Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data leaves no ambiguity: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins every single recorded head-to-head test, 17 out of 17. The Core 3 304 does not claim a single victory in the comparison set. The largest margin appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Ultra 7 scores 42216 against 5263, a delta of -87.5%. That is nearly an eightfold difference in raw rendering throughput, and it reflects the fundamental gap in core count and power envelope between the two parts.

Single-core performance tells a similar story, though the gap is narrower. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 7 scores 5960 versus 1765, a -70.4% delta. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 600 versus 264, a -56% delta. PassMark single-thread shows 4689 versus 3614, a -22.9% delta. The pattern is consistent: the Ultra 7 leads in every single-threaded workload, but the smallest margin is in PassMark single-thread, which suggests the Core 3 304's Wildcat Lake cores are relatively competitive on a per-thread basis in that specific test. Still, the Ultra 7's higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz versus 4.30 GHz helps explain the broad single-core advantage.

Multi-threaded workloads amplify the gap further. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 6268 versus 4160, a -33.6% delta, while R15 multi-core shows 4255 versus 849, a -80% delta. The R23 result is the outlier at -87.5%, indicating that the longer the rendering workload runs, the more the Ultra 7 pulls ahead. PassMark multi-thread shows 49682 versus 11625, a -76.6% delta. The 20-core, 20-thread Ultra 7 simply overwhelms the 5-core, 5-thread Core 3 304 in any parallel workload.

Specialized workloads follow the same trend. PassMark data compression shows 522983 versus 114775, a -78.1% delta. Data encryption shows 40456 versus 8501, a -79% delta. Extended instructions show 41478 versus 9686, a -76.6% delta. Floating point math shows 172776 versus 29722, a -82.8% delta. Integer math shows 134773 versus 24640, a -81.7% delta. Prime number finding shows 418 versus 68, a -83.7% delta. Physics shows 2923 versus 868, a -70.3% delta. Random string sorting shows 63833 versus 13659, a -78.6% delta. In every category, the Ultra 7 delivers between roughly 1.3x and 6x the performance, with the largest gaps in Cinebench R23 multi-core and PassMark prime number finding.

The average benchmark score tells the overall story: the Core 3 304 sits at 13745, while the Ultra 7 sits at 64640. The Core 3 304 ranks at the 68th percentile among all CPUs, while the Ultra 7 ranks at the 93rd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 3 304 include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX at 13786 (-0.3%) and the Intel Core 5 120UL at 13594 (1.1%), placing it in the mainstream mobile range. The Ultra 7's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4464P at 64823 (-0.3%) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F at 64438 (0.3%), placing it in a much higher performance tier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 3 304 wins zero.

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

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 7 scores 42216 against 5263, a -87.5% delta. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the delta is -80%, with scores of 4255 and 849.

Q: Is the Core 3 304 competitive in single-core tests?

A: The Ultra 7 still leads in all single-core tests. The smallest margin is PassMark single-thread at 4689 versus 3614, a -22.9% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a larger gap at -70.4%.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores?

A: The Core 3 304 has an average benchmark score of 13745. The Ultra 7 has an average benchmark score of 64640.

Q: How do the two processors rank among all CPUs?

A: The Core 3 304 sits at the 68th percentile. The Ultra 7 sits at the 93rd percentile.

Q: What memory bandwidth do the two support?

A: The Core 3 304 supports 59.7 GB/s with a single-channel memory bus. The Ultra 7 supports 102.4 GB/s with a dual-channel memory bus.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design lineages. The Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation. It is built on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Ultra 7 uses the Arrow Lake-S codename and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. It is also built on a 3 nm process, but at TSMC. Both are 3 nm parts, but the foundry and architecture differ substantially.

Core counts diverge sharply. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, with no hyper-threading. The Ultra 7 has 20 cores and 20 threads. That 4x difference in core count directly explains the multi-core benchmark margins. Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 has 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, with 30 MB of shared L3. The per-core L2 allocation on the Ultra 7 is notably larger, and the shared L3 is five times bigger.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Ultra 7 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 32 execution units. The Ultra 7's graphics solution is designed for desktop use, while the Core 3 304's is a mobile-class implementation.

The memory support also differs. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s. The Ultra 7 supports DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s. Neither supports ECC memory. PCIe capabilities differ as well: the Core 3 304 offers Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 7 offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The Ultra 7 also carries a larger transistor count at 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm²; the Core 3 304 has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database.

The market segments are different. The Core 3 304 is a mobile part on the Intel BGA 1516 socket. The Ultra 7 is a desktop part on the Intel Socket 1851. Their production status is Active for both, but the release dates differ: the Core 3 304 released on 2026-04-15, while the Ultra 7 released on 2025-01-06. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification field. Core count: 5 versus 20. Thread count: 5 versus 20. Base clock: 1.50 GHz versus 2.40 GHz. Boost clock: 4.30 GHz versus 5.30 GHz. TDP: 15 W versus 65 W. Socket: Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel Socket 1851. Process node: both 3 nm, but with different foundries, Intel versus TSMC. Cache: 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, 6 MB shared L3 versus 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, 30 MB shared L3. Memory support: DDR5 and LPDDR5X versus DDR5 only. Memory bus: single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. PCIe: Gen 4 with 6 lanes versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU. Market segment: Mobile versus Desktop. Release date: 2026-04-15 versus 2025-01-06. Launch MSRP: $309 for the Core 3 304, $394 for the Ultra 7. Part numbers: SAE3K versus SRQCX. Transistors and die size are recorded only for the Ultra 7: 17,800 million transistors and 243 mm² die size.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins in every recorded benchmark category. For multi-threaded rendering, Cinebench R23 multi-core at 42216 is the standout result, and PassMark multi-thread at 49682 confirms the strength in parallel workloads. Data compression and encryption workloads also favor the Ultra 7 heavily, with scores of 522983 and 40456 respectively. Floating point math at 172776 and integer math at 134773 indicate strong compute throughput for scientific and financial applications. Physics at 2923 and prime number finding at 418 show that even specialized workloads favor the Ultra 7.

The Intel Core 3 304 has no benchmark wins in this comparison. However, its data still positions it as a capable mobile processor. Its average benchmark score of 13745 places it in the 68th percentile, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and the Intel Core 5 120UL. The single-thread PassMark score of 3614 is within 22.9% of the Ultra 7, which indicates that the Wildcat Lake architecture has competitive per-thread efficiency. The 15 W TDP and single-channel memory bus suggest it is designed for power-constrained mobile systems rather than performance-focused desktops.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is the superior processor in every measured workload, with an average benchmark score of 64640 and a 93rd percentile ranking. It delivers 87.5% more performance in Cinebench R23 multi-core and at least 22.9% more in PassMark single-thread. The 20-core, 20-thread configuration, dual-channel memory at 102.4 GB/s, and Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes make it suitable for desktop workloads that demand parallel throughput, large cache, and high memory bandwidth.

The Intel Core 3 304, with its 5 cores, 15 W TDP, and single-channel memory at 59.7 GB/s, occupies a different role. Its 68th percentile ranking and average score of 13745 place it among mainstream mobile processors. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX, sits at 13786, a -0.3% delta, which shows that the Core 3 304 competes in a much lower performance tier. Its Wildcat Lake architecture and Xe3 Graphics target compact, power-efficient systems.

The choice between the two is dictated by workload and platform. The Ultra 7 is the pick for desktop applications where multi-core rendering, data compression, and heavy compute matter. The Core 3 304 is the pick for mobile systems where the 15 W TDP and BGA socket fit the design constraints. The benchmark data does not show any scenario where the Core 3 304 outperforms the Ultra 7, so the Ultra 7 is the default recommendation for raw performance, while the Core 3 304 serves the mobile segment where the Ultra 7 cannot physically fit.