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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Core 3 304 does not win a single test, while the Ultra 5 250KF Plus takes every category with deltas ranging from -23.1% to -87.7%.

The largest margin appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 42718 against the Core 3 304's 5263, a delta of -87.7%. That is the widest gap in the entire comparison. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a similar pattern, with the Ultra 5 250KF Plus at 4305 versus 849, a -80.3% delta. The R20 multi-core test narrows slightly to -76.8%, with scores of 17941 and 4160 respectively.

Single-core results are closer but still decisively favor the Ultra 5 250KF Plus. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 6030 versus 1765, a -70.7% delta. The R15 single-core test shows 607 against 264, a -56.5% delta. The R20 single-core test matches the multi-core delta at -76.8%, with 2532 versus 587.

The PassMark suite reinforces the same hierarchy. Data compression shows the Ultra 5 250KF Plus at 553155 versus 114775, a -79.3% delta. Data encryption delivers 41292 against 8501, a -79.4% delta. Extended instructions score 42880 versus 9686, a -77.4% delta. Prime number finding shows the largest relative deficit after R23 multi-core, with 452 versus 68, a -85% delta. Floating point math reaches 159824 against 29722, a -81.4% delta. Integer math lands at 123030 versus 24640, a -80% delta. Multi-threaded PassMark scores 50146 against 11625, a -76.8% delta. Physics results show 3183 versus 868, a -72.7% delta. Random string sorting produces 67209 versus 13659, a -79.7% delta.

The narrowest margin in the entire set is PassMark single-thread, where the Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 4698 versus 3614, a -23.1% delta. That still represents a meaningful lead, but it is the only test where the Core 3 304 stays within roughly a quarter of the rival's performance. Both PassMark single-thread and singlethread entries report identical scores, confirming the consistency of the measurement.

Average benchmark scores place the Ultra 5 250KF Plus at 66159, while the Core 3 304 sits at 13745. That difference translates into a percentile ranking of 93 for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus versus 68 for the Core 3 304 across all CPUs in the database. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus include the Intel Core 9 273PQE at 66099 (0.1% delta), the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at 65914 (0.4% delta), and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at 66855 (-1% delta). The Core 3 304's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX at 13786 (-0.3% delta), the Intel Core i7-8750H at 13868 (-0.9% delta), and the Intel Core 5 120UL at 13594 (1.1% delta).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different segments and use different silicon. The Core 3 304 is a mobile part with the codename Wildcat Lake, built on a 3 nm process at Intel's foundry. It uses an Intel BGA 1516 socket and carries 5 cores with 5 threads. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, codenamed Arrow Lake Refresh, also on a 3 nm process but fabricated by TSMC. It uses an Intel Socket 1851 and packs 18 cores with 18 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts equal core counts for both.

Clock speeds favor the desktop chip heavily. The Core 3 304 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus starts at 4.20 GHz base and reaches 5.30 GHz boost. That higher base clock alone explains part of the single-core advantage. The thermal design power differs by an order of magnitude: 15 watts for the Core 3 304 versus 125 watts for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus. This reflects the mobile versus desktop positioning.

Cache hierarchies diverge substantially. The Core 3 304 carries 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus lists L1 as 192 KB per core, L2 as 3 MB per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. With 18 cores, the per-core L2 allocation scales to a much larger total. The transistor count for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus is 17,800 million, with a die size of 243 mm². The Core 3 304 has no transistor or die size figures recorded.

Memory support also separates the two. The Core 3 304 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports DDR5 only, with a dual-channel bus and 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is available on the Ultra 5 250KF Plus but not on the Core 3 304. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core 3 304 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU, while the Ultra 5 250KF Plus delivers Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

Integrated graphics appear only on the Core 3 304, which includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics, marked as N/A. The multiplier is unlocked on the Ultra 5 250KF Plus, allowing overclocking, while the Core 3 304 remains locked. Market segments confirm the split: mobile for the Core 3 304, desktop for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus.

Release dates place the Core 3 304 at 2026-04-15 and the Ultra 5 250KF Plus at 2026-03-10, roughly a month apart. Both are listed as Active in production status. The launch MSRP for the Core 3 304 is $309, and for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus it is $184.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on benchmark wins, the Core 3 304 has zero victories. Every recorded test, from Cinebench R15 through PassMark single-thread, goes to the Ultra 5 250KF Plus. That means the mobile chip does not hold a single performance advantage in the measured data.

The use-case split therefore comes down to characteristics outside the benchmark scores. The Core 3 304 is the only one of the two with integrated graphics, making it suitable for systems that do not use a discrete GPU. Its 15-watt TDP and mobile socket point toward low-power, compact designs. The presence of LPDDR5X support adds flexibility for memory configurations in portable devices. The single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth cap its memory throughput, but that aligns with its intended market segment.

The Ultra 5 250KF Plus dominates every compute-heavy workload. Cinebench R23 multi-core at 42718 versus 5263 indicates a massive lead in rendering tasks. PassMark integer math at 123030 versus 24640 and floating point math at 159824 versus 29722 show similar advantages in general computation. Data compression at 553155 versus 114775 and encryption at 41292 versus 8501 point to strong performance in file handling and security workloads. Prime number finding at 452 versus 68 is the second-largest relative gap, suggesting heavy advantage in algorithmic integer loops.

Single-thread performance, the closest category, still favors the Ultra 5 250KF Plus at 4698 versus 3614. That 23.1% delta is the smallest in the dataset but still represents a clear lead. The higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz versus 4.30 GHz helps explain that result. The dual-channel memory bus and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth give the desktop part a substantial memory advantage, which feeds into many of the PassMark tests.

The Ultra 5 250KF Plus also offers ECC memory support and 20 Gen 5 PCIe lanes, making it more suited for workstation or server-like configurations. The unlocked multiplier adds overclocking headroom. The 125-watt TDP indicates it requires robust cooling, but that is typical for a desktop part with 18 cores.

The Verdict

The data presents an unambiguous outcome. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus outperforms the Intel Core 3 304 in every single recorded benchmark. The average score of 66159 places the Ultra 5 250KF Plus in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 304's 13745 average places it in the 68th percentile. The nearest rivals confirm the tier difference: the Ultra 5 250KF Plus trades blows with the Intel Core 9 273PQE and AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, while the Core 3 304 sits near the Intel Core i7-8750H and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX.

For compute-heavy desktop workloads, the Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the clear pick. Its 18 cores, 5.30 GHz boost clock, and 30 MB of shared L3 deliver results that range from 23.1% to 87.7% ahead of the Core 3 304 across all tests. The dual-channel memory bus, Gen 5 PCIe, and ECC support further extend its capability envelope.

For mobile or low-power systems, the Core 3 304 retains relevance despite losing every benchmark. Its integrated graphics, 15-watt TDP, and LPDDR5X support make it functional for portable designs where the Ultra 5 250KF Plus cannot operate due to socket and power constraints. The single-channel memory bus and 6 MB of L3 are modest, but they match the chip's intended role.

The launch MSRP values are $309 for the Core 3 304 and $184 for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus. Users who need raw performance should select the Ultra 5 250KF Plus without qualification. Users who need an integrated-GPU mobile chip with low power draw should consider the Core 3 304, but the benchmark data shows no scenario where it matches the Ultra 5 250KF Plus in speed.

FAQ

Q: Which processor scores higher in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 42718, while the Intel Core 3 304 scores 5263, a delta of -87.7% for the Core 3 304.

Q: What is the closest benchmark result between the two?

A: PassMark single-thread shows the smallest gap, with the Ultra 5 250KF Plus at 4698 and the Core 3 304 at 3614, a delta of -23.1%.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports ECC memory, while the Core 3 304 does not.

Q: How many cores does each processor have?

A: The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: The Core 3 304 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Core 3 304 has 59.7 GB/s with single-channel memory. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 115.2 GB/s with dual-channel memory.