Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 266V Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy between these two mobile processors. The Intel Core Ultra 7 266V wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with the Intel Core 3 304 securing a single victory in Cinebench R15 single-core. The Core Ultra 7 266V achieves an average benchmark score of 23297, placing it in the 76th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 304 averages 13745, sitting in the 68th percentile. The Core Ultra 7 266V sits alongside rivals such as the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H (0.1% delta) and Intel Core i9-11900F (0.2% delta), while the Core 3 304 lands near the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (-0.3% delta) and Intel Core i7-8750H (-0.9% delta).

The Core Ultra 7 266V is the processor for workloads that demand sustained multi-threaded performance. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 16544 versus 5263 for the Core 3 304 represents a 68.2% advantage, the largest gap in the entire comparison. The Core 3 304, despite being the older design with fewer cores, shows a notable single-core strength in one specific legacy test, but the Core Ultra 7 266V dominates every other single-threaded measurement. Users who prioritize encryption, compression, floating-point math, or physics simulations should choose the Core Ultra 7 266V without hesitation based on the recorded data. The Core 3 304 remains a functional mobile processor, but its only benchmark win is narrow and isolated.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design lineages. The Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation, while the Core Ultra 7 266V uses the Lunar Lake architecture and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs: Intel fabricates the Core 3 304, while TSMC produces the Core Ultra 7 266V.

Core counts diverge significantly. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, meaning no hyper-threading support. The Core Ultra 7 266V doubles the core count to 8 cores and 8 threads, also without hyper-threading. The base clock of the Core 3 304 sits at 1.50 GHz, while the Core Ultra 7 266V starts at 2.20 GHz. Boost clocks show a similar separation: 4.30 GHz for the Core 3 304 versus 5.00 GHz for the Core Ultra 7 266V. Thermal design power remains close, with the Core 3 304 rated at 15 W and the Core Ultra 7 266V at 17 W.

Cache hierarchies reveal different design priorities. The Core 3 304 carries 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 266V lists L1 as 192 KB per core, L2 as 2.5 MB per core, and L3 as 12 MB shared. The memory subsystem also differs: the Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus delivering 59.7 GB/s, while the Core Ultra 7 266V supports LPDDR5X (dependent on motherboard) over a dual-channel bus delivering 136.5 GB/s. PCIe connectivity moves from Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes on the Core 3 304 to Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes on the Core Ultra 7 266V.

Integrated graphics distinguish the two as well. The Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the Core Ultra 7 266V uses the Arc 140V. Sockets are incompatible: the Core 3 304 mounts on Intel BGA 1516, the Core Ultra 7 266V on Intel BGA 2833. Release dates place the Core 3 304 in April 2026 and the Core Ultra 7 266V in September 2024, making the Core 3 304 the newer product despite its lower performance tier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite exposes the full performance gulf. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 266V scores 16544 against 5263, a 68.2% lead. The gap persists in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where 6948 beats 4160 by 40.1%. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 1667 versus 849, a 49.1% difference. The Core Ultra 7 266V also leads in Cinebench R20 single-core, 980 versus 587 (40.1% ahead), and Cinebench R23 single-core, 2335 versus 1765 (24.4% ahead). The sole exception is Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Core 3 304 scores 264 versus 235, a 12.3% win for the older chip.

PassMark tests reinforce the Core Ultra 7 266V's dominance across every category. Data compression shows 187050 versus 114775, a 38.6% advantage. Data encryption delivers 13822 versus 8501, a 38.5% gap. Extended instructions produce 15928 versus 9686, a 39.2% difference. Find prime numbers yields 191 versus 68, a 64.4% lead, the second-largest margin in the comparison. Floating-point math scores 56923 versus 29722, a 47.8% gap. Integer math reaches 41558 versus 24640, a 40.7% difference. Multithread performance lands at 19461 versus 11625, a 40.3% margin. Physics tests show 1608 versus 868, a 46% gap. Random string sorting finishes at 22905 versus 13659, a 40.4% lead. Single-thread scores come closest: 3943 versus 3614, an 8.3% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 266V, recorded identically across both single-thread test entries.

The data indicates that the Core Ultra 7 266V's advantage grows with workload intensity. Multi-core tests show wider margins than single-core tests, and the most computationally demanding tasks, such as prime number finding and Cinebench R23 multi-core, produce the largest deltas. The Core 3 304's single win in Cinebench R15 single-core appears anomalous given its losses in every other single-core measurement.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the majority of benchmark tests?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 266V wins 16 of 17 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 3 304 wins only Cinebench R15 single-core, with a 12.3% margin.

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

A: The Core Ultra 7 266V leads by 68.2% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (16544 versus 5263), 40.1% in Cinebench R20 multi-core (6948 versus 4160), and 49.1% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (1667 versus 849).

Q: Are there any tests where the Core 3 304 is competitive?

A: The Core 3 304 wins Cinebench R15 single-core (264 versus 235). In all other single-core tests, the Core Ultra 7 266V leads, with the smallest margin being 8.3% in PassMark single-thread (3943 versus 3614).

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 7 266V averages 23297, while the Core 3 304 averages 13745. The Core Ultra 7 266V ranks in the 76th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 68th percentile for the Core 3 304.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each processor?

A: For the Core Ultra 7 266V, the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H sits 0.1% higher, the Intel Core i9-11900F is 0.2% lower, and the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V is 0.3% lower. For the Core 3 304, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX is 0.3% higher, and the Intel Core i7-8750H is 0.9% higher.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the Core 3 304 and the Core Ultra 7 266V have ECC memory support set to false.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 266V wins in every category that requires sustained parallel execution. Multi-core rendering, as measured by Cinebench R20 and R23, shows the largest advantages, with the 68.2% lead in R23 multi-core representing the peak separation. Data compression and encryption workloads favor the Core Ultra 7 266V by roughly 38.5% to 38.6%, indicating that archival and security-related tasks will complete substantially faster. Floating-point and integer math operations run 47.8% and 40.7% faster respectively, which matters for scientific computing, financial modeling, and general number-crunching applications. Physics simulations, a common proxy for gaming physics and engineering workloads, show a 46% advantage. Random string sorting, relevant for database and sorting algorithms, runs 40.4% faster.

The Core 3 304's single win in Cinebench R15 single-core (264 versus 235) suggests a potential edge in legacy single-threaded applications that rely on that specific benchmark's workload characteristics. However, the Core Ultra 7 266V counters with wins in Cinebench R20 single-core (980 versus 587, 40.1% ahead), Cinebench R23 single-core (2335 versus 1765, 24.4% ahead), and PassMark single-thread (3943 versus 3614, 8.3% ahead). The newer single-core tests, which reflect more modern instruction patterns, all favor the Core Ultra 7 266V. The Core 3 304's advantage appears confined to a specific legacy test scenario rather than a general single-threaded capability.

For integrated graphics workloads, the Arc 140V in the Core Ultra 7 266V represents a more capable solution than the Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core in the Core 3 304, though no graphics benchmarks are recorded in the data to quantify the difference. Memory bandwidth also favors the Core Ultra 7 266V at 136.5 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s, which benefits any memory-bound workload.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. Core count: 5 for the Core 3 304 versus 8 for the Core Ultra 7 266V. Thread count: 5 versus 8. Base clock: 1.50 GHz versus 2.20 GHz. Boost clock: 4.30 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. TDP: 15 W versus 17 W. Socket: Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel BGA 2833. Codename: Wildcat Lake versus Lunar Lake. Generation: Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) versus Ultra 7 (Lunar Lake). Process node: both 3 nm, but foundry is Intel for the Core 3 304 and TSMC for the Core Ultra 7 266V.

Cache: L1 is 192 KB for the Core 3 304 versus 192 KB per core for the Core Ultra 7 266V. L2 is 2.5 MB versus 2.5 MB per core. L3 is 6 MB shared versus 12 MB shared. Memory support: DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Core 3 304, LPDDR5X dependent on motherboard for the Core Ultra 7 266V. Memory bus: single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s versus 136.5 GB/s. PCIe: Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes versus Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) versus Arc 140V. Release date: April 2026 versus September 2024. Launch MSRP: the Core 3 304 has a launch MSRP of $309, while the Core Ultra 7 266V has no recorded launch MSRP. Part numbers differ: SAE3K for the Core 3 304, SRPMMSRPMY for the Core Ultra 7 266V. Both are mobile segments, active production, and have locked multipliers. Neither supports ECC memory.