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

FAQ

Q: What are the core and thread counts of the Intel Core 3 304 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T has 24 cores and 24 threads. Neither processor supports Hyper-Threading, so thread counts match core counts.

Q: How do the two processors compare in average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T records an average benchmark score of 51310, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 3 304 records an average score of 13745, placing it in the 68th percentile.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T boosts to 5.40 GHz, which is higher than the 4.30 GHz boost of the Intel Core 3 304. The Core 3 304 has a slightly higher base clock at 1.50 GHz versus 1.40 GHz.

Q: What memory bandwidth do the two CPUs support?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T supports dual-channel DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Intel Core 3 304 supports single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

Q: Which processor supports PCIe Gen 5?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The Intel Core 3 304 is limited to PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only).

Q: What is the release date of each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T was released on 2025-01-06, while the Intel Core 3 304 has a release date of 2026-04-15.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 3 304 and Intel Core Ultra 9 285T represent two distinct architectural approaches within Intel's current lineup. The Core 3 304 is based on the Wildcat Lake codename, while the Core Ultra 9 285T uses the Arrow Lake architecture. Both processors are built on a 3 nm process node, but the similarities end there.

The Core 3 304 relies on a compact design with 5 cores and 5 threads, no hyper-threading support, and a thermal design power of 15 W. It is classified as a mobile processor with an Intel BGA 1516 socket. Its cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe unit.

The Core Ultra 9 285T is a desktop part with 24 cores and 24 threads, also without hyper-threading. It has a 35 W TDP and uses Intel Socket 1851. Its cache design is notably different: 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU. The Core Ultra 9 285T also includes 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 3 304 does not have published transistor or die size data in the database.

The memory controllers differ substantially. The Core 3 304 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X in single-channel mode, yielding 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285T supports only DDR5 but in dual-channel mode, delivering 102.4 GB/s. The Core Ultra 9 285T also supports ECC memory, a feature not available on the Core 3 304. PCIe connectivity is another separator: the Core Ultra 9 285T provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes, while the Core 3 304 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes.

The foundry for the Core Ultra 9 285T is TSMC, whereas the Core 3 304 is fabricated by Intel. The generation labels confirm the split: Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) versus Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a comprehensive win for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T across all 17 recorded tests. The Core 3 304 does not win a single comparison. The margins, however, vary significantly depending on the workload.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285T scores 33573 against 5263 for the Core 3 304, a delta of -84.3%. This is the largest performance gap in the entire benchmark suite. Single-core performance in Cinebench R23 shows a smaller but still decisive margin: 4739 versus 1765, a delta of -62.8%.

Cinebench R20 results follow a similar pattern. Multi-core scores are 14100 for the Core Ultra 9 285T and 4160 for the Core 3 304, a -70.5% difference. Single-core in R20 shows the same -70.5% delta, with scores of 1990 and 587. In Cinebench R15, the multi-core test gives 3384 versus 849 (-74.9%), and the single-core test gives 477 versus 264 (-44.7%).

PassMark tests reveal the Core Ultra 9 285T's dominance in compute-heavy tasks. Integer math scores are 132433 versus 24640, a -81.4% delta. Floating point math shows 137923 against 29722, a -78.5% delta. Find prime numbers is particularly lopsided: 345 versus 68, a -80.3% delta. Extended instructions score 27477 versus 9686, a -64.7% delta.

Memory and data workloads also favor the Core Ultra 9 285T. Data compression scores 384140 versus 114775, a -70.1% delta. Data encryption scores 32061 versus 8501, a -73.5% delta. Random string sorting scores 47695 versus 13659, a -71.4% delta.

The smallest relative gap appears in PassMark single-thread tests. The Core Ultra 9 285T scores 4576, while the Core 3 304 scores 3614, a -21% delta. This suggests that the Core 3 304's single-thread performance is relatively competitive, though still behind. PassMark multi-thread shows 39931 versus 11625, a -70.9% delta. Physics scores 2842 versus 868, a -69.5% delta.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification field. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285T has 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are close: 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 304 versus 1.40 GHz for the Core Ultra 9 285T. Boost clocks diverge sharply: 4.30 GHz versus 5.40 GHz.

TDP ratings are 15 W for the Core 3 304 and 35 W for the Core Ultra 9 285T. Sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 1516 for the mobile Core 3 304, Intel Socket 1851 for the desktop Core Ultra 9 285T.

Cache configurations are structurally different. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 285T has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. Memory support: the Core 3 304 accepts DDR5 and LPDDR5X in single-channel mode with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth; the Core Ultra 9 285T accepts DDR5 in dual-channel mode with 102.4 GB/s.

ECC memory is not available on the Core 3 304 but is supported on the Core Ultra 9 285T. PCIe: the Core 3 304 has Gen 4 with 6 lanes, the Core Ultra 9 285T has Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics (64 EU). Market segments: Mobile versus Desktop. Launch MSRP: the Core 3 304 is $309 and the Core Ultra 9 285T is $549.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T wins every benchmark in the database. Its advantages are most pronounced in multi-threaded and compute-intensive workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it is 84.3% ahead of the Core 3 304. In PassMark integer math, it leads by 81.4%. Data compression, floating point math, and find prime numbers all show deltas above 70% in its favor.

The Core Ultra 9 285T also wins heavily in encryption and sorting tasks, with deltas of -73.5% and -71.4% respectively. Its dual-channel memory interface and larger L3 cache (36 MB versus 6 MB) contribute to these results. The Core Ultra 9 285T is positioned for desktop workloads where sustained multi-core performance and high memory bandwidth are critical.

The Intel Core 3 304, despite losing all comparisons, shows relative strength in single-threaded tests. The PassMark single-thread delta of -21% is the smallest gap in the entire suite. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the delta is -44.7%, which is also smaller than most multi-core gaps. This indicates that the Core 3 304's architecture, with its 4.30 GHz boost clock, is capable of respectable light-thread performance.

The Core 3 304's 15 W TDP and mobile socket make it suitable for power-constrained environments, while the Core Ultra 9 285T's 35 W TDP and desktop socket target higher-performance systems. The Core 3 304 supports LPDDR5X memory, which is not available on the Core Ultra 9 285T, and its single-channel memory configuration aligns with lower-power designs. The Core Ultra 9 285T offers ECC memory support, PCIe Gen 5, and a much larger cache pool, making it the clear choice for workloads that demand parallel processing, large datasets, and high bandwidth.

In summary, the data shows a complete sweep for the Core Ultra 9 285T. The Core 3 304 is not competitive in aggregate performance but does deliver a closer single-thread showing. The two processors serve different market segments, and the benchmark results reflect that split.