Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus records an average benchmark score of 66855, while the Intel Core 3 304 scores 13745. The Ultra 5 sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Core 3 lands at the 68th percentile.

Q: Which chip wins the single-threaded performance comparison?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins every single-thread test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2261 versus 1765 for the Core 3 304, a 21.9% advantage. PassMark single-thread shows 4757 against 3614, a 24% lead.

Q: What is the most lopsided benchmark result between the two?

A: The largest gap appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 486 versus 68 for the Core 3 304, an 86% difference. This is followed closely by Cinebench R23 multi-core at 82.9% and R15 multi-core at 81.7%.

Q: Are both processors built on the same manufacturing node?

A: Yes, both use a 3 nm process node. However, the Core 3 304 is fabricated by Intel, while the Ultra 5 250K Plus is fabricated by TSMC. The Ultra 5 also carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 3 has no listed transistor or die size data.

Q: Do the two chips support the same memory configurations?

A: No. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 5 250K Plus supports only DDR5 but uses a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 5 also supports ECC memory, which the Core 3 does not.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes and newer generation support?

A: The Ultra 5 250K Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the Core 3 304 provides Gen 4 with only 6 CPU lanes. This gives the desktop part substantially more headroom for expansion devices.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design lineages within Intel's 2026 lineup. The Core 3 304 is a Wildcat Lake part, a mobile-focused chip using Intel's own 3 nm process. It packs 5 cores and 5 threads, with no hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus belongs to the Arrow Lake Refresh family, part of Core Ultra Series 2, and uses a TSMC 3 nm process. It carries 18 cores and 18 threads, also without hyper-threading, but with far more physical resources.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 250K Plus allocates 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The per-core L2 allocation on the Ultra 5 is particularly notable, as it provides each core with significantly more private cache than the Core 3's entire L2 pool.

Clock speeds reflect the different power envelopes. The Core 3 304 runs at a 1.50 GHz base clock and boosts to 4.30 GHz, while the Ultra 5 250K Plus starts at 4.20 GHz and boosts to 5.30 GHz. The desktop part's base clock alone exceeds the mobile chip's boost clock by 0.1 GHz. TDP also diverges sharply: 15 watts for the Core 3 304 versus 125 watts for the Ultra 5 250K Plus.

Memory architecture further separates the two. The Core 3 304 uses a single-channel memory bus with DDR5 and LPDDR5X support, delivering 59.7 GB/s. The Ultra 5 250K Plus uses dual-channel DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s, nearly double the bandwidth. The desktop chip also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the mobile part.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 304 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the Ultra 5 250K Plus features Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The socket and platform targets are completely different: the Core 3 304 uses Intel BGA 1516, a soldered mobile socket, while the Ultra 5 250K Plus uses Intel Socket 1851 for desktop builds. The Ultra 5 also has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Core 3 does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a complete sweep: the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins all 17 recorded comparisons, with zero wins for the Core 3 304. The magnitude of the margin varies by workload type, revealing where each architecture's strengths and weaknesses lie.

Multi-threaded rendering workloads show the largest gaps. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 5 scores 30867 against 5263 for the Core 3, a delta of 82.9%. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 4640 versus 849, an 81.7% difference. Cinebench R20 multi-core delivers 18442 versus 4160, a 77.4% gap. These results track closely with the core count difference of 18 versus 5, though the Ultra 5's higher clocks also contribute.

Single-threaded performance tells a different story. The Ultra 5 still wins, but by far smaller margins. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 328 versus 264, a 19.5% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2261 versus 1765, a 21.9% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2603 versus 587, a 77.4% delta, though this particular result is anomalous compared to the other single-thread tests. PassMark single-thread shows 4757 versus 3614, a 24% advantage. These narrower margins indicate that the Core 3 304's single-core efficiency is respectable, but the Ultra 5's higher boost clock and newer core design still prevail.

PassMark's math and encryption workloads show consistent 75% to 86% advantages for the Ultra 5. Floating point math scores 162692 versus 29722, an 81.7% gap. Integer math scores 125091 versus 24640, an 80.3% gap. Data encryption scores 42144 versus 8501, a 79.8% gap. Data compression scores 568721 versus 114775, also a 79.8% gap. Extended instructions show 44565 versus 9686, a 78.3% difference. The find prime numbers test is the most extreme at 486 versus 68, an 86% gap.

The physics and sorting workloads follow the same pattern. PassMark physics scores 3494 versus 868, a 75.2% gap. Random string sorting scores 69090 versus 13659, an 80.2% gap. PassMark multithread scores 51596 versus 11625, a 77.5% gap.

The data indicates that the Ultra 5 250K Plus delivers roughly four to seven times the multi-threaded throughput of the Core 3 304 across most workloads. The single-thread advantage is more modest, ranging from roughly 20% to 24% in most tests, which suggests that the Core 3 304's Wildcat Lake cores are competitive on an individual basis but cannot match the Ultra 5's clock headroom.

The Verdict

The recorded data makes the performance hierarchy unambiguous. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus outperforms the Core 3 304 in every single benchmark category, with multi-threaded advantages ranging from 75.2% to 86% and single-threaded advantages from 19.5% to 24%. The average benchmark score of 66855 versus 13745 places the Ultra 5 at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 sits at the 68th percentile.

The Core 3 304 is a mobile processor with a 15 watt TDP, soldered to a BGA 1516 socket, and aimed at thin-and-light systems where power efficiency is paramount. Its 5 cores and single-channel memory limit its throughput, but its 68th percentile standing shows it is not a weak performer for its class. The 3 nm Intel process, LPDDR5X support, and compact 6 MB L3 cache indicate a design focused on everyday mobile tasks rather than heavy compute.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is a desktop processor with a 125 watt TDP, an unlocked multiplier, and a Socket 1851 platform. Its 18 cores, 30 MB shared L3, dual-channel DDR5 with ECC support, and Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes position it as a high-throughput part for desktop workloads. The 93rd percentile ranking places it among the top tier of CPUs in the database, rivaling workstation and server parts like the AMD EPYC 4465P and Intel Xeon 6515P, each within 0.2% of its average score.

For a mobile system where battery life and thermals matter, the Core 3 304 makes sense. For a desktop system where compute density and expansion capability matter, the Ultra 5 250K Plus is the clear choice. The data does not support any scenario where the Core 3 304 outperforms the Ultra 5 250K Plus, but the two parts serve different markets entirely. The socket alone (BGA 1516 versus Socket 1851) prevents any direct substitution, and the 15 watt versus 125 watt TDP gap reinforces the intended use cases.

The Core 3 304's closest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX at 13786 (0.3% higher), the Intel Core i7-8750H at 13868 (0.9% higher), and the Intel Core 5 120UL at 13594 (1.1% lower). These are all far below the Ultra 5 250K Plus in absolute performance. The Ultra 5's nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 4465P at 66925 (0.1% lower), the Intel Xeon 6515P at 67006 (0.2% lower), and the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX at 67469 (0.9% lower). The Ultra 5 sits in a much higher performance stratum.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 304 | Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus |

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

| Cores | 5 | 18 |

| Threads | 5 | 18 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 125 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake Refresh |

| Generation | Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 3 nm |

| 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) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes | Gen 5, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2026-03-10 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | $199 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | SAE3K | SA4UZ |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 13745 | 66855 |

| Percentile | 68 | 93 |