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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core 3 304. The margin varies widely by workload, from a modest single-thread lead to an overwhelming multi-thread advantage.

The largest gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Ultra 7 265K scores 35,850 against 5,263 for the Core 3 304, a delta of -85.3% for the smaller chip. This is consistent with the core count disparity: 20 threads versus 5 threads. Multi-threaded rendering workloads amplify the difference because the Ultra 7 can process four times as many threads simultaneously.

Single-thread performance tells a different story. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 7 265K scores 2,020 versus 1,765 for the Core 3 304, a much smaller delta of -12.6%. This indicates that the Core 3 304's individual core efficiency is relatively close to the Ultra 7, despite the massive core-count difference. The same pattern appears in PassMark single-thread tests: 4,928 for the Ultra 7 versus 3,614 for the Core 3, a -26.7% delta.

The Cinebench R15 and R20 single-core results show larger gaps: -62.7% and -80.1% respectively. These older benchmarks are more sensitive to clock speed and architectural differences. The Ultra 7 265K boosts to 5.50 GHz, while the Core 3 304 boosts to 4.30 GHz, which explains part of the gap in these tests.

Data compression and encryption workloads heavily favor the Ultra 7. PassMark data compression scores 665,554 versus 114,775, a -82.8% delta. Data encryption shows 48,246 versus 8,501, a -82.4% delta. These workloads scale with both core count and memory bandwidth. The Ultra 7 has dual-channel memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core 3 has single-channel at 59.7 GB/s.

Integer and floating-point math follow the same trend. PassMark integer math: 143,242 versus 24,640, a -82.8% delta. Floating-point math: 189,629 versus 29,722, a -84.3% delta. The extended instructions test shows 54,333 versus 9,686, a -82.2% delta. Prime number finding, a notoriously serial workload, still favors the Ultra 7 by -86.2% (491 versus 68), which suggests the clock speed advantage matters even in single-threaded integer loops.

Physics simulation in PassMark shows 3,731 versus 868, a -76.7% delta. Random string sorting shows 79,752 versus 13,659, a -82.9% delta. The multithread PassMark summary score is 58,594 versus 11,625, a -80.2% delta.

The average benchmark score confirms the overall hierarchy: the Ultra 7 265K averages 70,879, while the Core 3 304 averages 13,745. In the database's percentile rankings, the Ultra 7 sits at the 94th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 sits at the 68th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to different Intel families entirely. The Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is part of the Core 3 generation. It has 5 cores and 5 threads, meaning no hyper-threading is enabled. The Ultra 7 265K uses the Arrow Lake-S architecture in the Core Ultra Series 2, with 20 cores and 20 threads, also without hyper-threading. Both chips use a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs: Intel fabricates the Core 3, while TSMC fabricates the Ultra 7.

The cache hierarchy diverges significantly. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 265K has 192 KB per core for L1, 3 MB per core for L2, and 30 MB of shared L3. The per-core L2 allocation on the Ultra 7 is substantially larger, which helps with data locality in multi-threaded workloads. The total L3 cache is five times larger on the Ultra 7 (30 MB versus 6 MB).

Memory support differs in type and width. The Core 3 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus, yielding 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra 7 supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, yielding 102.4 GB/s. The Ultra 7 also supports ECC memory, while the Core 3 does not. This positions the Ultra 7 for workstation or server-adjacent tasks where data integrity matters.

PCIe connectivity shows a generational leap. The Core 3 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra 7 offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). This gives the Ultra 7 more than three times the lane count and double the per-lane bandwidth. For storage and GPU expansion, the Ultra 7 has substantially more headroom.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Ultra 7 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Ultra 7's graphics solution is architecturally newer and has far more execution resources, though the Core 3's mobile segment may rely more heavily on integrated graphics for daily use.

The socket and market segment separate the two clearly. The Core 3 uses Intel BGA 1516, a soldered mobile socket, and targets the mobile segment. The Ultra 7 uses Intel Socket 1851, a desktop LGA socket, and targets the desktop segment. The Core 3 has a 15 W TDP, while the Ultra 7 has a 125 W TDP. The Ultra 7 also has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking, while the Core 3 does not.

The Ultra 7's transistor count is listed at 17,800 million with a die size of 243 mm². The Core 3 does not have recorded transistor or die size data. The Ultra 7's larger physical footprint and transistor budget directly enable its 20-core configuration and larger caches.

Release dates also differ. The Core 3 304 releases on 2026-04-15, while the Ultra 7 265K released on 2024-10-23. The Core 3 is the newer part, but the Ultra 7 was designed for a higher performance tier from the start.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows no benchmark wins for the Core 3 304. However, the workload split still matters for understanding where each chip is closer to the other. The smallest deltas indicate areas where the Core 3 is relatively competitive, while the largest deltas show where the Ultra 7 dominates outright.

Single-threaded integer tasks show the smallest gaps. Cinebench R23 single-core has a -12.6% delta, and PassMark single-thread has a -26.7% delta. In these tasks, the Core 3 304's 4.30 GHz boost clock and 3 nm process help it stay within striking distance. The Core 3's Wildcat Lake architecture appears to have strong per-core efficiency, even if it lacks the core count to compete in parallel workloads.

The Core 3 304 also performs relatively better in physics simulation, with a -76.7% delta, compared to the -85% to -86% deltas seen in math and compression tests. Physics workloads often depend on a mix of single-thread latency and moderate parallelism, where the Core 3's 5 cores still contribute.

For the Ultra 7 265K, the biggest wins come in multi-threaded and memory-bound workloads. Cinebench R23 multi-core (-85.3%), find prime numbers (-86.2%), floating-point math (-84.3%), and data compression (-82.8%) all show deltas above 82%. These workloads scale with core count, L3 cache size, and memory bandwidth, all of which favor the Ultra 7. The 30 MB shared L3 and 102.4 GB/s dual-channel bandwidth give it a structural advantage that no single-core efficiency can overcome.

The Core 3 304's strongest domain is mobile computing. Its 15 W TDP, single-channel memory, and BGA 1516 socket indicate a low-power, compact design. The Ultra 7's 125 W TDP and desktop socket require a larger cooling solution and power delivery system. The data cannot quantify these physical differences, but the recorded TDP values alone separate the two use cases.

The Ultra 7's unlocked multiplier and ECC support further extend its domain to overclocked desktop builds and reliability-sensitive workloads. The Core 3's locked multiplier and non-ECC memory limit it to standard mobile configurations.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K has an average benchmark score of 70,879, while the Intel Core 3 304 averages 13,745. The Ultra 7 ranks in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 ranks in the 68th percentile.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Ultra 7 265K scores 35,850 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, compared to 5,263 for the Core 3 304. This is a -85.3% delta, meaning the Core 3 delivers roughly 15% of the Ultra 7's multi-core performance in this test.

Q: Is the Core 3 304 competitive in any benchmark?

A: The closest result is Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core 3 scores 1,765 against the Ultra 7's 2,020, a -12.6% delta. PassMark single-thread also shows a relatively smaller gap at -26.7% (3,614 versus 4,928). In all 17 head-to-head tests, the Ultra 7 wins.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Core 3 304 supports single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra 7 265K supports dual-channel memory with 102.4 GB/s. The Ultra 7 also supports ECC memory, while the Core 3 does not.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of threads?

A: No. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The Ultra 7 265K has 20 cores and 20 threads. Neither processor uses hyper-threading, so thread counts equal core counts.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Ultra 7 265K boosts to 5.50 GHz, while the Core 3 304 boosts to 4.30 GHz. The base clocks are 3.90 GHz and 1.50 GHz, respectively.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a one-sided comparison. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K wins every recorded head-to-head test, with an average score 5.2 times higher than the Core 3 304. The smallest gap, -12.6% in Cinebench R23 single-core, still clearly favors the Ultra 7. The largest gap, -86.2% in prime number finding, shows the Ultra 7's dominance in serial integer workloads.

The Core 3 304 is the newer part, with a 2026-04-15 release date versus 2024-10-23 for the Ultra 7. It also uses a dramatically lower 15 W TDP, making it suitable for fanless or passively cooled mobile designs. Its 5 threads and single-channel memory cap its performance, but the 68th percentile ranking indicates it outperforms a majority of CPUs in the database.

The Ultra 7 265K targets a completely different segment. Its 20 threads, 30 MB L3 cache, dual-channel 102.4 GB/s memory, and Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes make it a desktop-class part. The 94th percentile ranking and 70,879 average score place it among the top 6% of all recorded CPUs. The unlocked multiplier and ECC support add flexibility for enthusiasts and professionals.

For a mobile, low-power system where battery life and thermals matter more than raw throughput, the Core 3 304 provides a functional baseline. For any workload that benefits from parallel execution, large caches, or high memory bandwidth, the Ultra 7 265K is the clear choice based on the recorded data. The 17-0 win tally in head-to-head benchmarks leaves no ambiguity in the performance hierarchy.