Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a decisive verdict: the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core 3 304. No test goes the other way. The largest margin appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Ultra X7 scores 28,221 versus 5,263, a delta of 81.4% in favor of the larger chip. That single result captures the fundamental performance gap between the two mobile processors.

Single-threaded performance shows the smallest gap but still favors the Ultra X7. In PassMark single-thread, the Ultra X7 posts 4,005 against 3,614 for the Core 3, a 9.8% advantage. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a similar pattern: 401 versus 264, a 34.2% lead. The Core 3 does not win any single-thread test, but its closeness in PassMark single-thread indicates that its architecture is not entirely outclassed for lightly threaded workloads.

Multi-core tests reveal the scale of the difference. Cinebench R20 multi-core: 11,852 versus 4,160, a 64.9% gap. Cinebench R15 multi-core: 2,844 versus 849, a 70.1% gap. PassMark multi-thread: 32,956 versus 11,625, a 64.7% gap. These are not marginal differences; they represent a completely different performance tier. The Core Ultra X7 368H sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 3 304 sits in the 68th percentile.

Specialized workloads reinforce the same story. PassMark data compression: 312,927 versus 114,775, a 63.3% lead for the Ultra X7. Floating point math: 105,681 versus 29,722, a 71.9% lead. Integer math: 88,083 versus 24,640, a 72% lead. Even the more niche tests, such as find prime numbers (321 versus 68, a 78.8% gap) and random string sorting (38,093 versus 13,659, a 64.1% gap), show the Ultra X7 delivering roughly two to four times the throughput.

The average benchmark score for the Ultra X7 is 40,518, compared to 13,745 for the Core 3. The nearest rival for the Ultra X7 is the Intel Core 7 253PE with an average score of 40,557, a delta of 0.1% in favor of that rival. The Core 3's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX at 13,786, a delta of 0.3% against the Core 3. In other words, the Ultra X7 competes with high-end desktop-class parts, while the Core 3 sits near older mainstream mobile processors like the Intel Core i7-8750H, which scores 13,868, a 0.9% delta.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 28,221 versus 5,263 for the Core 3 304, a delta of 81.4%. PassMark multi-thread shows 32,956 versus 11,625, a 64.7% lead.

Q: Is the Core 3 304 competitive in single-threaded tests?

A: It is closer but still behind. PassMark single-thread gives the Core 3 a score of 3,614 versus 4,005 for the Ultra X7, a 9.8% gap. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap widens to 55.7% (1,765 versus 3,984).

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores?

A: The Ultra X7 has an average benchmark score of 40,518, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 has an average of 13,745, placing it in the 68th percentile.

Q: How do the two processors compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Ultra X7 supports dual-channel LPDDR5X with a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The Core 3 supports single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. That is a 2.6 times difference in theoretical bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Ultra X7 has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core 3 has 5 cores and 5 threads. Neither processor supports multithreading per core.

Q: Are there any benchmark categories where the Core 3 wins?

A: No. The head-to-head dataset records 17 tests, and the Ultra X7 wins all 17. The Core 3 has zero wins in the recorded comparisons.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different Intel architectures. The Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, belonging to the Core 3 generation, while the Core Ultra X7 368H uses the Panther Lake codename, belonging to the Core Ultra Series 3 and the Panther Lake-H generation. Both are built on a 3 nm process node at Intel foundry.

The core counts differ sharply. The Core 3 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The Ultra X7 has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither chip uses simultaneous multithreading, so thread count equals core count in both cases. Cache structure also diverges. The Core 3 lists L1 cache as 192 KB, L2 as 2.5 MB, and L3 as 6 MB shared. The Ultra X7 lists L1 as 192 KB per core, L2 as 2.5 MB per core, and L3 as 18 MB shared. The per-core designation for the Ultra X7 means its total L2 is substantially larger, scaling with the higher core count.

Memory support is another point of separation. The Core 3 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Ultra X7 supports only LPDDR5X. The memory bus differs as well: single-channel for the Core 3, dual-channel for the Ultra X7. This explains the large bandwidth gap, 59.7 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s. The integrated graphics also differ, with the Core 3 featuring Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe unit, while the Ultra X7 uses Arc B390 graphics.

PCIe support shows a generational split. The Core 3 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Ultra X7 uses Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. The Ultra X7's PCIe generation is newer, but it offers fewer lanes from the CPU. Both processors are marked as mobile segment parts, and both are active in production. The Core 3 was released on 2026-04-15, while the Ultra X7 was released earlier on 2026-01-04.

Specification Differences

The socket is different. The Core 3 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Ultra X7 uses Intel BGA 2540. Base clock speeds differ: 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 versus 2.00 GHz for the Ultra X7. Boost clock speeds also differ: 4.30 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. Thermal design power is higher for the Ultra X7 at 25 watts, compared to 15 watts for the Core 3.

Thread count is identical to core count for both, but the core count itself is a major differentiator: 5 versus 16. Cache capacities follow the core count. L3 cache is 6 MB shared on the Core 3 versus 18 MB shared on the Ultra X7. L1 and L2 are listed as absolute values on the Core 3 but as per-core values on the Ultra X7, making direct comparison less straightforward.

Memory support differs as noted: DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Core 3, LPDDR5X only for the Ultra X7. Memory bus width differs (single-channel versus dual-channel), and memory bandwidth figures differ accordingly. PCIe generation and lane count differ: Gen 4 with 6 lanes versus Gen 5 with 4 lanes. Integrated graphics differ: Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) versus Arc B390.

The release dates differ by roughly three months, with the Ultra X7 launching first. The Core 3 has a launch MSRP of $309. The Ultra X7 has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers are SAE3K for the Core 3 and SA4R7Q9EJ for the Ultra X7.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows no ambiguity. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H outperforms the Intel Core 3 304 in every recorded test, with margins ranging from 9.8% in PassMark single-thread to 81.4% in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The Ultra X7's average benchmark score of 40,518 is roughly three times the Core 3's 13,745. The percentile ranking confirms the separation: 87th versus 68th percentile of all CPUs.

The Ultra X7 delivers this performance with a higher TDP of 25 watts versus 15 watts, but the performance per watt is not the question here. The data shows a clear class difference. The Ultra X7 competes with the Intel Core 7 253PE and Intel Core 5 223PE, both of which score within 0.2% of it. The Core 3 competes with the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and the Intel Core i7-8750H, which are within 1.4% of its average score.

For any workload that benefits from multiple cores, the Ultra X7 is the correct choice. For single-threaded tasks, the Ultra X7 still leads, though the margin is smaller. The Core 3 304 does not win a single category in the head-to-head dataset. The verdict is straightforward: the Ultra X7 368H is the faster processor across the board.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins in every benchmark category recorded. Its largest advantages come in multi-core rendering, where Cinebench R23 multi-core shows an 81.4% lead, and in integer math, where it leads by 72%. Data compression, encryption, extended instructions, floating point math, physics, and random string sorting all show the Ultra X7 leading by margins between 62.3% and 78.8%. For users running heavy parallel workloads, rendering, simulation, or data processing, the Ultra X7 is the obvious pick.

The Intel Core 3 304 does not win any head-to-head test. Its closest result is PassMark single-thread, where it trails by 9.8%. That means for purely single-threaded applications, the Core 3 is not far behind, but it is still behind. The Core 3 does offer a lower TDP of 15 watts, which may be relevant for power-constrained designs, but the database records no benchmark win to support a performance-based recommendation.

The Ultra X7 also leads in memory bandwidth, with 153.6 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s, and in L3 cache size, with 18 MB versus 6 MB. These advantages support its higher multi-core scores. The Core 3's only unique specification advantages are its support for DDR5 memory (in addition to LPDDR5X) and its lower power envelope. The data does not show any workload where the Core 3 outperforms the Ultra X7. For any use case requiring maximum throughput, the Ultra X7 368H is the processor the measurements favor.