Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Core 3 304 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is one-sided in favor of the higher-tier chip. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Core Ultra 9 386H records the winning score. The margins vary significantly, from a modest single-core edge to a dominant multi-core advantage.

The largest gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core Ultra 9 386H scores 20,547 against the Core 3 304's 5,263. That is a 74.4% difference. The Core Ultra 9 also leads by 73.7% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, scoring 3,223 versus 849, and by 67.6% in Cinebench R20 multi-core with 12,820 against 4,160. These results indicate that the Core Ultra 9 386H delivers roughly three to four times the multi-threaded rendering performance of the Core 3 304.

Single-core performance tells a different story, with the gap much narrower but still decisive. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 386H scores 2,071.5, a 14.8% advantage over the Core 3 304's 1,765. The Cinebench R15 single-core result shows a 13% lead (303.5 versus 264), and the PassMark single-thread test shows a 14.3% lead (4,218 versus 3,614). The Core Ultra 9 386H also wins Cinebench R20 single-core by 67.6%, scoring 1,809 against 587, a much larger delta than the other single-thread tests.

In PassMark workloads, the Core Ultra 9 386H consistently posts scores roughly three times higher than the Core 3 304. Data compression shows 352,365 versus 114,775, a 67.4% delta. Data encryption records 27,150 versus 8,501, a 68.7% delta. Extended instructions score 29,138 against 9,686, a 66.8% delta. Floating point math reaches 108,527 versus 29,722, a 72.6% delta. Integer math scores 87,284 versus 24,640, a 71.8% delta. The multithread benchmark shows 35,399 against 11,625, a 67.2% delta, and physics completes at 3,028 versus 868, a 71.3% delta. Random string sorting delivers 42,135 against 13,659, a 67.6% delta. The find prime numbers test shows the largest percentage gap of the entire set: the Core Ultra 9 386H scores 341 while the Core 3 304 scores 68, an 80.1% difference.

The average benchmark score reinforces this hierarchy. The Core Ultra 9 386H averages 43,210 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 3 304 averages 13,745, placing it in the 68th percentile. The Core Ultra 9 386H sits close to rivals like the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385, which averages 43,326 (a 0.3% difference), and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465, which averages 43,431 (a 0.5% difference). The Core 3 304 sits near the Intel Core 5 120UL, which averages 13,594 (a 1.1% difference), and the Intel Core i7-8750H, which averages 13,868 (a 0.9% difference).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance tier separation. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, so any workload that benefits from higher raw scores will favor that chip. The Core 3 304 does not win a single test, meaning there is no recorded workload where it outperforms the Core Ultra 9 386H.

The Core Ultra 9 386H is the choice for multi-threaded tasks. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20,547 is roughly 3.9 times the Core 3 304's 5,263. Similar ratios appear across PassMark integer math (87,284 versus 24,640), floating point math (108,527 versus 29,722), and multithread (35,399 versus 11,625). These margins indicate that the Core Ultra 9 386H is in a different performance class for parallel workloads.

The Core 3 304 remains a functional mobile processor for lighter duties. Its single-core scores are not far behind: a 14.3% deficit in PassMark single-thread and a 14.8% deficit in Cinebench R23 single-core. For basic responsiveness and everyday applications, that gap is noticeable but not overwhelming. The Core 3 304's 68th percentile ranking shows it sits above many CPUs in the database, just not near the Core Ultra 9 386H's 88th percentile.

The production status of both chips is active, and both use Intel's 3 nm process node. The Core Ultra 9 386H carries a higher TDP of 25 watts against the Core 3 304's 15 watts, which aligns with the performance difference. The Core Ultra 9 386H also uses a dual-channel memory bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core 3 304 uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s. That memory bandwidth gap likely contributes to the large multi-thread deltas.

The Core Ultra 9 386H is the correct pick when maximum throughput matters. The Core 3 304 is the correct pick when the workload is light and the lower power envelope is a priority. The data does not suggest any scenario where the Core 3 304 wins a recorded benchmark, so the decision rests on how much performance is required versus how much power consumption is acceptable.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families. The Intel Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses the Panther Lake codename with the Panther Lake-H architecture. Both are built on Intel's 3 nm process node and are produced by Intel's own foundry.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither chip uses Hyper-Threading, as thread counts match core counts for both. The Core Ultra 9 386H has more than three times the core count, which explains its multi-core dominance.

Cache configurations also differ. 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 386H specifies 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L1 and L2 figures are identical, but the total L3 cache on the Core Ultra 9 386H is three times larger at 18 MB versus 6 MB.

Clock speeds favor the Core Ultra 9 386H. Its base clock runs at 2.10 GHz and boost clock at 4.90 GHz, while the Core 3 304 runs at 1.50 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost. The higher base clock on the Core Ultra 9 386H contributes to its better single-thread scores, and the higher boost clock provides additional headroom.

Memory support is similar in type, as both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The memory bus differs, with the Core 3 304 using single-channel and the Core Ultra 9 386H using dual-channel. Memory bandwidth reflects this: the Core 3 304 delivers 59.7 GB/s, while the Core Ultra 9 386H delivers 115.2 GB/s, almost double. Neither chip supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs by generation and lane count. The Core 3 304 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 9 386H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 9 386H doubles the lane count and moves to a newer PCIe generation.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe unit, while the Core Ultra 9 386H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics without a stated Xe unit count. Both use the same Xe3 generation, but the Core Ultra 9 386H's implementation may have more execution resources given its higher positioning.

Sockets are different. The Core 3 304 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 9 386H uses Intel BGA 2540. These are not interchangeable. Both are mobile-market parts, and both have locked multipliers. The Core 3 304 has a stated launch MSRP of $309, while the Core Ultra 9 386H has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Release dates differ by roughly three months. The Core Ultra 9 386H was released on 2026-01-04, while the Core 3 304 was released on 2026-04-15. Both are currently listed as active in production.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core 3 304 records zero wins.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 386H scores 20,547 against the Core 3 304's 5,263, a 74.4% delta. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the delta is 73.7%, and in Cinebench R20 multi-core, it is 67.6%.

Q: Is single-core performance closer between the two?

A: Yes. The PassMark single-thread test shows a 14.3% delta (4,218 versus 3,614), and Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 14.8% delta (2,071.5 versus 1,765). The Cinebench R15 single-core delta is 13%.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each chip?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor uses Hyper-Threading.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Core Ultra 9 386H uses a dual-channel memory bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 3 304 uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both processors use the same process node?

A: Yes, both are built on Intel's 3 nm process node. Both also use Intel as the foundry.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its strengths are most pronounced in multi-threaded workloads. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20,547 versus 5,263 shows a 74.4% lead. PassMark integer math shows an 71.8% lead (87,284 versus 24,640), and floating point math shows a 72.6% lead (108,527 versus 29,722). The physics test shows a 71.3% lead (3,028 versus 868). These results make the Core Ultra 9 386H the clear choice for rendering, simulation, encryption, and any parallel computation.

The Core Ultra 9 386H also wins single-thread tests, though by smaller margins. The PassMark single-thread score of 4,218 is 14.3% ahead of the Core 3 304's 3,614. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 14.8% lead (2,071.5 versus 1,765), and Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 13% lead (303.5 versus 264). These margins indicate that the Core Ultra 9 386H has a meaningful but not overwhelming advantage in lightly threaded tasks like typical application launches and basic office work.

The Intel Core 3 304 does not win any recorded test. Its closest results are in single-thread benchmarks, where it trails by 13% to 14.8%. For users running only light, single-threaded applications, the Core 3 304 will feel slower but not drastically so. Its 15-watt TDP is lower than the Core Ultra 9 386H's 25-watt TDP, which may make it suitable for fanless or low-power designs.

The Core 3 304 also uses a smaller socket footprint (Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel BGA 2540), which could matter for board design, though the database does not record physical dimensions. Its 6 MB of shared L3 cache versus 18 MB on the Core Ultra 9 386H means less on-die data capacity, but again, the Core 3 304 targets a lower performance tier.

The Core Ultra 9 386H's dual-channel memory bus doubles the bandwidth of the Core 3 304's single-channel bus, which directly affects memory-bound workloads. The 115.2 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s gap is a 48.2% difference, and it likely explains part of the large multi-core deltas in PassMark data compression and integer math.

The Core Ultra 9 386H also has a higher PCIe capability with Gen 5 and 12 lanes versus Gen 4 and 6 lanes on the Core 3 304. This affects expandability for fast storage or external devices, though the database does not include specific storage benchmark results.

In summary, the recorded data shows the Core Ultra 9 386H as the superior processor across every measured dimension. The Core 3 304 remains a viable low-power option for basic mobile computing, but it cannot match the Core Ultra 9 386H in any benchmark where a score was recorded.