Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus across all seventeen benchmark comparisons in the database. The Core 3 304 does not log a single victory in any of the measured tests, with the smallest deficits appearing in single-threaded workloads and the largest gaps emerging in heavily parallel tasks.

Looking first at Cinebench results, the Ultra 9 290HX Plus delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39684 against 5263 for the Core 3 304, a difference of 86.7 percent in favor of the larger chip. The single-core R23 result is closer, with the Ultra 9 scoring 2356 versus 1765 for the Core 3, a 25.1 percent advantage. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20, where the multi-core delta reaches 80.4 percent (21198 versus 4160), while the single-core delta is also 80.4 percent (2992 versus 587), indicating that the Core 3's efficiency cores, or the lack thereof, create a substantial gap even in lightly threaded rendering.

The Passmark suite reinforces the multi-core dominance. In integer math, the Ultra 9 scores 164839 against 24640, a delta of 85.1 percent. Floating point math shows a similar spread: 201773 versus 29722, or 85.3 percent apart. Data compression tasks amplify the difference further, with the Ultra 9 producing 658724 compared to 114775 for the Core 3, an 82.6 percent gap. Data encryption follows at 50008 versus 8501, an 83 percent difference. The Prime number search test, which often rewards high core counts, shows the largest relative margin at 86.9 percent (519 versus 68).

Even in the least demanding tests, the Ultra 9 holds a clear lead. Passmark single-thread performance puts the Ultra 9 at 4951 against 3614 for the Core 3, a 27 percent edge. The physics test, which measures simulation workloads, shows 3387 versus 868, a 74.4 percent gap. Random string sorting, a memory-latency-sensitive task, favors the Ultra 9 by 83 percent (80327 versus 13659). Across every category, the data indicates that the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus operates in a different performance class entirely, with the smallest single-threaded advantage still exceeding one-quarter of the Core 3's output.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge sharply in their fundamental design parameters. The Core 3 304 uses a Wildcat Lake architecture with five cores and five threads, indicating no hyper-threading support. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus belongs to the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh family with 24 cores and 24 threads, also lacking hyper-threading but offering nearly five times the physical core count.

Both chips are fabricated on a 3 nm process, but they use different foundries. The Core 3 304 is produced by Intel, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is manufactured by TSMC. The Ultra 9 carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, whereas the Core 3 lists no transistor count or die size in the database.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Core 3 304 provides 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. This means the Ultra 9's L3 cache is six times larger in total, and its per-core L2 allocation is significantly higher, which matters for workloads that repeatedly access working sets.

Memory support also separates the two. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus, yielding 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, producing 102.4 GB/s. That is roughly 1.7 times the memory bandwidth for the Ultra 9, a critical factor for data-heavy applications. The Ultra 9 also supports ECC memory, while the Core 3 does not.

PCIe connectivity favors the Ultra 9 as well. The Core 3 304 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 9 offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ: the Core 3 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with one Xe core, and the Ultra 9 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Ultra 9 has an unlocked multiplier, the Core 3 does not. Socket types are incompatible, with the Core 3 on Intel BGA 1516 and the Ultra 9 on Intel BGA 2114.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus boosts to 5.50 GHz, while the Intel Core 3 304 boosts to 4.30 GHz.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 39684, which is 86.7 percent higher than the Core 3 304's 5263.

Q: Does the Core 3 304 support ECC memory?

A: No, the Core 3 304 does not support ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus does.

Q: What is the L3 cache size for each processor?

A: The Core 3 304 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, and the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 36 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which chip has a higher Passmark single-thread score?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 4951, compared to 3614 for the Core 3 304, a 27 percent advantage.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Core 3 304 provides 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel bus, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus provides 102.4 GB/s over a dual-channel bus.

Specification Differences

The database records these differences between the two processors:

• Cores: 5 (Core 3 304) versus 24 (Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus)
• Threads: 5 versus 24
• Base clock: 1.50 GHz versus 2.70 GHz
• Boost clock: 4.30 GHz versus 5.50 GHz
• TDP: 15 W versus 55 W
• Socket: Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel BGA 2114
• Codename: Wildcat Lake versus Arrow Lake-HX Refresh
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• Transistors: not listed versus 17,800 million
• Die size: not listed versus 243 mm²
• L2 cache: 2.5 MB versus 3 MB per core
• L3 cache: 6 MB shared versus 36 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR5, LPDDR5X versus DDR5
• Memory bus: Single-channel versus Dual-channel
• Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s
• ECC memory: false versus true
• PCIe: Gen 4, 6 lanes versus Gen 5, 20 lanes
• Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU
• Release date: 2026-04-15 versus 2026-03-16
• Launch MSRP: $309 versus not listed
• Multiplier unlocked: false versus true
• Part number: SAE3K versus SADSS

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins every benchmark in the database. There is no recorded test where the Core 3 304 comes out ahead. That means the use-case split is not about which chip wins in specific applications, but rather about what each chip is designed to accomplish within its own specifications.

The Core 3 304, with a 15 W TDP and single-channel memory, targets low-power mobile devices where battery life and thermal constraints dominate. Its five cores and 6 MB of L3 cache are sufficient for basic productivity, light web browsing, and office tasks. The single-thread score of 3614 in Passmark and 264 in Cinebench R15 single-core shows it can handle everyday responsiveness, but the multi-core scores (849 in R15, 5263 in R23) place it well below any demanding content creation workload.

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, with a 55 W TDP, dual-channel memory, and 24 cores, is built for heavy parallel processing. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39684 places it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database, meaning it outperforms 95 percent of recorded processors. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 9 include the Core i9-14900KF with an average score of 79371 (0.3 percent higher), the EPYC 7413 at 80041 (0.6 percent lower), and the Xeon w5-2565X at 80671 (1.4 percent lower). The Core 3 304, by contrast, sits in the 68th percentile, with rivals like the Threadripper PRO 3975WX at 13786 (0.3 percent lower) and the Core i7-8750H at 13868 (0.9 percent lower).

The data shows that the Ultra 9 is suited for video editing, 3D rendering, scientific computation, and any workload that can use more than five cores. The Core 3 is suited for fanless or low-power designs where the 15 W envelope is non-negotiable and where the 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth is adequate for the expected tasks.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus delivers 17 wins out of 17 comparisons, and its average benchmark score of 79574 is roughly 5.8 times the Core 3 304's average of 13745. That places the Ultra 9 in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 sits in the 68th percentile.

For a user who needs maximum multi-threaded performance in a mobile form factor, the Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the only choice between these two. Its 24 cores, 36 MB of L3 cache, dual-channel memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, and Gen 5 PCIe connectivity provide the infrastructure for sustained heavy workloads. The unlocked multiplier adds flexibility for those who wish to push beyond stock clocks, though the database does not record any overclocked results.

For a user who prioritizes low power consumption and minimal thermal output, the Core 3 304's 15 W TDP is a defining feature. It cannot compete on performance, and the data does not suggest it should. Its single-channel memory and smaller cache are consistent with a device designed for battery life rather than throughput.

There is no scenario in the recorded benchmarks where the Core 3 304 outperforms the Ultra 9. The smallest margin is 22.4 percent in Cinebench R15 single-core, and the largest is 86.9 percent in the Passmark prime number test. The choice between these two processors is therefore a choice between a low-power, entry-level mobile chip and a high-end, performance-oriented mobile chip with a 55 W TDP. The data does not support any other conclusion.