for the Core 3 304 versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 execution units for the Core Ultra 5 235A.
Market segment: Mobile for the Core 3 304 versus Desktop for the Core Ultra 5 235A.
Release date: the Core 3 304 was released 2026-04-15, while the Core Ultra 5 235A was released 2025-07-28.
Both processors have locked multipliers, no ECC memory support, and are marked as active in production status.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A wins in every benchmark category. The most pronounced advantages are in multi-core workloads. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows an 83.9% lead, and PassMark find prime numbers shows an 82.7% lead. These results reflect the 14-core configuration versus the 5-core configuration. The Ultra 5 also wins decisively in data compression with a 70.9% advantage, data encryption with a 71.8% advantage, and extended instructions with a 69.4% advantage. Integer math and floating point math show 72.2% and 75% leads respectively. Physics simulation shows a 64.4% lead. Random string sorting shows a 72.4% lead. PassMark multithread shows a 69.7% lead.
The single-core wins are smaller but still favor the Ultra 5. PassMark single-thread shows a 20.7% lead, which is the closest margin in the entire comparison. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 61.7% lead, Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 69.6% lead, and Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 43.1% lead. The higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.30 GHz contributes to these wins.
The Intel Core 3 304 has no benchmark wins recorded. Its only distinction is the lower thermal design power of 15 watts versus 65 watts for the Ultra 5, which makes it suitable for mobile platforms with tighter thermal constraints. The mobile socket, BGA 1516, and the inclusion of LPDDR5X memory support further indicate a low-power portable design. The 3 nm Intel process node matches the Ultra 5's process node, but the core count and cache hierarchy place the Core 3 304 in a fundamentally different performance class.
For workloads that demand maximum throughput, the Core Ultra 5 235A is the only viable choice based on the recorded data. For workloads that prioritize power efficiency and mobile form factors, the Core 3 304 offers a lower-power alternative, but it sacrifices performance in every measured benchmark.