Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents one of the most lopsided comparisons in the database. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with no benchmark victories recorded for the Intel Core 3 304. The Core Ultra 7 255HX sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 3 304 ranks at the 68th percentile. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 7 255HX is 62,738, compared to 13,745 for the Core 3 304, a difference of approximately 4.6 times in aggregate performance.

The selection between these two processors is dictated by workload intensity and power constraints. The Core Ultra 7 255HX delivers multi-core Cinebench R23 performance of 32,612 points, a score that places it among the top-tier mobile processors in the database. The Core 3 304, with its 5,263 multi-core Cinebench R23 score, serves a fundamentally different role. The data indicates the Core 3 304 is designed for efficiency-focused mobile systems where the 15 W thermal envelope is prioritized. The Core Ultra 7 255HX, with a 55 W thermal envelope, targets high-performance laptops where sustained throughput matters more than power economy.

For users whose workloads involve heavy multi-threaded rendering, compilation, or data processing, the Core Ultra 7 255HX is the clear choice based purely on the recorded scores. The Core 3 304 offers lower absolute performance but does so with a dramatically reduced power footprint. The data does not support any scenario where the Core 3 304 outperforms the Core Ultra 7 255HX; the question is whether the power savings justify the performance gap.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, while the Core Ultra 7 255HX is based on Arrow Lake-HX architecture. Both are manufactured on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs: Intel fabricates the Core 3 304 in-house, while TSMC produces the Core Ultra 7 255HX.

The core configurations diverge substantially. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, indicating a design without simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra 7 255HX packs 20 cores and 20 threads, also without hyper-threading but with four times the physical core count. This core disparity drives most of the multi-threaded performance differences observed in the benchmarks.

Cache hierarchies reflect the architectural gap. 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 7 255HX lists 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The L3 cache difference alone is fivefold, which contributes to the Core Ultra 7 255HX's advantage in memory-intensive workloads.

Memory support also differs. The Core 3 304 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 255HX supports only DDR5 but uses a dual-channel configuration with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The doubling of memory bandwidth favors the Core Ultra 7 255HX in data-heavy tasks.

PCIe connectivity shows a generational leap. The Core 3 304 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 7 255HX uses Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 7 255HX also has a larger physical footprint with a 243 mm² die size and 17,800 million transistors, whereas the Core 3 304 has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 304 features Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the Core Ultra 7 255HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The socket interfaces are incompatible: the Core 3 304 uses Intel BGA 1516, the Core Ultra 7 255HX uses Intel BGA 2114.

The Core Ultra 7 255HX has an unlocked multiplier, and the Core 3 304 does not. The Core 3 304 carries a recorded launch MSRP of $309, while the Core Ultra 7 255HX has no launch MSRP field in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX consistently outperforms the Core 3 304 in single-threaded tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 7 255HX scores 2,163 versus 1,765 for the Core 3 304, a delta of -18.4%. PassMark single-thread results show 4,562 for the Core Ultra 7 255HX and 3,614 for the Core 3 304, a -20.8% delta.

Q: How do the multi-core scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 7 255HX dominates every multi-core test. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 32,612 for the Core Ultra 7 255HX versus 5,263 for the Core 3 304, a -83.9% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core records 17,187 versus 4,160, a -75.8% delta. PassMark multithread scores 48,234 versus 11,625, a -75.9% delta.

Q: What is the core count difference?

A: The Core Ultra 7 255HX has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. This fourfold core count difference is the primary driver of the multi-threaded performance gap.

Q: Do these processors use the same socket?

A: No. The Core 3 304 uses Intel BGA 1516, and the Core Ultra 7 255HX uses Intel BGA 2114. These are incompatible socket interfaces, meaning they cannot be swapped in the same motherboard.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The Core Ultra 7 255HX has a dual-channel memory bus delivering 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 3 304 has a single-channel bus delivering 59.7 GB/s. The Core Ultra 7 255HX also supports only DDR5, while the Core 3 304 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Q: Which processor has a higher thermal design power?

A: The Core Ultra 7 255HX has a TDP of 55 W, while the Core 3 304 has a TDP of 15 W. The Core 3 304 consumes less than a third of the power of the Core Ultra 7 255HX.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 304 | Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX |

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

| Cores | 5 | 20 |

| Threads | 5 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 5.20 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 55 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2114 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-HX |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 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 | 102.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

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

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | SAE3K | SRVFG |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | Not recorded |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 7 255HX wins all 17 recorded benchmark comparisons. The largest margins appear in multi-threaded workloads. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the biggest gap at -83.9%, with the Core Ultra 7 255HX scoring 32,612 against the Core 3 304's 5,263. Cinebench R15 multi-core records a -82.7% delta (4,916 versus 849). PassMark find prime numbers shows a -83% delta (400 versus 68), and floating point math shows -81.5% (160,624 versus 29,722).

The smallest deltas appear in single-threaded tests. Cinebench R15 single-core has a -19.3% delta (327 versus 264), and Cinebench R23 single-core shows -18.4% (2,163 versus 1,765). PassMark single-thread results show -20.8% (4,562 versus 3,614). These single-core gaps, while still favoring the Core Ultra 7 255HX, are far narrower than the multi-threaded margins.

PassMark integer math shows the Core Ultra 7 255HX at 127,126 versus 24,640 for the Core 3 304, a -80.6% delta. Data compression records 515,143 versus 114,775, a -77.7% delta. Data encryption shows 39,499 versus 8,501, a -78.5% delta. Extended instructions score 41,247 versus 9,686, a -76.5% delta. Random string sorting records 62,591 versus 13,659, a -78.2% delta.

Physics performance in PassMark shows the Core Ultra 7 255HX at 2,926 versus 868, a -70.3% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core and single-core both show -75.8% deltas, with scores of 17,187 versus 4,160 and 2,426 versus 587 respectively.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the gap. The Core Ultra 7 255HX averages 62,738 across all recorded benchmarks, while the Core 3 304 averages 13,745. The Core Ultra 7 255HX's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 (-0.2% delta), the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX (-0.7% delta), and the Intel Core i7-13790F (-0.5% delta). The Core 3 304's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (-0.3% delta) and the Intel Core i7-8750H (-0.9% delta).

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 255HX wins every benchmark category recorded in the database. There is no test where the Core 3 304 produces a higher score. This makes the use-case split a matter of degree rather than direction.

The Core Ultra 7 255HX excels in multi-threaded compute workloads. Cinebench R23 multi-core at 32,612 points indicates strong rendering capability. PassMark multithread at 48,234 points suggests robust parallel processing for video encoding, 3D simulation, and scientific computation. The 20-core configuration with 30 MB of shared L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s dual-channel memory bandwidth provides the resources needed for sustained heavy workloads.

The Core 3 304, despite losing every benchmark, occupies a distinct performance envelope. Its 15 W TDP is less than a third of the Core Ultra 7 255HX's 55 W TDP. The 5-core Wildcat Lake design with single-channel memory at 59.7 GB/s suggests a focus on basic productivity, web browsing, and lightweight applications where battery life and thermal management take precedence over peak performance. The support for LPDDR5X memory in the Core 3 304 aligns with low-power mobile designs.

Single-threaded performance shows the smallest gap between the two processors. The Core Ultra 7 255HX leads by roughly 18-21% in single-core tests, but the Core 3 304's boost clock of 4.30 GHz keeps it competitive enough for responsive everyday use. The Core 3 304's 68th percentile ranking places it above the median CPU in the database, indicating it is not a low-end part; it is simply positioned in a lower performance tier.

The Core Ultra 7 255HX's 93rd percentile ranking and unlocked multiplier make it suitable for overclocking scenarios, though the mobile BGA 2114 socket limits traditional desktop overclocking. The Core 3 304's locked multiplier and BGA 1516 socket indicate a fixed-function design.

PCIe Gen 5 support with 20 lanes on the Core Ultra 7 255HX enables faster connectivity for discrete GPUs and NVMe storage. The Core 3 304's PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes supports more modest expansion options. The integrated graphics difference, 64 execution units of Arc Xe-LPG versus 1 Xe core of Xe3 Graphics, suggests the Core Ultra 7 255HX has better integrated GPU capability for light gaming or media acceleration.

In summary, the Core Ultra 7 255HX is the performance leader across all measured dimensions. The Core 3 304 trades performance for power efficiency, with its 15 W TDP and lower core count making it appropriate for thin-and-light laptops where the Core Ultra 7 255HX's 55 W TDP and larger die would be impractical. The data shows no scenario where the Core 3 304 delivers higher benchmark scores, but its power characteristics define its niche.