Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 dominates the Intel Core 3 304 across every recorded benchmark, with the largest margins appearing in multi-threaded workloads. The Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Core 3 304 records zero wins. The data confirms a decisive performance hierarchy between the two processors, driven by substantial differences in core count, memory bandwidth, and platform positioning.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most extreme gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48945 against the Core 3 304’s 5263, a delta of 89.2%. This is the largest percentage difference in the entire comparison. The Core Ultra 9 285’s 24 cores versus 5 cores explains the scale of this result, as multi-core rendering scales nearly linearly with available execution resources.

Single-core performance also favors the Core Ultra 9 285, though by a smaller margin. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 6909 versus 1765 for the Core 3 304, a 74.5% advantage. The PassMark single-thread test shows the narrowest gap in the dataset: 4881 versus 3614, a 26% delta. This indicates that while the Core Ultra 9 285 has a meaningful clock advantage (boost clock of 5.60 GHz versus 4.30 GHz), the Core 3 304’s architecture still delivers competitive per-thread performance relative to its positioning.

Cinebench R15 multi-core shows the Core Ultra 9 285 at 4933 against 849 for the Core 3 304, a 82.8% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core follows a similar pattern: 20556 versus 4160, a 79.8% gap. These consistent results across Cinebench versions confirm that the Core Ultra 9 285’s advantage is not workload-specific but reflects a fundamental difference in parallel throughput.

PassMark integer math shows the Core Ultra 9 285 at 164869 versus 24640 for the Core 3 304, an 85.1% delta. Floating point math follows with 194988 versus 29722, an 84.8% delta. The find prime numbers test shows 459 versus 68, an 85.2% delta, which is one of the larger proportional gaps, suggesting the Core Ultra 9 285’s core count and cache configuration benefit integer-heavy iterative workloads substantially.

Data compression and encryption tests also heavily favor the Core Ultra 9 285. Compression scores 602121 versus 114775, an 80.9% delta, while encryption scores 46949 versus 8501, an 81.9% delta. The extended instructions test (including AVX and SIMD workloads) shows 45357 versus 9686, a 78.6% delta. Random string sorting, a memory-latency-sensitive test, shows 73651 versus 13659, an 81.5% delta, which highlights the Core Ultra 9 285’s dual-channel memory bus and larger L3 cache.

Physics simulation in PassMark shows 3598 versus 868, a 75.9% delta, and multithread performance shows 56602 versus 11625, a 79.5% delta. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 9 285 is 75488, placing it at the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 3 304’s average is 13745, placing it at the 68th percentile.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the superior processor for every measured workload. Its 24 cores, 24 threads, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache deliver multi-core results that are roughly 5 to 9 times higher than the Core 3 304’s 5-core, 5-thread configuration with 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 285 also wins single-thread tests, though the margin is smaller, meaning even lightly threaded applications will run faster on the Core Ultra 9 285.

The Core 3 304’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (average score 13786, delta of 0.3% in favor of the rival) and the Intel Core i7-8750H (average score 13868, delta of 0.9%). This places the Core 3 304 firmly in the mobile mainstream segment, alongside older high-end laptop processors. The Core Ultra 9 285’s nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 8224P (average score 75582, delta of 0.1%) and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D (average score 75716, delta of 0.3%), positioning it at the top of the desktop performance range.

Users seeking maximum throughput for rendering, data processing, or heavy parallel computation should select the Core Ultra 9 285. The Core 3 304 is appropriate for lightweight mobile workloads where its lower TDP (15 watts versus 65 watts) and single-channel memory support are acceptable trade-offs for reduced power consumption. The data does not support any scenario where the Core 3 304 outperforms the Core Ultra 9 285.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different platform generations and market segments. The Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake-S codename and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. Both use a 3 nm process node, but the Core 3 304 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 9 285 is fabricated by TSMC.

The Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, compared to the Core 3 304’s 5 cores and 5 threads. Neither processor supports Hyper-Threading or equivalent simultaneous multithreading, as thread counts equal core counts for both. The Core Ultra 9 285’s transistor count is 17,800 million, and its die size is 243 mm². The Core 3 304’s transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. 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 9 285 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 allocation means the Core Ultra 9 285’s total L2 cache is substantially larger, though the database records it as a per-core figure.

Memory support differs by platform. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus and 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285 also supports ECC memory, while the Core 3 304 does not. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core 3 304 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 9 285 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics differ in branding and execution resources. The Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EUs. The market segments also differ: the Core 3 304 is a mobile processor, while the Core Ultra 9 285 is a desktop processor. Their sockets reflect this, with the Core 3 304 using Intel BGA 1516 and the Core Ultra 9 285 using Intel Socket 1851.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads.

Q: What is the single-thread performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 6909 versus 1765 for the Core 3 304, a 74.5% advantage. The PassMark single-thread test shows a narrower 26% gap, with scores of 4881 versus 3614.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 3 304 does not.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The Core 3 304 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 36 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor provide?

A: The Core 3 304 provides 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X bus. The Core Ultra 9 285 provides 102.4 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR5 bus.

Q: What is the largest benchmark delta between the two?

A: The largest delta is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core Ultra 9 285 leads by 89.2%, scoring 48945 versus 5263.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 285 wins every recorded benchmark, making the use-case split straightforward. It wins multi-threaded workloads by the largest margins, including Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests with deltas of 82.8%, 79.8%, and 89.2% respectively. PassMark multithread shows a 79.5% delta (56602 versus 11625), and integer math shows an 85.1% delta (164869 versus 24640). These results make the Core Ultra 9 285 the clear choice for content creation, 3D rendering, software compilation, and any workload that can utilize more than a handful of cores.

The Core Ultra 9 285 also wins single-thread tests, with the smallest margin in PassMark single-thread at 26%. Even in that narrow gap, the Core Ultra 9 285’s 4881 score versus 3614 means it delivers faster application launch times, better responsiveness in lightly threaded software, and stronger performance in legacy applications that cannot scale across cores.

The Core 3 304’s wins are limited to platform characteristics rather than performance. Its 15 watt TDP is substantially lower than the Core Ultra 9 285’s 65 watts, making it suitable for fanless or passively cooled mobile designs. Its LPDDR5X memory support allows for compact system-on-chip layouts, and its smaller physical footprint (BGA socket) suits thin-and-light laptops. However, the database records zero benchmark wins for the Core 3 304 against the Core Ultra 9 285.

For users who prioritize raw throughput, the Core Ultra 9 285 is the only logical choice from the data. For users who prioritize power efficiency and mobile form factors, the Core 3 304 offers a lower-power alternative, but it sacrifices performance in every measured category.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show clear differences in every major category. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. Base clocks differ at 2.50 GHz versus 1.50 GHz, and boost clocks differ at 5.60 GHz versus 4.30 GHz. TDP is 65 watts for the Core Ultra 9 285 and 15 watts for the Core 3 304.

Sockets differ: Intel Socket 1851 for the Core Ultra 9 285, Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 3 304. The process node is 3 nm for both, but the foundry differs: TSMC for the Core Ultra 9 285, Intel for the Core 3 304. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size, while the Core 3 304’s transistor count and die size are not recorded.

Cache configurations differ substantially. L1 is 192 KB for the Core 3 304 versus 192 KB per core for the Core Ultra 9 285. L2 is 2.5 MB for the Core 3 304 versus 3 MB per core for the Core Ultra 9 285. L3 is 6 MB shared versus 36 MB shared.

Memory support differs: the Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 9 285 supports only DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is available only on the Core Ultra 9 285. PCIe is Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the Core 3 304 versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes for the Core Ultra 9 285. Integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core for the Core 3 304 versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU for the Core Ultra 9 285.

Market segments differ: mobile for the Core 3 304, desktop for the Core Ultra 9 285. Release dates differ, with the Core Ultra 9 285 released in late 2024 and the Core 3 304 dated in 2026. The launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 9 285 is $579, while the Core 3 304 has a launch MSRP of $309. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both are marked as Active in production status.