Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an overwhelmingly one-sided comparison. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H claims victory, leaving the Intel Core 3 304 with zero wins. The margin of dominance varies significantly depending on workload type, revealing distinct performance characteristics.

In multi-core workloads, the gap is substantial. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the Ultra X7 358H scoring 18,747 against the Core 3 304's 5,263, a delta of -71.9% from the Core 3's perspective. Cinebench R20 multi-core follows a similar pattern with scores of 12,011 versus 4,160, a -65.4% difference. Cinebench R15 multi-core delivers 3,027 against 849, representing a -72% delta. These consistent multi-core deficits indicate the Core 3 304 operates at roughly one-third to one-quarter the throughput of the Ultra X7 358H in rendering scenarios.

Single-core differences, while still favoring the Ultra X7 358H, are far less extreme. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2,080 versus 1,765, a -15.1% gap. Cinebench R20 single-core records 1,695 against 587, a -65.4% difference, which is notably larger than the R23 single-core gap. Cinebench R15 single-core delivers 301.5 versus 264, a -12.4% delta. PassMark single-thread results mirror this with 4,124 against 3,614, also -12.4%. The R20 single-core anomaly stands out; it suggests the Core 3 304's single-core efficiency degrades more sharply in that specific test iteration.

PassMark integer math shows the Ultra X7 358H at 83,147 versus 24,640, a -70.4% delta. Floating-point math follows with 103,842 against 29,722, a -71.4% gap. Data compression delivers 332,508 versus 114,775, a -65.5% difference. Data encryption shows 26,046 against 8,501, a -67.4% gap. Extended instructions record 27,274 versus 9,686, a -64.5% delta. Physics simulation delivers 3,021 against 868, a -71.3% gap. Prime number finding shows 337 versus 68, the largest proportional gap at -79.8%. Random string sorting records 40,357 against 13,659, a -66.2% delta. Multithreaded PassMark scores show 33,802 versus 11,625, a -65.6% gap.

The data indicates the Ultra X7 358H maintains a consistent 64% to 80% advantage across most workloads, with single-thread tests showing a narrower 12% to 15% edge. The Prime number test stands as the most extreme divergence, suggesting algorithmic differences beyond raw core count.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 3 nm process node and Intel foundry, but diverge sharply in core configuration and memory architecture. The Core 3 304 employs 5 cores and 5 threads, while the Ultra X7 358H doubles capacity to 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading, keeping thread counts equal to core counts.

Cache hierarchies differ markedly. The Core 3 304 provides 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra X7 358H lists L1 as 192 KB per core, L2 as 3 MB per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The per-core L2 allocation suggests the Ultra X7 358H's design prioritizes local data residency across its larger core count, while the Core 3 304's smaller shared L3 limits cross-core data sharing capacity.

Memory support separates the two clearly. The Core 3 304 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X through a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra X7 358H supports only LPDDR5X but through a dual-channel bus delivering 153.6 GB/s, roughly 2.6 times the memory bandwidth. This bandwidth differential likely contributes to the Ultra X7 358H's dominance in data-intensive workloads like compression and encryption.

PCIe connectivity differs generationally. The Core 3 304 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Ultra X7 358H offers Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. The Gen 5 interface doubles per-lane bandwidth potential, though the lane count reduction tempers total expansion capability.

Integrated graphics take separate paths. The Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the Ultra X7 358H integrates Arc B390 graphics. The Arc branding indicates a higher-tier GPU implementation, though benchmark data for graphics performance is not recorded in the database.

Codename generations confirm distinct design lineages. The Core 3 304 belongs to Wildcat Lake, while the Ultra X7 358H comes from Panther Lake. Their sockets differ accordingly: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 3 304, Intel BGA 2540 for the Ultra X7 358H. Base and boost clocks also differ, with the Core 3 304 running at 1.50 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost, while the Ultra X7 358H starts at 1.90 GHz base and reaches 4.80 GHz boost.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H records an average benchmark score of 40,967, while the Intel Core 3 304 averages 13,745. The Ultra X7 358H also sits at the 87th percentile versus all CPUs, compared to the Core 3 304's 68th percentile.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Ultra X7 358H scores 18,747 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core 3 304 scores 5,263. This represents a -71.9% delta from the Core 3 304's perspective, meaning the Ultra X7 358H delivers roughly 3.5 times the multi-core rendering performance.

Q: Are the single-core differences as large as multi-core differences?

A: No. Single-core gaps are substantially smaller. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a -15.1% delta, PassMark single-thread shows -12.4%, and Cinebench R15 single-core shows -12.4%. The exception is Cinebench R20 single-core at -65.4%, which diverges sharply from the other single-core results.

Q: What memory bandwidth do these processors support?

A: The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X through a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra X7 358H supports only LPDDR5X through a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: The Ultra X7 358H has more cache overall. It provides 18 MB of shared L3 and 3 MB of L2 per core, while the Core 3 304 has 6 MB of shared L3 and 2.5 MB of total L2. The Ultra X7 358H also lists L1 as 192 KB per core.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each processor in the database?

A: The Core 3 304's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX with an average score of 13,786, a -0.3% delta. The Ultra X7 358H's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 with an average score of 41,208, a -0.6% delta.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 304 | Intel Core Ultra X7 358H |

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

| Cores | 5 | 16 |

| Threads | 5 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Panther Lake |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes | Gen 5, 4 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | Arc B390 |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | Not disclosed |

| Part Number | SAE3K | SA4RAQ9ET |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins every recorded benchmark, so its success domains cover all tested categories. The largest margins appear in multi-core rendering, physics simulation, prime number finding, and floating-point math. These workloads benefit from the 16-core configuration, the higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz, and the dual-channel memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. Data compression and encryption also show strong Ultra X7 358H advantages, indicating memory bandwidth plays a critical role in those tasks.

The Intel Core 3 304, despite losing all head-to-head tests, retains relevance in specific scenarios based on its physical characteristics. Its 15 W TDP compares favorably against the Ultra X7 358H's 25 W TDP, suggesting lower power consumption in thermally constrained chassis. The Core 3 304's support for both DDR5 and LPDDR5X offers broader memory compatibility than the Ultra X7 358H's LPDDR5X-only support. The Core 3 304 also uses Intel BGA 1516, a different socket, which implies system compatibility differences between the two platforms.

In single-threaded workloads, the gap narrows considerably. PassMark single-thread shows 4,124 versus 3,614, and Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2,080 versus 1,765. For applications that rely primarily on single-core performance, the Core 3 304 remains within 12% to 15% of the Ultra X7 358H, a much closer contest than the multi-core results suggest.

The Core 3 304's nearest rival comparisons place it alongside the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and Intel Core i7-8750H, with deltas under 1.5%. The Ultra X7 358H sits near the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 and Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, also within 0.7%. These rival positions indicate each processor occupies a different performance tier in the database's overall rankings.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H delivers superior results across every benchmark category, with multi-core workloads showing the most dramatic separation. Its 16 cores, dual-channel memory, and higher clocks combine to produce average scores nearly three times those of the Core 3 304. The 87th percentile ranking versus all CPUs places it firmly in the upper performance tier.

The Intel Core 3 304 serves a different role. Its 5-core configuration and 15 W TDP position it for efficiency-focused mobile designs. The single-core results, while trailing, remain within 12% to 15% of the Ultra X7 358H in most tests, indicating competent per-thread performance. The 68th percentile ranking shows it sits above the median CPU in the database, though far from the top.

The Cinebench R20 single-core anomaly deserves attention. A -65.4% gap in that specific test, versus -12.4% to -15.1% in other single-core tests, suggests workload-specific sensitivity. The Core 3 304's single-channel memory or smaller cache may disproportionately impact that particular benchmark's data access patterns.

For users prioritizing multi-threaded rendering, data processing, physics simulation, or encryption workloads, the Ultra X7 358H is the clear choice based on the benchmark evidence. For scenarios where power consumption is the primary constraint and single-threaded performance is acceptable, the Core 3 304's 15 W TDP and lower price point may justify selection, though the database contains no direct power efficiency measurements beyond TDP ratings.

The release timing also differs, with the Ultra X7 358H appearing on 2026-01-04 and the Core 3 304 on 2026-04-15. Both remain in active production status. The Core 3 304 carries a launch MSRP of $309, while the Ultra X7 358H has no disclosed launch MSRP in the database.