Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive sweep. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests against the Intel Core 3 304. No single test favors the Core 3 304. The closest contest is in PassMark single-thread performance, where the Core Ultra 7 265F scores 4750 against 3614 for the Core 3 304, a delta of -23.9%. That is still a substantial margin, but it is the narrowest gap in the entire comparison.

The largest deltas appear in multi-core workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 265F posts 41980 points versus 5263 for the Core 3 304, a delta of -87.5%. That means the Core Ultra 7 265F delivers roughly eight times the multi-core rendering throughput in that test. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a similar story: 17631 points against 4160, a delta of -76.4%. Cinebench R15 multi-core follows with 4231 against 849, a delta of -79.9%.

PassMark integer math also shows a wide gulf. The Core Ultra 7 265F scores 138078, while the Core 3 304 scores 24640, a delta of -82.2%. Floating point math is even more lopsided: 173855 versus 29722, a delta of -82.9%. Prime number finding, a test sensitive to raw integer throughput, shows 416 against 68, a delta of -83.7%.

Memory-related and data-heavy workloads reinforce the pattern. PassMark data compression scores 507018 for the Core Ultra 7 265F versus 114775 for the Core 3 304, a delta of -77.4%. Data encryption shows 39468 versus 8501, a delta of -78.5%. Random string sorting delivers 62439 versus 13659, a delta of -78.1%. Extended instruction throughput lands at 39235 versus 9686, a delta of -75.3%.

The Core 3 304's only relative strength is in single-threaded tasks, where the deficit shrinks to the -23.9% figure. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 7 265F scores 5926 against 1765, a delta of -70.2%. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2488 against 587, a delta of -76.4%. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 597 against 264, a delta of -55.8%. PassMark physics, which often favors higher single-core efficiency, still goes to the Core Ultra 7 265F: 3172 versus 868, a delta of -72.6%.

Average benchmark scores place the Core Ultra 7 265F at 64438, while the Core 3 304 sits at 13745. The Core Ultra 7 265F occupies the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the Core 3 304 sits at the 68th percentile. The Core Ultra 7 265F's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 at 64640 (-0.3%), the AMD EPYC 7343 at 64202 (+0.4%), and the Intel Core i9-13900KS at 64051 (+0.6%). The Core 3 304's nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX at 13786 (-0.3%), the Intel Core i7-8750H at 13868 (-0.9%), and the Intel Core 5 120UL at 13594 (+1.1%). These groupings confirm that the two chips compete in entirely different performance tiers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins every multi-core test in the database. In Cinebench R23 multi-core it scores 41980 against 5263 for the Core 3 304, a delta of -87.5%. PassMark multi-thread shows 49410 versus 11625, a delta of -76.5%.

Q: Is the Core 3 304 competitive in single-thread performance?

A: The Core 3 304 is closer in single-thread tests but still loses every one. PassMark single-thread shows 3614 versus 4750, a delta of -23.9%. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 1765 versus 5926, a delta of -70.2%.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The Core Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads. Neither processor supports Hyper-Threading style extra threads, so thread counts equal core counts.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265F has an average benchmark score of 64438 and sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 304 has an average benchmark score of 13745 and sits in the 68th percentile.

Q: Do both processors use the same process node?

A: Both are built on a 3 nm process, but the Core 3 304 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 7 265F is fabricated by TSMC.

Q: Which processor supports faster memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265F uses dual-channel DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Core 3 304 uses single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families. The Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is labeled generation "Core 3 (Wildcat Lake)". The Core Ultra 7 265F uses the Arrow Lake-S codename and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, generation "Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake)". Both are built on a 3 nm process, but the foundries differ. Intel fabricates the Core 3 304, while TSMC fabricates the Core Ultra 7 265F.

Core counts differ sharply. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The Core Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads. Both lack simultaneous multithreading, so each core handles exactly one thread.

Cache layouts also differ. 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 265F lists 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 allocation on the Core Ultra 7 265F is substantially larger, and the shared L3 pool is five times bigger.

Memory support diverges. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 265F supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs by generation and lane count. The Core 3 304 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes. The Core Ultra 7 265F provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU-only lanes. The Core 3 304 includes integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Core Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics.

Market segments and sockets also differ. The Core 3 304 is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1516. The Core Ultra 7 265F is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1851. The Core 3 304 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 265F has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The Core Ultra 7 265F carries a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm². The Core 3 304 has no recorded transistor count or die size. The Core 3 304 launched on 2026-04-15, while the Core Ultra 7 265F launched on 2025-01-06. The Core 3 304 has a launch MSRP of $309. The Core Ultra 7 265F has a launch MSRP of $379.

The Verdict

The data supports a simple conclusion. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark, and by wide margins in most of them. Its average benchmark score of 64438 places it in the 93rd percentile, while the Core 3 304's 13745 average places it in the 68th percentile. The Core Ultra 7 265F also outperforms its own nearest rivals, including the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 at 64640 (-0.3%) and the Intel Core i9-13900KS at 64051 (+0.6%). The Core 3 304 trades blows with its nearest rivals, coming within -0.3% of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and -0.9% of the Intel Core i7-8750H.

The Core 3 304's only meaningful advantage is platform-level. It is a mobile chip on Intel BGA 1516 with integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics, so it fits in low-power laptops where a desktop chip cannot go. Its 15 TDP and single-channel memory support suit a compact, power-conscious design. The Core Ultra 7 265F, with a 65 TDP, dual-channel memory, and no integrated graphics, is built for desktop systems with a discrete GPU.

Buyers who need multi-core throughput, high memory bandwidth, or PCIe Gen 5 connectivity should choose the Core Ultra 7 265F. Buyers who need an integrated GPU and a mobile socket should choose the Core 3 304, but they should expect a large performance gap in every workload category.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 304 | Intel Core Ultra 7 265F |

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

| Cores | 5 | 20 |

| Threads | 5 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 15 | 65 |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| 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) | N/A |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2025-01-06 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | $379 |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 243 mm² |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins every benchmark category in the database. The largest margins appear in Cinebench R23 multi-core (-87.5%), PassMark find prime numbers (-83.7%), PassMark floating point math (-82.9%), and PassMark integer math (-82.2%). These results point to workloads that scale with core count and raw compute throughput: rendering, scientific computation, video encoding, and data processing. The 20-core, 20-thread configuration with 30 MB of shared L3 and dual-channel 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth provides the foundation for those wins. The Core Ultra 7 265F also leads in data compression by -77.4% and data encryption by -78.5%, which makes it the better choice for archive management and security-related workloads.

The Intel Core 3 304 has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. Its closest finish is in PassMark single-thread, where it trails by -23.9%. That narrow gap suggests that in lightly threaded, latency-sensitive tasks, the Core 3 304 is less disadvantaged than in fully parallel workloads. Still, it loses every single-thread test as well, including Cinebench R23 single-core by -70.2% and Cinebench R15 single-core by -55.8%.

The Core 3 304's practical advantage is platform suitability, not performance. It is a mobile processor with a 15 TDP, integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics, and support for LPDDR5X memory. That combination makes it appropriate for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and cooling capacity are limited. The Core Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics, a 65 TDP, and a desktop socket, so it requires a discrete GPU and a desktop-class cooling solution.

For use cases that require maximum compute throughput, the choice is unambiguous. The Core Ultra 7 265F delivers 41980 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core, a 93rd percentile standing, and an average score of 64438. The Core 3 304 delivers 5263 points in the same test, a 68th percentile standing, and an average score of 13745. The performance hierarchy is consistent across every test, with the Core Ultra 7 265F ahead by margins ranging from -23.9% to -87.5%.