Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a completely one-sided comparison. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with no benchmark favoring the Intel Core 3 304. The margins are substantial across every category, though the scale of the deficit varies considerably between single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads.

The largest gap appears in Cinebench R23 multicore testing. The Core Ultra 5 235HX scores 34,731 points against 5,263 for the Core 3 304, a deficit of 84.8 percent. This is the widest delta recorded in the entire comparison. The pattern holds in earlier Cinebench versions as well: R20 multicore shows 14,587 versus 4,160, a 71.5 percent gap, while R15 multicore delivers 3,500 versus 849, a 75.7 percent margin. These results indicate that the Core Ultra 5 235HX delivers roughly four to six times the multi-threaded throughput depending on the test generation.

Single-core performance tells a similar but less extreme story. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 5 235HX posts 4,903 versus 1,765, a 64 percent advantage. The R20 single-core test shows 2,059 versus 587, a 71.5 percent margin. R15 single-core narrows slightly to 494 versus 264, a 46.6 percent gap. The PassMark single-thread test records the smallest delta of the entire set: 4,683 versus 3,614, a 22.8 percent difference. This suggests that while the Core Ultra 5 235HX clearly leads in lightly threaded workloads, the advantage is less overwhelming than in heavily threaded scenarios.

PassMark subsystem tests reinforce the multi-threaded dominance. Data compression scores 426,417 for the Core Ultra 5 235HX versus 114,775 for the Core 3 304, a 73.1 percent gap. Integer math shows 97,177 versus 24,640, a 74.6 percent margin. Floating point math records 129,819 versus 29,722, a 77.1 percent deficit. Prime number finding shows 361 versus 68, an 81.2 percent gap, nearly matching the Cinebench R23 multicore margin. Extended instructions land at 34,808 versus 9,686, a 72.2 percent difference. Data encryption delivers 32,697 versus 8,501, a 74 percent gap. Random string sorting reaches 50,929 versus 13,659, a 73.2 percent margin. The PassMark multithread aggregate shows 40,849 versus 11,625, a 71.5 percent gap, while physics tests record 2,550 versus 868, a 66 percent difference.

The average benchmark score tells the overall story. The Core Ultra 5 235HX averages 52,073 points, placing it at the 91st percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 3 304 averages 13,745 points, sitting at the 68th percentile. The nearest rivals for each processor contextualize these figures. The Core 3 304 trades nearly evenly with the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (0.3 percent behind), the Intel Core i7-8750H (0.9 percent behind), and the Intel Core 5 120UL (1.1 percent ahead). The Core Ultra 5 235HX similarly matches the AMD EPYC 8124P (0.1 percent behind), the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X (0.2 percent ahead), and the Intel Core i7-14700 (0.4 percent behind). Both processors sit in competitive performance neighborhoods relative to their respective tiers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX records an average benchmark score of 52,073, while the Intel Core 3 304 averages 13,745. The Core Ultra 5 235HX also sits at the 91st percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 68th percentile for the Core 3 304.

Q: What is the smallest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The PassMark single-thread test shows the smallest delta at 22.8 percent, with the Core Ultra 5 235HX scoring 4,683 versus 3,614 for the Core 3 304.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: Cinebench R23 multicore shows the largest delta at 84.8 percent. The Core Ultra 5 235HX scores 34,731, while the Core 3 304 scores 5,263. PassMark find prime numbers is close behind at 81.2 percent.

Q: Does the Core 3 304 win any benchmark?

A: No. The recorded data shows the Core Ultra 5 235HX winning all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with zero wins recorded for the Core 3 304.

Q: How do the processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Core 3 304 sits within 1.4 percent of its nearest rivals, ranging from 1.1 percent ahead of the Intel Core 5 120UL to 1.4 percent behind the AMD EPYC 7443. The Core Ultra 5 235HX ranges from 0.7 percent ahead of the Intel Core i9-13900F to 0.4 percent behind the Intel Core i7-14700.

Q: What are the socket requirements for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX uses Intel BGA 2114. They are not socket-compatible.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 235HX wins every measured category, but the nature of the wins suggests distinct use cases. Multi-threaded productivity workloads show the most extreme differences. Cinebench R23 multicore, with an 84.8 percent gap, indicates that rendering, video encoding, and other heavily parallel tasks will see transformative performance differences. The PassMark integer math and floating point math results, with gaps of 74.6 and 77.1 percent respectively, point to scientific computing and engineering simulations favoring the Core Ultra 5 235HX by a wide margin.

Data-centric workloads follow the same pattern. Data compression shows a 73.1 percent gap, data encryption a 74 percent gap, and random string sorting a 73.2 percent gap. These results indicate that database operations, file archiving, and security-related processing will complete in a fraction of the time on the Core Ultra 5 235HX.

The Core 3 304 does not win any category, but its relative strengths appear in the narrowest gaps. The PassMark single-thread test, at 22.8 percent, is its closest performance. The Cinebench R15 single-core test, at 46.6 percent, is the next smallest margin. This suggests that lightly threaded, latency-sensitive tasks are comparatively less punishing for the Core 3 304, even though it still loses those tests. The physics test gap of 66 percent is the smallest among the multi-threaded PassMark tests, indicating that the Core 3 304 handles that workload relatively better than other parallel tasks.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ substantially. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX has 14 cores and 14 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading. Clock speeds separate the two as well: the Core 3 304 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX starts at 2.90 GHz and boosts to 5.10 GHz.

Thermal design power differs by a wide margin. The Core 3 304 is rated at 15 W, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX is rated at 55 W. The sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 3 304 and Intel BGA 2114 for the Core Ultra 5 235HX.

Memory support shows clear separation. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 235HX supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe capabilities differ by generation and lane count. The Core 3 304 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics also differ: the Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 48 execution units.

The Core Ultra 5 235HX has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 3 304 does not. The Core 3 304 carries a launch MSRP of $309, recorded at launch. The Core Ultra 5 235HX has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The Core 3 304 has a release date of 2026-04-15, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX released on 2025-01-12.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural families. The Core 3 304 is codenamed Wildcat Lake, representing a Core 3 generation design. The Core Ultra 5 235HX belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 family, with the Arrow Lake architecture and the Arrow Lake-HX codename.

Both processors are built on a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries. The Core 3 304 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX is fabricated by TSMC. The Core Ultra 5 235HX has additional physical details recorded: 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm². No transistor count or die size is recorded for the Core 3 304.

Cache hierarchies 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 Core Ultra 5 235HX has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 allocation on the Core Ultra 5 235HX scales with its 14 cores, providing a much larger total cache footprint.

The integrated graphics architectures differ as well. The Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with a single Xe core, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 48 execution units. The part numbers also differ: SAE3K for the Core 3 304 and SRVFL for the Core Ultra 5 235HX.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear division of roles. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX is the dominant processor for any workload that can use multiple cores. Its 84.8 percent advantage in Cinebench R23 multicore, 77.1 percent lead in floating point math, and 74.6 percent margin in integer math place it in a different performance class entirely. The 91st percentile ranking, alongside nearest rivals like the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X and Intel Core i7-14700, confirms its position among high-end desktop-class performers despite its mobile form factor.

The Intel Core 3 304 serves a different purpose. Its 15 W thermal design power, single-channel memory bus, and 5-core configuration indicate a low-power mobile design. The 68th percentile ranking places it in the mid-range of the database, trading nearly evenly with older high-end mobile parts like the Intel Core i7-8750H. Its closest performance margins come in single-threaded tests, where the 22.8 percent gap in PassMark single-thread represents its most competitive showing.

The Core Ultra 5 235HX is the choice for demanding parallel workloads, high-bandwidth memory access, and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity, with an unlocked multiplier for additional tuning. The Core 3 304 is the choice for designs prioritizing power efficiency, with a 15 W envelope, integrated Xe3 graphics, and LPDDR5X memory support that the Core Ultra 5 235HX does not offer. The socket difference makes platform decisions mutually exclusive. The data does not record a single benchmark where the Core 3 304 outperforms the Core Ultra 5 235HX, so any selection of the Core 3 304 must be driven by platform, power, or cost considerations rather than performance expectations.