Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a one-sided comparison. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with the Intel Core 3 304 taking zero wins. The largest margin is in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Core Ultra 5 338H scores 304 against 68, a 77.6% lead. This is the most extreme delta in the entire dataset, indicating a massive advantage in integer-heavy, single-threaded iterative workloads.

Multi-core performance is where the Core Ultra 5 338H separates itself most decisively. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it records 16331 points versus 5263, a 67.8% advantage. Cinebench R15 multicore shows a similar gap: 2504 versus 849, a 66.1% delta. Cinebench R20 multicore follows with 10213 versus 4160, a 59.3% lead. These results are consistent with a processor that has more than double the cores and threads.

The single-core story is narrower but still favors the Core Ultra 5 338H. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the margin is 2044 versus 1765, a 13.6% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 305 versus 264, a 13.4% delta. The PassMark single-thread test records 4180 versus 3614, a 13.5% advantage. These deltas are consistent across all single-threaded tests, suggesting a clock speed and architectural efficiency advantage rather than a core count effect.

Memory-sensitive and cryptographic workloads show the Core Ultra 5 338H at a strong but slightly smaller margin. PassMark data encryption scores 21367 versus 8501, a 60.2% lead. Data compression records 276539 versus 114775, a 58.5% delta. Extended instructions show 23906 versus 9686, a 59.5% gap. Random string sorting completes at 34082 versus 13659, a 59.9% difference.

Floating point and integer math further reinforce the pattern. PassMark floating point math scores 84067 versus 29722, a 64.6% lead. Integer math records 64934 versus 24640, a 62.1% delta. The multithread PassMark test shows 28717 versus 11625, a 59.5% advantage. Physics simulation, which often scales with core count, posts 2697 versus 868, a 67.8% gap.

The average benchmark score tells the aggregate story. The Core Ultra 5 338H averages 33989, while the Core 3 304 averages 13745. This places the Core Ultra 5 338H in the 84th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 3 304 sits in the 68th percentile. The Core Ultra 5 338H's nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H, with a 0.3% score difference. The Core 3 304's closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX, only 0.3% higher in average score.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to different Intel generations and use different sockets. The Core 3 304 is part of the Wildcat Lake series, using the Intel BGA 1516 socket. The Core Ultra 5 338H is a Panther Lake part, specifically Panther Lake-H, using the Intel BGA 2540 socket. Both are built on the same 3 nm process node at Intel's foundry, but the underlying designs diverge significantly.

Core and thread counts are the most obvious architectural split. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, meaning no hyperthreading or simultaneous multi-threading. The Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads, also without multi-threading per core, but with 7 additional physical cores. This core count delta is the primary driver of the multi-core benchmark margins.

Clock speeds favor the Core Ultra 5 338H in both base and boost operation. The base clock is 1.90 GHz versus 1.50 GHz, and the boost clock is 4.70 GHz versus 4.30 GHz. These higher clocks contribute to the single-threaded advantages seen in Cinebench and PassMark tests.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 338H lists 192 KB per core for L1, 2.5 MB per core for L2, and 18 MB of shared L3. The larger shared L3 cache, at 18 MB versus 6 MB, provides the Core Ultra 5 338H with a significant capacity advantage for data reuse across cores.

Memory support also separates the two. The Core 3 304 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory through a single-channel memory bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 338H supports LPDDR5X only, but through a dual-channel bus, delivering 136.5 GB/s. That is more than double the memory bandwidth, which directly benefits workloads involving large data sets, compression, and encryption.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Core 3 304 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 338H provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. The newer Gen 5 standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth, though the Core 3 304 has more total lanes. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

Integrated graphics are another point of divergence. The Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the Core Ultra 5 338H uses Arc B370 graphics. The Arc B370 is a higher-tier integrated GPU solution, which may matter for systems without discrete graphics.

Thermal design power also differs: the Core 3 304 is rated at 15 watts, while the Core Ultra 5 338H is rated at 25 watts. This 10-watt gap reflects the higher core count, higher clocks, and larger cache of the Core Ultra 5 338H.

The release dates place the Core Ultra 5 338H earlier, with a release date of 2026-01-04, while the Core 3 304 came later on 2026-04-15. The Core 3 304 has a launch MSRP of $309. No launch MSRP is recorded for the Core Ultra 5 338H.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy between these two mobile processors. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is decisively faster in every measured benchmark, with margins ranging from 13.4% in Cinebench R15 single-core to 77.6% in PassMark find prime numbers. The average benchmark score of 33989 versus 13745, combined with the 84th versus 68th percentile placement, leaves little ambiguity.

The Core 3 304 is not without merit. Its 15-watt TDP, single-channel memory support, and smaller cache footprint suggest a design aimed at lower-power, lighter-duty mobile systems. Its 5-core, 5-thread configuration with a 4.30 GHz boost clock can handle everyday workloads, but the data indicates it will trail the Core Ultra 5 338H substantially in any multi-threaded or memory-intensive task.

The Core Ultra 5 338H delivers roughly 2.5 times the average benchmark score. Its dual-channel memory at 136.5 GB/s, 18 MB L3 cache, and 25-watt TDP make it the stronger option for demanding mobile computing. Users who need consistent high performance in rendering, data processing, or physics simulation should favor the Core Ultra 5 338H based on the benchmark evidence.

The Core Ultra 5 338H also compares favorably to its nearest rivals in the database. Its average score is within 0.3% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H, and it sits 0.3% above the Intel Core i7-12800HX. The Core 3 304, by contrast, is roughly on par with the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and Intel Core i7-8750H, with deltas under 1.5%.

The decision between these two comes down to whether the workload requires the multi-core and memory bandwidth advantages of the Core Ultra 5 338H, or whether the lower power envelope of the Core 3 304 is the primary constraint. From a pure performance standpoint, the data favors the Core Ultra 5 338H in every recorded test.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins all single-threaded tests. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2044 versus 1765, a 13.6% lead. PassMark single-thread records 4180 versus 3614, a 13.5% delta.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H leads by 67.8% in Cinebench R23 multicore (16331 versus 5263), 66.1% in Cinebench R15 multicore (2504 versus 849), and 59.3% in Cinebench R20 multicore (10213 versus 4160).

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads. Neither uses multi-threading per core.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The Core 3 304 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 338H uses dual-channel memory with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H averages 33989 across all recorded benchmarks. The Core 3 304 averages 13745.

Q: Do both processors use the same process node?

A: Yes, both are built on a 3 nm process node at Intel's foundry. They differ in socket, generation, and architecture.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is defined by the magnitude of its advantage and the different platform characteristics.

For multi-core rendering and content creation, the Core Ultra 5 338H is the clear choice. Its 12 cores versus 5 cores, combined with 18 MB L3 cache versus 6 MB, delivers a 67.8% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R15 and R20 multicore tests, with deltas of 66.1% and 59.3% respectively.

For data-heavy workloads such as encryption, compression, and random string sorting, the Core Ultra 5 338H benefits from dual-channel memory at 136.5 GB/s. The data shows a 60.2% lead in encryption, a 58.5% lead in compression, and a 59.9% lead in random string sorting.

For physics simulation and floating-point math, the Core Ultra 5 338H again dominates. Physics scores 2697 versus 868, a 67.8% gap, and floating point math scores 84067 versus 29722, a 64.6% lead.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the Core Ultra 5 338H still leads, but by a smaller margin. The 13.4% to 13.6% deltas in Cinebench single-core tests and the 13.5% delta in PassMark single-thread indicate a more modest advantage. This is the closest area of competition between the two.

The Intel Core 3 304 has no benchmark wins in this dataset. Its strengths are platform-level rather than performance-level. It uses a 15-watt TDP, which is 10 watts lower than the Core Ultra 5 338H. It supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, while the Core Ultra 5 338H supports only LPDDR5X. Its single-channel memory bus and 6 MB L3 cache suggest a design for lower-power, less demanding mobile systems, where the reduced thermal envelope may be more important than raw throughput.

The Core 3 304 also offers 6 PCIe Gen 4 CPU lanes versus 4 Gen 5 lanes on the Core Ultra 5 338H. This may be relevant for systems with specific expansion needs, though the newer Gen 5 standard on the Core Ultra 5 338H provides higher per-lane bandwidth.

In summary, the Core Ultra 5 338H is the performance leader across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with its largest wins in multi-core and memory-intensive workloads. The Core 3 304 positions itself as a lower-power alternative with a smaller cache, narrower memory bus, and reduced core count, but the benchmark data shows no workload category where it outperforms the Core Ultra 5 338H.