Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents an unusually one-sided comparison. The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with no victories for the Intel Core 3 304. The average benchmark score for the Ultra X9 378H is 47,468, placing it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 3 304 averages 13,745, sitting at the 68th percentile. This is not a close contest; it is a generational and structural gap.

The Core 3 304 occupies a specific niche. Its 5 cores and 5 threads, paired with a 15 W TDP, point to a low-power, lightweight mobile design. Its benchmark results, such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 5,263, align with systems focused on battery life and basic productivity. The data suggests this processor is for thin-and-light laptops where sustained heavy compute is not the priority.

The Core Ultra X9 378H targets a different class of machine entirely. With 16 cores, 16 threads, a 25 W TDP, and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, it delivers desktop-class performance in a mobile package. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32,553 is more than six times that of the Core 3 304. Users needing serious multi-threaded throughput, such as video editing, 3D rendering, or software compilation, should look at this part. The data does not support any scenario where the Core 3 304 is the better compute choice.

Architecture Differences

Both processors use Intel's 3 nm process node, but they diverge sharply in core configuration and platform design. The Core 3 304, codenamed Wildcat Lake, offers 5 cores and 5 threads. This is a single-thread-per-core design with no Hyper-Threading. The Core Ultra X9 378H, codenamed Panther Lake, provides 16 cores and 16 threads, also without simultaneous multi-threading, but with over three times the physical core count.

Cache hierarchies highlight the scale difference. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra X9 378H lists 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The per-core L2 allocation is identical, but the Ultra X9's larger shared L3 pool provides a significant advantage for workloads with large working sets.

Memory architecture separates the two further. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Core Ultra X9 378H supports only LPDDR5X, but over a dual-channel bus, yielding 153.6 GB/s. That is roughly 2.6 times the raw bandwidth, which directly benefits integrated graphics and memory-intensive tasks.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 3 304 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra X9 378H provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. The newer standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth, but the lower lane count may limit expansion options. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the Ultra X9 378H uses Arc B390. The sockets are incompatible (BGA 1516 versus BGA 2540), and the Ultra X9's release date of April 3, 2026, precedes the Core 3 304's April 15, 2026, by 12 days.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H scores 4,595 in Cinebench R23 single-core, versus 1,765 for the Intel Core 3 304. This is a 61.6% advantage for the Ultra X9.

Q: How much faster is the Ultra X9 378H in multi-threaded PassMark tests?

A: The Ultra X9 378H scores 38,298 in PassMark multithread, compared to 11,625 for the Core 3 304. The delta is 69.6% in favor of the Ultra X9.

Q: Do both processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are built on Intel's 3 nm process node. However, their core counts, memory controllers, and cache sizes differ substantially.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Core 3 304 provides 59.7 GB/s over single-channel memory, while the Core Ultra X9 378H provides 153.6 GB/s over dual-channel LPDDR5X. The Ultra X9 delivers more than double the bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Core Ultra X9 378H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 3 304 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, exactly one-third of the Ultra X9's allocation.

Q: Are there any benchmark categories where the Core 3 304 wins?

A: No. Across all 17 head-to-head tests, the Core Ultra X9 378H wins every single one. The smallest margin is in PassMark single-thread, where the Ultra X9 leads by 18.8%.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, while the Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ: 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 304 versus 2.00 GHz for the Ultra X9. Boost clocks are 4.30 GHz versus 5.00 GHz, respectively. TDP ratings are 15 W for the Core 3 304 and 25 W for the Ultra X9.

Sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 3 304, Intel BGA 2540 for the Ultra X9. The L1 cache is 192 KB total for the Core 3 304, but 192 KB per core for the Ultra X9. L2 cache is 2.5 MB total versus 2.5 MB per core. L3 cache is 6 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory support is DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Core 3 304, but only LPDDR5X for the Ultra X9. Memory bus is single-channel versus dual-channel, with bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s.

PCIe generation and lane counts differ: Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the Core 3 304, Gen 5 with 4 lanes for the Ultra X9. Integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 (1 Xe core) versus Arc B390. The launch MSRP for the Core 3 304 is $309; the Ultra X9 has no launch MSRP recorded in the database. Release dates are April 15, 2026, for the Core 3 304 and April 3, 2026, for the Ultra X9. Both have locked multipliers and active production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single victory for the Ultra X9 378H comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 32,553 versus 5,263 for the Core 3 304. That is an 83.8% delta, meaning the Core 3 304 delivers less than one-sixth of the Ultra X9's multi-threaded rendering performance. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a similar pattern: 13,672 versus 4,160, a 69.6% gap.

Single-core performance is closer but still decisive. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra X9 scores 4,595 versus 1,765, a 61.6% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1,929 versus 587, a 69.6% gap. Cinebench R15 single-core is 462 versus 264, a 42.9% delta, the second-smallest margin in the entire dataset.

PassMark tests reveal consistent advantages across all workload types. Data compression shows 386,591 versus 114,775, a 70.3% lead. Data encryption is 29,840 versus 8,501, a 71.5% delta. Extended instructions score 31,315 versus 9,686, a 69.1% gap. Integer math is 92,603 versus 24,640, a 73.4% lead. Floating point math is 114,500 versus 29,722, a 74% delta.

The smallest margin is in PassMark single-thread, where the Ultra X9 scores 4,453 versus 3,614 for the Core 3 304, an 18.8% lead. This suggests that while the Ultra X9 has a clear per-core advantage, the Core 3 304's single-core performance is relatively competitive for its class. The largest margin in the PassMark suite is find prime numbers: 357 versus 68, an 81% delta, indicating a massive advantage in integer-heavy, loop-intensive workloads.

Physics simulation shows 3,404 versus 868, a 74.5% gap. Random string sorting is 44,648 versus 13,659, a 69.4% delta. Multithread overall is 38,298 versus 11,625, a 69.6% gap. Across all tests, the Ultra X9's advantage ranges from 18.8% to 83.8%, with most deltas clustering in the 69% to 75% range.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins in every recorded benchmark category. There is no workload in the database where the Core 3 304 comes out ahead. The Ultra X9 dominates multi-threaded rendering, encryption, compression, math operations, and physics simulation. Its 16 cores and 18 MB of L3 cache, combined with dual-channel memory at 153.6 GB/s, make it suitable for demanding professional applications.

The Core 3 304's strengths are relative, not absolute. Its 15 W TDP suggests lower power draw than the Ultra X9's 25 W, which could translate to longer battery life in thin-and-light laptops. Its single-thread score of 3,614 in PassMark is within 18.8% of the Ultra X9, showing that basic tasks like web browsing or office productivity would not feel drastically slower. However, the data does not record any power efficiency metrics, so this remains an inference from the TDP specification.

For users prioritizing raw compute, the Core Ultra X9 378H is the only choice supported by the benchmark data. For users prioritizing portability and minimal power consumption, the Core 3 304 offers a viable low-power option, but it sacrifices significant multi-core performance. The average benchmark score difference of 33,723 points, combined with the 21-percentile gap (68th versus 89th), confirms that these processors target different market segments with little overlap in capability.