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

FAQ

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each processor?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K has 24 cores and 24 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading.

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

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 285K scores 2377 versus 1765 for the Core 3 304, a 25.7% advantage. PassMark single-thread results show 5087 versus 3614, a 29% lead for the Core Ultra 9.

Q: Which processor has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K has a dual-channel memory bus delivering 102.4 GB/s. The Intel Core 3 304 uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s.

Q: What process node and foundry are used for each chip?

A: Both processors are built on a 3 nm process node. The Core 3 304 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 9 285K is fabricated by TSMC.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 3 304 does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the production status and release date for each?

A: Both are listed as active in production. The Intel Core 3 304 was released on 2026-04-15, and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K was released on 2024-10-23.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 3 304 and Intel Core Ultra 9 285K represent two very different architectural approaches within Intel's current lineup. The Core 3 304 is a mobile part based on the Wildcat Lake codename, while the Core Ultra 9 285K is a desktop part using the Arrow Lake-S codename and the broader Arrow Lake architecture. The Core 3 304 belongs to the Core 3 generation (Wildcat Lake), and the Core Ultra 9 285K belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation (Arrow Lake).

Both chips are built on a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries. The Core 3 304 is fabricated by Intel, whereas the Core Ultra 9 285K is fabricated by TSMC. The Core Ultra 9 also reports a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while those figures are not recorded for the Core 3 304.

The core topology differs substantially. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, a modest configuration aimed at efficiency. The Core Ultra 9 285K has 24 cores and 24 threads, a high-core-count desktop design. Cache hierarchies are also distinct. 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 285K has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 3 304 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, while the Core Ultra 9 285K supports DDR5 only. The Core 3 304 uses a single-channel memory bus, and the Core Ultra 9 uses a dual-channel bus. Memory bandwidth figures reflect this: 59.7 GB/s for the Core 3 304 versus 102.4 GB/s for the Core Ultra 9 285K. ECC memory is supported only on the Core Ultra 9.

PCIe connectivity shows a significant gap. The Core 3 304 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 9 285K provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 3 304 has Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe, while the Core Ultra 9 285K has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64EU.

The Core Ultra 9 has an unlocked multiplier; the Core 3 304 does not. The Core 3 304 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket, and the Core Ultra 9 uses the Intel Socket 1851. Market segments are Mobile and Desktop, respectively. The launch MSRP for the Core 3 304 is $309, and the launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 9 285K is $589.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark record shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The Core 3 304 does not win a single comparison. The scale of the performance gap varies by workload, ranging from roughly 26% to over 87%.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core Ultra 9 scores 6494 against 849 for the Core 3 304, a delta of -86.9% from the Core 3 perspective. The same test in single-core shows 359 versus 264, a -26.5% delta. Cinebench R20 multicore results show 24003 versus 4160 (-82.7%), and single-core shows 3388 versus 587 (-82.7%). Cinebench R23 multicore delivers 42522 versus 5263 (-87.6%), while single-core delivers 2377 versus 1765 (-25.7%).

PassMark tests follow the same pattern. Data compression scores 790052 versus 114775, a -85.5% delta. Data encryption shows 57745 versus 8501 (-85.3%). Extended instructions produce 62277 versus 9686 (-84.4%). The find prime numbers test yields 541 versus 68 (-87.4%). Floating point math scores 224324 versus 29722 (-86.8%). Integer math scores 172379 versus 24640 (-85.7%). The multithread test shows 67260 versus 11625 (-82.7%). Physics results are 3938 versus 868 (-78%). Random string sorting delivers 94927 versus 13659 (-85.6%). Single-thread PassMark scores are 5087 versus 3614 (-29%).

The narrowest gaps appear in single-threaded workloads. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 26.5% difference, Cinebench R23 single-core shows 25.7%, and PassMark single-thread shows 29%. These are still substantial leads, but they indicate the Core 3 304's single-core performance is relatively closer to the flagship than its multicore performance.

The widest gaps are all in multicore-heavy or parallel workloads. Cinebench R23 multicore shows the largest delta at -87.6%, followed closely by Cinebench R15 multicore at -86.9%, floating point math at -86.8%, and data compression at -85.5%. The Core Ultra 9's 24 cores versus 5 cores explains the pattern: thread-heavy tasks amplify the core-count advantage.

The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 9 285K is 83807, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 304 has an average benchmark score of 13745, placing it in the 68th percentile. The Core Ultra 9's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus (delta -0.2%), AMD EPYC 4584PX (delta 0.9%), AMD EPYC 9135 (delta 1%), and AMD EPYC 7F72 (delta -1.5%). The Core 3 304's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (delta -0.3%), Intel Core i7-8750H (delta -0.9%), Intel Core 5 120UL (delta 1.1%), and AMD EPYC 7443 (delta -1.4%).

Specification Differences

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

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

| Cores | 5 | 24 |

| Threads | 5 | 24 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.30 GHz | 5.70 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 125 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Architecture | Not recorded | Arrow Lake |

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

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die size | Not recorded | 243 mm² |

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

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

| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

| 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, 20 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | 2026-04-15 | 2024-10-23 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | $589 |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part number | SAE3K | SRQD5 |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K wins in every recorded benchmark category. There are no tests in the database where the Intel Core 3 304 takes a lead. The analysis therefore centers on the magnitude of the Ultra 9's advantage and what that implies for different usage profiles.

For heavily threaded workloads, the Core Ultra 9 285K is in a different class. Cinebench R23 multicore shows a 87.6% advantage, and Cinebench R15 multicore shows 86.9%. PassMark multithread, floating point math, integer math, data compression, and random string sorting all show deltas between 82.7% and 86.8%. These results indicate that rendering, scientific computation, data processing, and any workload that scales across many cores will strongly favor the Core Ultra 9 285K. The 24-core configuration with 36 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth supports this pattern.

For single-threaded workloads, the Core Ultra 9 still wins, but by a smaller margin. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 25.7% lead, Cinebench R15 single-core shows 26.5%, and PassMark single-thread shows 29%. The Core 3 304's boost clock of 4.30 GHz is respectable, but the Core Ultra 9's 5.70 GHz boost clock and higher base clock of 3.70 GHz provide a clear edge. Applications that are lightly threaded, such as many legacy desktop programs or basic office tasks, will see a meaningful but less dramatic difference.

The Core 3 304's strongest showing is in single-threaded tests, where it trails by roughly a quarter rather than by more than four-fifths. Its 68th percentile standing among all CPUs indicates it is a mid-tier performer, while the Core Ultra 9's 96th percentile places it near the top of the entire database. The Core 3 304's nearest rivals include mobile and server parts with similar average scores, such as the Intel Core i7-8750H and AMD EPYC 7443, confirming its position as a capable mobile processor. The Core Ultra 9's nearest rivals are high-end desktop and server chips like the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and AMD EPYC 9135.

The Core 3 304 is a mobile processor with a 15 W TDP, designed for battery-conscious systems. Its single-channel memory bus and 6 PCIe Gen 4 lanes align with a power-efficient, compact platform. The Core Ultra 9 285K is a desktop processor with a 125 W TDP, dual-channel memory, and 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, aligned with high-throughput desktop workloads. The recorded data shows no benchmark category where the Core 3 304 outperforms the Core Ultra 9, so any use-case split must rely on platform and power characteristics rather than measured performance wins. The Core 3 304's advantage is its form factor and efficiency profile, not its benchmark scores.