Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data in this comparison is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head set, 17 wins to zero for the Intel Core 3 304. The margins range from moderate single-thread gaps to massive multi-core deltas that define the two processors as different performance classes entirely.

Starting with single-thread performance, the Core Ultra 7 366H leads by a smaller but still decisive margin. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ultra 7 scores 405 against 264 for the Core 3 304, a 34.8% advantage. The Cinebench R20 single-core test shows a 65.2% gap, with the Ultra 7 scoring 1688 versus 587. Cinebench R23 single-core narrows the relative difference to 56.1%, as the Ultra 7 posts 4020 and the Core 3 304 manages 1765. PassMark single-thread results show the closest margin in the entire comparison: the Ultra 7 scores 4043, only 10.6% ahead of the Core 3 304's 3614. This suggests that for lightly threaded workloads, the Core 3 304 is less disadvantaged than in heavily parallel tasks.

Multi-core benchmarks tell a very different story. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows the largest single delta: the Ultra 7 366H scores 28477, which is 81.5% ahead of the Core 3 304's 5263. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows the Ultra 7 at 2870 against 849, a 70.4% gap. Cinebench R20 multi-core follows the same pattern, with the Ultra 7 scoring 11960 versus 4160, a 65.2% difference. The PassMark multi-thread score puts the Ultra 7 at 33429 and the Core 3 304 at 11625, again a 65.2% gap.

The specialized PassMark workloads reinforce the same hierarchy. Floating-point math shows the Ultra 7 scoring 103615 against 29722, a 71.3% lead. Integer math comes in at 83695 versus 24640, a 70.6% advantage. Data compression scores 327455 for the Ultra 7 versus 114775, a 64.9% gap. Data encryption shows 25845 against 8501, a 67.1% difference. Extended instructions score 26901 versus 9686, a 64% gap. Find prime numbers is particularly lopsided: 326 versus 68, a 79.1% deficit for the Core 3 304. Physics simulation shows 2880 versus 868, a 69.9% gap. Random string sorting posts 39814 versus 13659, a 65.7% difference.

The average benchmark score reflects this overall dominance: the Core Ultra 7 366H averages 41263 across the database, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 304 averages 13745, placing it in the 68th percentile. That is a 19-percentile-point spread, which aligns with the near-constant victory pattern in the head-to-head data.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 366H wins every measured category, so the practical question is not which processor wins a given task, but how much it wins by. The narrowest advantage is in PassMark single-thread, where the Ultra 7 leads by 10.6%. This is the only benchmark below 34% in the entire set. For single-threaded office work, web browsing, or legacy applications that use one core, the Core 3 304 remains within striking distance.

The Core 3 304's best relative position is in single-thread tasks, but it cannot claim a victory anywhere. Its 3614 PassMark single-thread score is genuinely competitive against the Ultra 7's 4043, but the Cinebench single-core tests show a wider gap. The R15 single-core result of 264 versus 405 and the R20 single-core result of 587 versus 1688 indicate that the Ultra 7 pulls further ahead under sustained rendering loads.

The Core Ultra 7 366H dominates in multi-threaded and parallel workloads by overwhelming margins. The 81.5% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and the 79.1% lead in prime-number finding indicate that heavily threaded applications, such as video encoding, 3D rendering, and scientific computation, will strongly favor the Ultra 7. The 70.6% lead in integer math and the 71.3% lead in floating-point math confirm that numeric-heavy code sees a massive advantage.

The data compression and encryption results also favor the Ultra 7 heavily. Compression scores 327455 versus 114775, a 64.9% gap, while encryption scores 25845 versus 8501, a 67.1% gap. These workloads appear in file archiving, database operations, and secure communications, all of which will complete substantially faster on the Ultra 7.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 3 nm process node and Intel as the foundry, but they diverge sharply in almost every other architectural dimension. The Core Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically the Panther Lake-H generation, while the Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename from the Core 3 series.

Core counts differ by a factor of more than three. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts equal core counts in both cases. The base clock on the Ultra 7 is 2.00 GHz versus 1.50 GHz on the Core 3 304, and the boost clock is 4.80 GHz versus 4.30 GHz.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. 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 366H lists 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, with 18 MB of shared L3 cache. With 16 cores, the per-core L2 allocation on the Ultra 7 implies a much larger total L2 footprint, and the L3 cache is three times the size of the Core 3 304's allocation.

Memory support also differs. Both processors support DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but the Core 3 304 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 7 366H uses a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s. That bandwidth difference directly impacts memory-heavy workloads and partially explains the multi-core performance gap.

PCIe connectivity is another differentiator. The Core 3 304 uses PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 7 366H uses PCIe Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics also differ: the Core 3 304 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe unit, while the Core Ultra 7 366H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics without a listed execution unit count.

The sockets are incompatible. The Core 3 304 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel BGA 2540. The TDP ratings differ as well, with the Core 3 304 rated at 15 W and the Core Ultra 7 366H rated at 25 W. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory.

The Verdict

The benchmark data supports only one conclusion for performance: the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is the superior processor in every recorded test. Its 16 cores, dual-channel memory, larger L3 cache, and higher clocks deliver an average benchmark score of 41263, which places it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 304 averages 13745 and sits in the 68th percentile.

The nearest rivals in the database confirm the class difference. The Core Ultra 7 366H sits within 0.7% of the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H and within 0.1% of both the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440. It also lands within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, a desktop-class processor. The Core 3 304, by contrast, sits within 1.4% of the AMD EPYC 7443, within 0.9% of the Intel Core i7-8750H, and within 1.1% of the Intel Core 5 120UL. Its closest competitor, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX, is only 0.3% ahead by average score.

The Core 3 304 is not without merit. Its 15 W TDP, single-channel memory, and smaller cache footprint suggest a low-power design intended for thin-and-light mobile systems. Its single-thread PassMark score of 3614 is within 10.6% of the Ultra 7, which means everyday interactive tasks will not feel dramatically slower. The launch MSRP of the Core 3 304 is $309. The Core Ultra 7 366H has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

For workloads that stress all cores, the choice is clear. The Ultra 7 leads by 81.5% in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 71.3% in floating-point math, and 70.6% in integer math. Users running rendering, simulation, encoding, or heavy compilation workloads should select the Ultra 7. Users targeting maximum battery life and lighter workloads may find the Core 3 304 sufficient, but the performance data shows no scenario where it outruns the Ultra 7.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads.

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

A: The Core Ultra 7 366H leads in every single-thread test. The smallest margin is in PassMark single-thread, where the Ultra 7 scores 4043 against 3614, a 10.6% gap. The largest single-thread margin is in Cinebench R20, where the Ultra 7 scores 1688 against 587, a 65.2% gap.

Q: What is the biggest benchmark difference between the two?

A: The largest delta is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core Ultra 7 366H scores 28477 against 5263 for the Core 3 304, an 81.5% advantage. PassMark find prime numbers is close behind at 79.1%, with scores of 326 and 68.

Q: Do both processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes. Both the Intel Core 3 304 and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H are built on a 3 nm process node at Intel.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Core 3 304 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 366H uses a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 7 366H has an average benchmark score of 41263 and sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 304 has an average score of 13745 and sits in the 68th percentile.