Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads.

Q: How do the two chips differ in memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H uses a dual-channel memory bus with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Intel Core 3 304 uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s.

Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H boosts to 4.60 GHz, compared to 4.30 GHz for the Intel Core 3 304.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache capacity?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core 3 304 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor ranks higher among all CPUs?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H sits at the 84th percentile, while the Intel Core 3 304 sits at the 68th percentile.

Q: What is the release date for each chip?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H was released on 2026-01-04, and the Intel Core 3 304 was released on 2026-04-15.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H uses the Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake-H codename. Both chips are fabricated on Intel's 3 nm process node, but the structural designs diverge sharply. The Core 3 304 is a 5-core, 5-thread part with a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, whereas the Core Ultra 5 336H is a 16-core, 16-thread part with a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The thread count equals the core count on both parts, meaning there is no simultaneous multithreading on either chip.

The cache hierarchy also differs in size and organization. The Core 3 304 lists L1 cache as 192 KB and L2 as 2.5 MB, with 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 336H lists L1 as 192 KB per core and L2 as 2.5 MB per core, with 18 MB of shared L3. The per-core notation on the Ultra 5 means its aggregate L2 and L1 capacities scale with the 16-core count, which contributes to its much larger total on-die storage. The Core 3 304's cache figures appear to describe total capacity rather than per-core capacity.

Memory support is identical in type, with both parts using DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but the bus configuration is not. The Core 3 304 is single-channel with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 5 336H is dual-channel with 115.2 GB/s, nearly double the memory throughput. The PCIe interface also differs: the Core 3 304 offers Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 336H offers Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 304 carries Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Core Ultra 5 336H carries Intel Xe3 Graphics without a specified Xe count in the recorded data. Both processors are mobile parts, both are active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 3 304 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the Core Ultra 5 336H uses Intel BGA 2540. The Core 3 304 has a launch MSRP of $309; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Core Ultra 5 336H.

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data shows the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H as the stronger processor in every single measured test. Out of 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the Core Ultra 5 336H wins all 17, with the Intel Core 3 304 recording zero wins. The average benchmark score reflects the same gap: the Core Ultra 5 336H averages 34485, while the Core 3 304 averages 13745. The percentile ranking places the Ultra 5 at the 84th percentile of all CPUs, versus the 68th percentile for the Core 3 304.

The closest comparison for the Core Ultra 5 336H in the database is the Intel Core i7-13700HX, which scores 34554, a delta of -0.2%. The Core 3 304's closest comparison is the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX, which scores 13786, a delta of -0.3%. This means the Core 3 304 performs at a similar level to a high-end desktop workstation chip, but that level is far below the Core Ultra 5 336H's territory, which matches a recent high-performance mobile HX processor.

For workloads that demand heavy multi-threaded performance, large data compression, or extensive floating-point math, the Core Ultra 5 336H is the clear choice based on the data. The Core 3 304 offers a lower-power alternative with a 15 W TDP versus 25 W, but its performance ceiling is substantially lower. There is no recorded benchmark category where the Core 3 304 takes the lead. The data supports selecting the Core Ultra 5 336H whenever maximum throughput is the priority; the Core 3 304 is only the better option when the 15 W TDP envelope and the lower platform cost are the deciding factors.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 304 | Intel Core Ultra 5 336H |

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

| Series | None | Core Ultra Series 3 |

| Cores | 5 | 16 |

| Threads | 5 | 16 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Panther Lake |

| Architecture | None | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra 5 (Panther Lake-H) |

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

| L2 cache | 2.5 MB | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 12 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Release date | 2026-04-15 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | None |

| Part number | SAE3K | SA4RD |

Both processors use Intel as the manufacturer, both are on the 3 nm process node, both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, both lack ECC support, both are mobile parts, both are active in production, and both have locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H dominates the multi-threaded Cinebench tests by large margins. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 5 scores 23991 against 5263 for the Core 3 304, a delta of -78.1%. That is the largest percentage gap in the entire benchmark set. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a similar story: 10076 versus 4160, a delta of -58.7%. Cinebench R15 multi-core records 2418 versus 849, a delta of -64.9%. These results indicate that the 16-core Ultra 5 scales far better under fully threaded rendering workloads than the 5-core Core 3 304.

Single-core performance also favors the Ultra 5, though by a smaller margin. Cinebench R23 single-core scores 3387 for the Ultra 5 against 1765 for the Core 3 304, a delta of -47.9%. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1422 versus 587, a delta of -58.7%. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 341 versus 264, a delta of -22.6%. The PassMark single-thread test shows the smallest gap of all: 4013 versus 3614, a delta of -9.9%. This suggests that while the Ultra 5 has the higher boost clock and newer architecture, the Core 3 304's single-core efficiency is not dramatically behind, but it still loses every recorded single-thread test.

In PassMark integer math, the Ultra 5 scores 62070 against 24640, a delta of -60.3%. Floating-point math shows 82415 versus 29722, a delta of -63.9%. The extended instructions test records 24542 versus 9686, a delta of -60.5%. Data compression shows 280340 versus 114775, a delta of -59.1%. Data encryption records 21291 versus 8501, a delta of -60.1%. The prime number search test shows 299 versus 68, a delta of -77.3%, which is the second-largest gap in the data set. Physics simulation in PassMark records 2682 versus 868, a delta of -67.6%. Random string sorting shows 34402 versus 13659, a delta of -60.3%. The PassMark multi-thread score records 28545 versus 11625, a delta of -59.3%.

The pattern is consistent across every workload category. The Core Ultra 5 336H leads by roughly 60% in most compute-heavy tasks, by over 77% in prime number search and Cinebench R23 multi-core, and by just under 10% in single-threaded PassMark. The Core 3 304 never closes the gap to a competitive level in any recorded test. The database shows a processor that is strictly superior in raw performance, with the only recorded advantages for the Core 3 304 being its lower TDP of 15 W versus 25 W and its earlier absence of a launch MSRP, which is not recorded for the Ultra 5.