Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a decisive picture: the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core 3 304. The single-threaded gap is comparatively modest, but the multi-core and specialized workload gaps are substantial.

Starting with Cinebench, the Core Ultra 9 288V delivers 1583 points in Cinebench R15 multi-core versus 849 for the Core 3 304, a 46.4% lead. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the scores are 7069 versus 4160, a 41.2% advantage. The R23 multi-core test shows the largest Cinebench margin: 10178 versus 5263, which is 48.3% ahead. Single-core results are closer: R15 shows 301.5 versus 264 (12.4% ahead), R20 shows 997 versus 587 (41.1% ahead), and R23 shows 1950 versus 1765 (9.5% ahead). The R20 single-core delta stands out as an outlier compared to the other single-core tests, suggesting the Core Ultra 9 288V has a wider advantage in that specific workload.

PassMark results reinforce the pattern. The data compression test shows 186521 versus 114775, a 38.5% lead. Data encryption shows 14141 versus 8501, a 39.9% lead. Extended instructions show 15613 versus 9686, a 38% lead. The prime number search test is the largest single delta: 195 versus 68, which is 65.1% ahead. Floating point math shows 59536 versus 29722, a 50.1% lead. Integer math shows 44019 versus 24640, a 44% lead. The multithread test shows 19810 versus 11625, a 41.3% lead. Physics shows 1637 versus 868, a 47% lead. Random string sorting shows 22622 versus 13659, a 39.6% lead. Single-thread PassMark shows 4274 versus 3614, a 15.4% lead.

The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 9 288V is 23219, while the Core 3 304 averages 13745. The percentile data places the Core Ultra 9 288V at 76% of all CPUs, compared to 68% for the Core 3 304. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 9 288V include the Intel Core i9-11900F at 23254 (0.2% higher), the AMD EPYC 4124P at 23167 (0.2% lower), and the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H at 23277 (0.2% lower). The Core 3 304 sits near the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX at 13786 (0.3% lower), the Intel Core i7-8750H at 13868 (0.9% lower), and the Intel Core 5 120UL at 13594 (1.1% higher).

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 288V wins every recorded benchmark category, so the use-case split is one-sided. The largest margins appear in integer-heavy and math-heavy workloads. The prime number search test, which stresses pure integer throughput, shows the biggest gap at 65.1%. Floating point math follows at 50.1%. These results indicate the Core Ultra 9 288V has a significantly stronger execution pipeline for compute-intensive tasks.

The Core 3 304 does not win any benchmark, but the data shows its single-thread performance is relatively closer to the Core Ultra 9 288V than its multi-thread performance. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap narrows to 9.5%, and in PassMark single-thread it is 15.4%. For workloads that depend primarily on single-core responsiveness, the Core 3 304 is less disadvantaged than for multi-threaded rendering or parallel computation.

The Core 3 304 also has a lower thermal design power of 15 watts compared to 30 watts for the Core Ultra 9 288V. This suggests the Core 3 304 operates in a lower power envelope, which may be relevant for systems where thermal limits are a constraint, though the benchmark data does not directly quantify power efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V scores 1950, while the Intel Core 3 304 scores 1765. The delta is 9.5% in favor of the Core Ultra 9 288V.

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

A: The PassMark find prime numbers test shows the largest gap. The Core Ultra 9 288V scores 195 versus 68 for the Core 3 304, a 65.1% advantage.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 9 288V has an average benchmark score of 23219, while the Core 3 304 averages 13745. The Core Ultra 9 288V also ranks at the 76th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 68th percentile for the Core 3 304.

Q: Does the Core 3 304 win any benchmark test?

A: No. In the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons recorded, the Core Ultra 9 288V wins all of them.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock?

A: The Core Ultra 9 288V has a base clock of 3.30 GHz, while the Core 3 304 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz.

Q: Are both processors still in active production?

A: Yes, both the Core 3 304 and the Core Ultra 9 288V have an active production status according to the database.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in core count, thread count, clock speeds, thermal design power, socket, memory bus, memory bandwidth, PCIe configuration, integrated graphics, release date, and part number. The Core Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The base clock is 3.30 GHz versus 1.50 GHz, and the boost clock is 5.10 GHz versus 4.30 GHz. The thermal design power is 30 watts for the Core Ultra 9 288V and 15 watts for the Core 3 304.

The socket differs: Intel BGA 2833 for the Core Ultra 9 288V and Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 3 304. Memory support also differs: the Core Ultra 9 288V supports LPDDR5X only, while the Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The memory bus is dual-channel for the Core Ultra 9 288V and single-channel for the Core 3 304, resulting in a memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s. PCIe generation and lane count differ: Gen 5 with 4 lanes for the Core Ultra 9 288V, Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the Core 3 304. Integrated graphics differ: Arc 140V for the Core Ultra 9 288V and Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) for the Core 3 304. The release date is September 2024 for the Core Ultra 9 288V and April 2026 for the Core 3 304. The Core 3 304 has a launch MSRP of $309; the Core Ultra 9 288V has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The Core Ultra 9 288V uses the Lunar Lake architecture, while the Core 3 304 uses Wildcat Lake. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs: the Core Ultra 9 288V is fabricated by TSMC, and the Core 3 304 is fabricated by Intel. The Core Ultra 9 288V belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation, while the Core 3 304 is from the Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) generation.

Cache configuration differs significantly. The Core Ultra 9 288V has 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, with 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1 cache total, 2.5 MB of L2 cache total, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 allocation on the Core Ultra 9 288V is particularly notable given its 8 core count, which yields a larger aggregate cache.

Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Core Ultra 9 288V has a part number of SRPMSSRPMWQ5JTQ5JUQ5KW, while the Core 3 304 has the part number SAE3K.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V is the superior processor in every measured workload. The 17-0 head-to-head record leaves no ambiguity. For multi-threaded rendering tasks, the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10178 versus 5263 represents a 48.3% advantage that will be felt in productivity applications. For scientific or engineering workloads that rely on floating point math, the 50.1% lead in that PassMark test is equally decisive.

The Core 3 304 is not without merit. Its single-core Cinebench R23 score of 1765 is only 9.5% behind, which suggests it remains competitive in lightly threaded scenarios. Its lower 15 watt thermal design power also indicates a more modest power footprint, which could be relevant in thermally constrained mobile designs. However, the recorded data shows no benchmark category where the Core 3 304 takes the lead.

The Core Ultra 9 288V also carries a higher percentile ranking at 76% versus 68%, and its average benchmark score of 23219 places it near desktop-class rivals like the Intel Core i9-11900F and AMD Ryzen 7 5800H, both within 0.2% of its average score. The Core 3 304, by contrast, sits near mobile and workstation parts from earlier generations, including the Intel Core i7-8750H (0.9% lower average score) and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (0.3% lower).

For users who need maximum throughput in multi-threaded, math-heavy, or compression workloads, the Core Ultra 9 288V is the clear choice based on the recorded measurements. For users who prioritize a lower power envelope and can tolerate a single-core deficit of roughly 10 to 15 percent, the Core 3 304 remains a viable alternative, but it does not outperform the Core Ultra 9 288V in any test in the database.