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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Core 3 304 and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H is decisively one-sided. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Core Ultra 7 265H records the win, with no benchmark victory for the Core 3 304. The margin varies by workload type, but the pattern is consistent: the Ultra 7 265H delivers substantially higher scores in every measured category.

The largest gap appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 7 265H scores 335 against the Core 3 304's 68, a delta of -79.7%. This is the widest relative margin in the entire dataset. Floating point math shows a similar story, with the Ultra 7 265H posting 109,123 versus 29,722, a -72.8% delta. Integer math follows at 85,479 against 24,640, a -71.2% difference.

Cinebench multicore results reinforce the dominance. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Ultra 7 265H scores 19,940 while the Core 3 304 manages 5,263, a -73.6% delta. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 12,131 versus 4,160, a -65.7% gap. Even the R15 multicore test, which tends to compress differences, shows 2,989 against 849, a -71.6% delta.

Single-core performance narrows the gap considerably, though the Ultra 7 265H still wins every test. PassMark single-thread scores are 4,334 for the Ultra 7 265H and 3,614 for the Core 3 304, a -16.6% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2,080 versus 1,765, a -15.1% difference. Cinebench R15 single-core is the tightest race at 307 against 264, a -14% margin. The single-core deltas are roughly one-fifth the size of the multicore gaps, which indicates that the Ultra 7 265H's advantage grows significantly when more cores are active.

Memory and encryption workloads follow the same trend. PassMark data compression scores 334,711 for the Ultra 7 265H versus 114,775 for the Core 3 304, a -65.7% delta. Data encryption shows 26,005 against 8,501, a -67.3% gap. Extended instructions scores are 26,805 versus 9,686, a -63.9% delta. Random string sorting posts 40,742 against 13,659, a -66.5% difference. PassMark multithread delivers 34,027 versus 11,625, a -65.8% delta, and physics scores 2,497 against 868, a -65.2% gap.

The overall average benchmark score reflects this gap. The Ultra 7 265H carries an average score of 41,621, while the Core 3 304 sits at 13,745. The database percentile placement confirms the divide: the Ultra 7 265H ranks in the 88th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 3 304 ranks in the 68th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design families within Intel's mobile lineup. The Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation. The Core Ultra 7 265H is part of the Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-H codename.

Both chips are fabricated on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs. The Core 3 304 is manufactured by Intel, while the Core Ultra 7 265H is produced by TSMC. This foundry split is notable because both parts share the same process geometry, yet the underlying architectures diverge sharply.

Core counts represent the most obvious structural difference. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The Core Ultra 7 265H has 16 cores and 16 threads, also without hyperthreading, but with more than three times the physical core count. This explains why multicore workloads show such large deltas.

Clock speeds favor the Ultra 7 265H as well. The Core 3 304 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Ultra 7 265H runs at a 2.20 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost. The higher boost clock contributes to the single-core advantage, while the base clock difference matters for sustained all-core loads.

Cache hierarchies are built on different scales. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 265H allocates 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The L3 difference alone is four times in favor of the Ultra 7 265H, which helps explain its performance in cache-sensitive workloads like data compression and random string sorting.

Memory architecture also separates the two. The Core 3 304 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra 7 265H uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s, roughly 72% more bandwidth. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory. ECC support exists on the Ultra 7 265H, while the Core 3 304 does not list ECC capability.

PCIe connectivity differs by generation and lane count. The Core 3 304 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Ultra 7 265H provides PCIe Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe unit, while the Ultra 7 265H uses Arc Graphics 140T.

Thermal design power reflects the performance tier. The Core 3 304 is rated at 15 W TDP, while the Ultra 7 265H is rated at 28 W. The higher TDP supports the additional cores and higher clocks. Socket types differ accordingly, with the Core 3 304 using Intel BGA 1516 and the Ultra 7 265H using Intel BGA 2049.

Release timing also separates them. The Core 3 304 has a release date of April 2026, while the Ultra 7 265H was released in January 2025. The Core 3 304 carries a launch MSRP of $309. The Ultra 7 265H has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 3 304 does not win any recorded benchmark. Every single head-to-head test in the database goes to the Ultra 7 265H. The strongest relative performance for the Core 3 304 appears in single-core tests, where the deltas range from -14% to -16.6%. These are still losses, but they are far smaller than the multicore margins.

The Ultra 7 265H dominates heavily in parallel workloads. Cinebench R23 multicore, PassMark multithread, integer math, and floating point math all show deltas between -65.2% and -79.7%. The find prime numbers test is the extreme case, with the Ultra 7 265H scoring nearly five times higher. This workload scales almost perfectly with core count, and the 16-core design takes full advantage.

Bandwidth-sensitive tasks also favor the Ultra 7 265H. Data compression and random string sorting both show deltas around -66%, which correlates with the dual-channel memory bus and the larger L3 cache. The Core 3 304's single-channel memory path limits its throughput in these tests.

Single-core performance is where the Core 3 304 comes closest. The Cinebench R15 single-core delta of -14% and the PassMark single-thread delta of -16.6% suggest that the Wildcat Lake core design is competitive per-thread. The 4.30 GHz boost clock helps, but the Ultra 7 265H's 5.30 GHz boost keeps it ahead. The Core 3 304's 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs indicates it sits above the median, but the Ultra 7 265H's 88th percentile places it firmly in the upper tier.

The nearest rivals in the database contextualize both parts. The Core 3 304's average score of 13,745 places it within 1.1% of the Intel Core 5 120UL, which scores 13,594, and within 0.9% of the Intel Core i7-8750H, which scores 13,868. It also trails the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX by 0.3% and the AMD EPYC 7443 by 1.4%. The Ultra 7 265H, by contrast, sits within 0.1% of the Intel Core 7 251TE and 0.1% of the Intel Core i7-14650HX, while leading the Intel Core i7-12850HX by 0.4% and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X by 0.6%. These rival positions show that the Core 3 304 competes with older mainstream mobile processors, while the Ultra 7 265H trades blows with high-end desktop parts.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H is the stronger processor in every benchmark category recorded by the database. Its 16 cores, higher clocks, dual-channel memory, and larger cache deliver decisive wins across Cinebench and PassMark workloads. The 88th percentile placement confirms its position among high-performing CPUs, and its average score of 41,621 is roughly three times that of the Core 3 304.

The Intel Core 3 304 is a low-power mobile part with a 15 W TDP, 5 cores, and a modest 68th percentile ranking. Its single-core results are respectable relative to its class, with a 4.30 GHz boost clock and competitive per-thread performance. But the multicore gap is too large to bridge, and the single-channel memory bandwidth limits its throughput in data-heavy tasks. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-8750H and AMD EPYC 7443, which places it in a different performance tier entirely.

Users who need parallel processing power, high memory bandwidth, or PCIe Gen 5 connectivity should choose the Ultra 7 265H. The data supports this choice across all 17 benchmarks. Users prioritizing low power consumption or a specific BGA 1516 socket requirement might consider the Core 3 304, but the benchmark record offers no performance scenario where it comes out ahead. The Ultra 7 265H is the faster chip, and the margin is substantial.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads.

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

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 7 265H scores 2,080 against the Core 3 304's 1,765, a -15.1% delta. PassMark single-thread shows 4,334 versus 3,614, a -16.6% delta.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Core 3 304 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 7 265H uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H lists ECC memory support. The Intel Core 3 304 does not list ECC capability.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds?

A: The Core 3 304 has a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Ultra 7 265H has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core 3 304 has an average benchmark score of 13,745, placing it in the 68th percentile. The Ultra 7 265H has an average score of 41,621, placing it in the 88th percentile.

Q: Do both processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: Both use a 3 nm process node, but the Core 3 304 is fabricated by Intel, while the Ultra 7 265H is fabricated by TSMC.