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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a decisive verdict: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX wins every recorded benchmark against the Intel Core 3 304, taking all 17 head-to-head comparisons. No test in the database shows the Core 3 304 ahead in any metric, making this a one-sided comparison in terms of raw performance.

The largest gap emerges in multi-core rendering. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 265HX scores 40,642 against the Core 3 304's 5,263, a delta of 87.1%. That is the single biggest percentage margin in the entire head-to-head set. Cinebench R20 multi-core tells a similar story: 17,069 versus 4,160, a 75.6% difference. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 4,096 versus 849, which is a 79.3% gap. These multi-threaded results reflect the enormous difference in core count, 20 versus 5, and the Core Ultra 7 265HX's higher 55 W TDP compared with 15 W for the Core 3 304.

Single-core performance is closer but still favors the Core Ultra 7 265HX clearly. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 7 scores 5,737 against 1,765, a 69.2% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2,409 versus 587, a 75.6% margin. Cinebench R15 single-core delivers 578 versus 264, a 54.3% difference. The smallest single-core gap appears in PassMark single-thread tests: 4,500 versus 3,614, a 19.7% margin. That modest gap indicates that the Core 3 304's boost clock of 4.30 GHz, while lower than the Ultra 7's 5.30 GHz, still allows it to stay competitive in lightly threaded workloads, though not ahead.

Integer and floating-point math workloads reinforce the multi-thread dominance. PassMark integer math shows 126,954 versus 24,640, an 80.6% lead. Floating-point math shows 161,605 versus 29,722, an 81.6% lead. Extended instructions score 40,741 versus 9,686, a 76.2% gap. Prime number finding, a workload sensitive to both clock speed and core count, shows 406 versus 68, an 83.3% margin. These results indicate that the Core Ultra 7 265HX scales far better across parallel workloads.

Data-focused tests follow the same pattern. PassMark data compression scores 511,817 versus 114,775, a 77.6% lead. Data encryption scores 39,472 versus 8,501, a 78.5% margin. Random string sorting shows 62,458 versus 13,659, a 78.1% gap. Physics simulation, another heavily threaded workload, delivers 2,978 versus 868, a 70.9% advantage. PassMark multi-thread overall scores 47,985 versus 11,625, a 75.8% difference.

The average benchmark score in the database confirms the scale of separation. The Core Ultra 7 265HX averages 63,173 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 304 averages 13,745, sitting in the 68th percentile. That is a 4.6x difference in average score. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 7 265HX include the Intel Core i7-13790F at 63,080 (0.1% behind), the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G at 63,331 (0.2% ahead), and the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 at 62,839 (0.5% behind). The Core 3 304's nearest rivals, by contrast, are the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX at 13,786 (0.3% ahead), the Intel Core i7-8750H at 13,868 (0.9% ahead), and the Intel Core 5 120UL at 13,594 (1.1% behind). The Core 3 304 trades blows with much older or lower-tier parts, while the Core Ultra 7 265HX competes at the top of the mobile stack.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 265HX wins in every scenario where parallel processing matters. Multi-core rendering in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 all show leads between 75.6% and 87.1%. Data compression and encryption workloads favor it by roughly 78%, and integer math by 80.6%. Any workload that can utilize more than five threads will see a substantial advantage from the Ultra 7's 20 cores and 20 threads. The 30 MB shared L3 cache, versus 6 MB on the Core 3 304, also supports larger working sets without repeated memory fetches. The dual-channel memory bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, compared with single-channel 59.7 GB/s, further reduces data starvation in multi-threaded tasks.

The Core 3 304 has no recorded benchmark wins. Its only relative strength is the narrower single-thread gap. In PassMark single-thread, it trails by 19.7%, which is the closest margin in the entire comparison. Its 4.30 GHz boost clock and 1.50 GHz base clock, combined with only 5 threads, mean it behaves more like a low-power efficiency part than a performance competitor. The 15 W TDP suggests it is aimed at systems where thermal and power budgets are tight, but the benchmark data does not show any workload where it takes the lead.

The Core Ultra 7 265HX also holds the advantage in extended instruction performance, scoring 40,741 versus 9,686. This matters for workloads that use AVX or similar instruction sets, such as scientific computing or media encoding. The physics simulation score of 2,978 versus 868 likewise points to better handling of game physics or simulation tasks. The Ultra 7's performance profile is consistent across every category: it does not specialize, it simply dominates.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear conclusion. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX is the superior processor in every measured benchmark. Its 20 cores and 20 threads, 5.30 GHz boost clock, and 30 MB L3 cache deliver results that place it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 304, with 5 cores, 5 threads, and a 4.30 GHz boost clock, sits in the 68th percentile. The average benchmark gap of 63,173 versus 13,745 is too large to ignore.

A user who needs multi-core rendering, data compression, encryption, or heavy parallel math should select the Core Ultra 7 265HX. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 40,642 is over seven times the Core 3 304's 5,263. Even in single-threaded tasks, where the Core 3 304 is closest, the Ultra 7 still leads by 19.7% in PassMark single-thread and by 54.3% to 75.6% in Cinebench single-core tests.

A user constrained to a 15 W TDP envelope, such as in a thin-and-light laptop, may accept the Core 3 304's lower performance for its lower power draw. But the recorded data offers no performance category where the Core 3 304 wins. The Core Ultra 7 265HX also features an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Core 3 304 does not, so overclocking potential further separates them. The verdict from the database is unambiguous: the Core Ultra 7 265HX outperforms the Core 3 304 across every measured workload.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher Cinebench R23 multi-core score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX scores 40,642, while the Intel Core 3 304 scores 5,263. The Ultra 7 leads by 87.1%.

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

A: In PassMark single-thread tests, the Core Ultra 7 265HX scores 4,500 versus 3,614 for the Core 3 304, a 19.7% difference. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap is 69.2% (5,737 versus 1,765).

Q: Which chip has more cores and threads?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265HX has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265HX supports 102.4 GB/s with a dual-channel bus, while the Core 3 304 supports 59.7 GB/s with a single-channel bus.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265HX averages 63,173, placing it in the 93rd percentile. The Core 3 304 averages 13,745, placing it in the 68th percentile.

Q: Does the Core 3 304 win any benchmark?

A: No. The Core Ultra 7 265HX wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, with deltas ranging from 19.7% to 87.1%.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265HX boosts to 5.30 GHz, while the Core 3 304 boosts to 4.30 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to different architectural families. The Intel Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is listed in the database as part of the Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) generation. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-HX, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ: the Core 3 304 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 7 265HX is fabricated by TSMC.

The transistor and die data are only recorded for the Core Ultra 7 265HX, which lists 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. No such figures are available for the Core 3 304 in the database.

Cache hierarchy differs substantially. 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 265HX 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 configuration on the Ultra 7 scales with its 20 cores, giving it far more total cache capacity.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 3 304 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Core Ultra 7 265HX supports DDR5 only. The Core 3 304 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 7 265HX uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs. The Core 3 304 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes. The Core Ultra 7 265HX uses Gen 5 with 20 CPU-only lanes. Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 3 304 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe, while the Core Ultra 7 265HX includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU.

Specification Differences

The processor sockets are different. The Core 3 304 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 7 265HX uses Intel BGA 2114. The Core Ultra 7 265HX has 20 cores and 20 threads, versus 5 cores and 5 threads on the Core 3 304. Base clocks differ: 2.60 GHz for the Ultra 7, 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 304. Boost clocks are 5.30 GHz and 4.30 GHz, respectively. TDP ratings are 55 W for the Ultra 7 and 15 W for the Core 3 304.

The Core Ultra 7 265HX has an unlocked multiplier; the Core 3 304 does not. The Core 3 304 has a recorded launch MSRP of $309, while the Core Ultra 7 265HX has no launch MSRP in the database. Part numbers are SRVFH for the Ultra 7 and SAE3K for the Core 3 304.

Release dates differ as well. The Core Ultra 7 265HX was released on 2025-01-12, while the Core 3 304 has a release date of 2026-04-15. Both are marked as Active production status and target the Mobile market segment. The Core 3 304's socket, BGA 1516, and its 15 W TDP align with ultra-portable designs, while the Core Ultra 7 265HX's BGA 2114 socket and 55 W TDP target high-performance mobile workstations.