Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285H Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H records an average benchmark score of 38312, while the Intel Core 3 304 records 13745. The Core Ultra 9 285H sits at the 86th percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Core 3 304 sits at the 68th percentile.

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H wins in every recorded single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2129.5 versus 1765 for the Core 3 304, a delta of 17.1%. PassMark single-thread results show 4415 versus 3614, an 18.1% advantage.

Q: What is the difference in multi-core rendering performance?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285H dominates multi-core workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 20781.5 versus 5263 for the Core 3 304, a 74.7% advantage. The Cinebench R15 multi-core result shows 3177.5 versus 849, a 73.3% gap.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory. However, the Core 3 304 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 9 285H uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the launch dates for these processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H launched on 2025-01-12, while the Intel Core 3 304 launched on 2026-04-15.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

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

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 3 304 and Intel Core Ultra 9 285H represent different design approaches within Intel's mobile lineup. The Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation, while the Core Ultra 9 285H uses the Arrow Lake architecture and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation with the Arrow Lake-H codename.

Both processors are built on a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries. Intel fabricates the Core 3 304 at Intel, while TSMC fabricates the Core Ultra 9 285H. This distinction matters for manufacturing characteristics, though the database does not record transistor counts or die sizes for either chip.

The core configurations differ substantially. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, indicating no simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads, also without extra threads per core. The Core Ultra 9 285H therefore offers more than three times the physical core count.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. 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 285H lists 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 allocation on the Core Ultra 9 285H gives it a much larger total cache footprint.

The platform features differ as well. The Core 3 304 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket with PCIe Gen 4 and 6 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 9 285H uses the Intel BGA 2049 socket with PCIe Gen 5 and 8 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 9 285H supports ECC memory, which the Core 3 304 does not. Integrated graphics differ: the Core 3 304 carries Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the Core Ultra 9 285H carries Arc Graphics 140T.

Clock speeds favor the Core Ultra 9 285H. It has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, compared to 1.50 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost for the Core 3 304. The Core Ultra 9 285H also carries a 45 W TDP versus 15 W for the Core 3 304. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H wins every benchmark recorded in the head-to-head comparison. The Core 3 304 does not win a single test. The magnitude of the victory varies by workload type.

Single-core performance shows the smallest gaps. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 285H scores 313 versus 264, a 15.7% advantage. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a larger gap: 1722 versus 587, a 65.9% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core narrows to 2129.5 versus 1765, a 17.1% delta. PassMark single-thread results show 4415 versus 3614, an 18.1% gap.

Multi-core performance shows the largest gaps. Cinebench R15 multi-core records 3177.5 for the Core Ultra 9 285H against 849 for the Core 3 304, a 73.3% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core records 12201 versus 4160, a 65.9% delta. Cinebench R23 multi-core records 20781.5 versus 5263, a 74.7% delta. PassMark multithread shows 34171 versus 11625, a 66% delta.

Specialized workloads follow the same pattern. PassMark data compression scores 335859 for the Core Ultra 9 285H against 114775 for the Core 3 304, a 65.8% delta. Data encryption records 26140 versus 8501, a 67.5% delta. Extended instructions record 26794 versus 9686, a 63.9% delta. Floating point math records 109190 versus 29722, a 72.8% delta. Integer math records 85922 versus 24640, a 71.3% delta.

The largest single gap appears in PassMark find prime numbers. The Core Ultra 9 285H scores 330 against 68 for the Core 3 304, a 79.4% delta. Other tests show consistent leads: PassMark physics records 2513 versus 868, a 65.5% delta, and random string sorting records 40931 versus 13659, a 66.6% delta.

The average benchmark score comparison reinforces this dominance. The Core Ultra 9 285H averages 38312, which places it near the AMD Ryzen 7 250 (38221, 0.2% ahead) and the Intel Core 9 270H (38335, 0.1% behind). The Core 3 304 averages 13745, placing it near the Intel Core 5 120UL (13594, 1.1% behind) and the Intel Core i7-8750H (13868, 0.9% behind). The two processors occupy entirely different performance strata.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification field.

| Specification | Intel Core 3 304 | Intel Core Ultra 9 285H |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 5 | 16 |

| Threads | 5 | 16 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.30 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2049 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-H |

| Generation | Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-H) |

| Process node | 3 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L1 cache | 192 KB | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 2.5 MB | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | Arc Graphics 140T |

| Release date | 2026-04-15 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | $651 |

| Part number | SAE3K | SRQAL |

Both processors support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, target the mobile market segment, are actively in production, and have locked multipliers. The 3 nm process node is shared between them, though the foundry differs.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H wins in every measured category. There is no benchmark in the database where the Intel Core 3 304 takes the lead. The data shows a clean sweep for the Core Ultra 9 285H.

The Core Ultra 9 285H is the appropriate choice for multi-threaded rendering, data compression, encryption, and mathematical workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20781.5 and PassMark multithread score of 34171 place it in a different class from the Core 3 304. The 16-core configuration with dual-channel memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s supports these results. The 45 W TDP reflects the higher sustained power envelope required for this performance.

The Core Ultra 9 285H also leads in single-threaded tasks. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2129.5 and PassMark single-thread score of 4415 show an 18.1% advantage over the Core 3 304. The higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz contributes to this lead. This processor suits workloads that depend on both strong per-core performance and high core counts.

The Intel Core 3 304 offers a different trade-off. Its 15 W TDP and single-channel memory bus indicate a lower-power design. It delivers an average benchmark score of 13745, which places it within 1.1% of the Intel Core 5 120UL and within 0.9% of the Intel Core i7-8750H. The Core 3 304 is positioned for efficiency-oriented mobile systems where the Core Ultra 9 285H's 45 W TDP would be excessive.

The Core 3 304 also supports PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes, whereas the Core Ultra 9 285H supports PCIe Gen 5 with 8 lanes. This indicates different expansion capabilities. The Core 3 304's integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core differs from the Arc Graphics 140T in the Core Ultra 9 285H.

The launch dates and MSRPs reflect their positioning. The Core 3 304 launched 2026-04-15 with a $309 launch MSRP. The Core Ultra 9 285H launched 2025-01-12 with a $651 launch MSRP. Both remain active in production.

For workloads that require maximum throughput, the Core Ultra 9 285H is the clear choice. For systems that prioritize lower power consumption, the Core 3 304 provides a lighter alternative, though the performance gap is substantial across all recorded benchmarks.