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

FAQ

Q: What is the most significant performance gap between the Intel Core 3 304 and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF?

A: The largest recorded delta is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Ultra 7 265KF scores 49,736 versus the Core 3 304's 5,263, a difference of 89.4 percent.

Q: How do these processors compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The Ultra 7 265KF leads in every single-core test, with the smallest margin in PassMark single-thread at 4,928 versus 3,614, a 26.7 percent advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core the lead expands to 7,021 versus 1,765, a 74.9 percent delta.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Ultra 7 265KF averages 71,910 across its recorded benchmarks, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 304 averages 13,745, placing it in the 68th percentile.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each processor?

A: The Core 3 304 sits near the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (average 13,786, only 0.3 percent higher) and the Intel Core i7-8750H (13,868, 0.9 percent higher). The Ultra 7 265KF sits near the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX (71,797, 0.2 percent higher) and the Intel Xeon 6517P (72,350, 0.6 percent lower).

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Core 3 304 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with one Xe core, while the Ultra 7 265KF has no integrated graphics at all.

Q: When were these processors released?

A: The Ultra 7 265KF launched on 2024-10-23, while the Core 3 304 has a release date of 2026-04-15.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge sharply in almost every architectural dimension. The Core 3 304 comes from the Wildcat Lake family, built on a 3 nm node by Intel. The Ultra 7 265KF belongs to the Arrow Lake (Arrow Lake-S) family, also on a 3 nm node but fabricated by TSMC. The Ultra 7 uses 17,800 million transistors across a 243 mm² die, while the Core 3 304 has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database.

Core counts tell the first major story. The Core 3 304 offers 5 cores and 5 threads with no hyper-threading. The Ultra 7 265KF provides 20 cores and 20 threads, also without hyper-threading but with four times the physical resources. This core disparity drives most of the multi-threaded benchmark separation.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The Core 3 304 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost of 4.30 GHz. The Ultra 7 265KF starts at 3.90 GHz base and reaches 5.50 GHz boost. The higher base clock alone gives the Ultra 7 a 2.40 GHz starting advantage, which compounds with the core count in sustained workloads.

Cache hierarchies are not comparable. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 265KF has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The per-core L2 allocation on the Ultra 7 is larger than the total L2 on the Core 3 304.

Memory support and bandwidth separate the two radically. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X through a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 7 265KF supports DDR5 through a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. That is a 71.5 percent bandwidth advantage for the Ultra 7.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 3 304 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 7 265KF provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The Ultra 7 also has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Core 3 304 does not. The Ultra 7 uses Socket 1851 and the Core 3 304 uses BGA 1516, reflecting their mobile versus desktop market segments.

The Core 3 304 integrates Intel Xe3 Graphics with one Xe core. The Ultra 7 265KF has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU. Both processors lack ECC memory support. The Ultra 7 has a TDP of 125, while the Core 3 304 has a TDP of 15, an 8.3x difference in thermal design power.

The Verdict

The data presents a one-sided comparison. The Ultra 7 265KF wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark entries. There are zero wins for the Core 3 304 in the recorded tests. The average benchmark score of 71,910 for the Ultra 7 versus 13,745 for the Core 3 304 places them in entirely different performance tiers: the 94th percentile versus the 68th percentile.

The Core 3 304 is a mobile processor with integrated graphics, a single-channel memory bus, and a 15 TDP. The Ultra 7 265KF is a desktop processor with no integrated graphics, a dual-channel memory bus, and a 125 TDP. These are not competing products for the same socket or use case. The Ultra 7 delivers between 26.7 percent and 89.4 percent higher scores depending on the test.

Anyone seeking maximum multi-threaded throughput from the recorded data must choose the Ultra 7 265KF. The Core 3 304 only makes sense for workloads where its integrated Xe3 graphics and low TDP matter, but the benchmark data does not cover graphics performance. The Ultra 7 265KF is the clear performance leader in every measured category.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 5 (Core 3 304) versus 20 (Ultra 7 265KF)
• Threads: 5 versus 20
• Base clock: 1.50 GHz versus 3.90 GHz
• Boost clock: 4.30 GHz versus 5.50 GHz
• TDP: 15 versus 125
• Socket: BGA 1516 versus Socket 1851
• Codename: Wildcat Lake versus Arrow Lake-S
• Generation: Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) versus Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake)
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• Transistors: not recorded versus 17,800 million
• Die size: not recorded versus 243 mm²
• L1 cache: 192 KB total versus 192 KB per core
• L2 cache: 2.5 MB total versus 3 MB per core
• L3 cache: 6 MB shared versus 30 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR5, 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, 6 lanes versus Gen 5, 20 lanes
• Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 (1 Xe) versus N/A
• Market segment: mobile versus desktop
• Release date: 2026-04-15 versus 2024-10-23
• Launch MSRP: $309 versus $379
• Multiplier unlocked: false versus true
• Part number: SAE3K versus SRQCU

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Ultra 7 265KF dominates every single recorded benchmark. The smallest delta is in PassMark single-thread tests, where the Ultra 7 scores 4,928 against the Core 3 304's 3,614, a 26.7 percent gap. This shows that even in lightly threaded workloads, the higher clocks and newer architecture of the Ultra 7 provide a meaningful edge.

The single-core Cinebench results show a larger gap. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ultra 7 scores 707 versus the Core 3 304's 264, a 62.7 percent lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows the Ultra 7 at 2,948 versus 587, an 80.1 percent lead. Cinebench R23 single-core has the Ultra 7 at 7,021 versus 1,765, a 74.9 percent lead.

Multi-core results amplify the difference. Cinebench R15 multi-core has the Ultra 7 at 5,013 versus 849, an 83.1 percent lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 20,889 versus 4,160, an 80.1 percent lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the largest gap: 49,736 versus 5,263, an 89.4 percent lead. The R23 result indicates that the Ultra 7 delivers nearly 9.5 times the multi-threaded score of the Core 3 304.

PassMark tests follow the same pattern. Data compression shows the Ultra 7 at 666,589 versus 114,775, an 82.8 percent lead. Data encryption shows 48,198 versus 8,501, an 82.4 percent lead. Extended instructions show 54,513 versus 9,686, an 82.2 percent lead. Prime number finding shows 486 versus 68, an 86 percent lead. Floating point math shows 189,431 versus 29,722, an 84.3 percent lead. Integer math shows 143,351 versus 24,640, an 82.8 percent lead.

Multithreaded PassMark shows 58,518 versus 11,625, an 80.1 percent lead. Physics shows 3,633 versus 868, a 76.1 percent lead. Random string sorting shows 79,735 versus 13,659, an 82.9 percent lead. Every test confirms the same conclusion: the Ultra 7 265KF is categorically faster in every recorded workload.

Where Each One Wins

The Ultra 7 265KF wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database. There are no tests where the Core 3 304 achieves a higher score. The win distribution breaks down as follows: Cinebench multi-core tests (R15, R20, R23) all favor the Ultra 7 by margins from 80.1 percent to 89.4 percent. Cinebench single-core tests favor the Ultra 7 by 62.7 percent to 80.1 percent.

PassMark workloads all favor the Ultra 7. The closest PassMark result is single-thread at 26.7 percent, while the widest is prime number finding at 86 percent. The Ultra 7 also wins the Geekbench tests, though those only appear in its own benchmark list with scores of 22,913 multi-core and 2,759 single-core; the Core 3 304 has no recorded Geekbench scores.

The Core 3 304 has no benchmark wins, but it does have characteristics that the Ultra 7 lacks. It integrates Intel Xe3 graphics, enabling systems without a discrete GPU. It supports LPDDR5X memory in addition to DDR5. Its 15 TDP is dramatically lower than the Ultra 7's 125 TDP, which matters for thermally constrained mobile designs. Its single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth are lower than the Ultra 7's dual-channel 102.4 GB/s, but the Core 3 304 targets a different physical form factor.

The Ultra 7 265KF additionally offers Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes versus the Core 3 304's Gen 4 with 6 lanes, an unlocked multiplier, and a much larger L3 cache at 30 MB versus 6 MB. Its higher release-date position in the database (2024-10-23 versus 2026-04-15) does not affect performance rankings.

For workloads such as rendering, compilation, data compression, encryption, physics simulation, and integer or floating point math, the Ultra 7 265KF is the only choice based on recorded scores. For workloads requiring integrated graphics, low power draw, or mobile operation, the Core 3 304 provides capabilities that the Ultra 7 cannot offer, but those capabilities do not appear in the benchmark data. The recorded measurements show no scenario where the Core 3 304 outperforms the Ultra 7 265KF.