Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H dominates the Intel Core 3 304 across every single benchmark recorded in the database. Out of 17 head-to-head comparisons, the Core Ultra X9 388H wins all 17, with the Core 3 304 failing to secure a single victory in any test category.

The largest margin comes in the Cinebench R23 multicore test, where the Core Ultra X9 388H scores 18,911 against the Core 3 304's 5,263, a delta of -72.2%. This massive gap confirms that the 16-core part is in a completely different performance class for heavily threaded workloads. The PassMark find prime numbers test shows the widest relative separation, with the Core Ultra X9 388H scoring 358 versus 68 for the Core 3 304, a -81% delta, indicating extreme advantages in integer-heavy algorithmic workloads.

Single-core performance tells a similar story, though with smaller margins. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra X9 388H scores 2,200.5 against 1,765 for the Core 3 304, a -19.8% delta. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows a closer -14.7% gap, with scores of 309.5 and 264 respectively. PassMark single-thread results mirror this pattern: 4,280 versus 3,614, a -15.6% delta. These figures indicate that the Core Ultra X9 388H also carries a meaningful clock-for-clock and architecture-level advantage in lightly threaded tasks, not just raw core count superiority.

In Cinebench R20, the multicore gap narrows slightly to -68.2%, with scores of 13,101 and 4,160. The single-core R20 test shows a -68.3% delta, an anomaly worth noting since the single-core delta in R23 was far smaller. This inconsistency suggests the R20 single-core workload stresses the Core 3 304's architecture differently, possibly due to cache or memory behavior.

PassMark data compression shows the Core Ultra X9 388H at 361,763 versus 114,775 for the Core 3 304, a -68.3% delta. Data encryption follows at -70.2%, with scores of 28,490 and 8,501. Extended instructions show a -67.7% delta, with 29,943 against 9,686. Floating-point math delivers 112,550 versus 29,722, a -73.6% delta, while integer math reaches 90,882 against 24,640, a -72.9% delta. PassMark multithread scores 36,811 versus 11,625, a -68.4% delta, and PassMark physics scores 3,226 versus 868, a -73.1% delta. Random string sorting shows 44,010 versus 13,659, a -69% delta.

The consistent delta range across most tests, roughly -67% to -73%, suggests the Core Ultra X9 388H's advantage scales predictably with thread count and memory bandwidth. The outlier at -81% in prime number finding indicates that this particular workload responds even more strongly to the architectural differences between the two processors.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 3 304 does not win a single benchmark category in the database. Every recorded test, from Cinebench R15 to PassMark single-thread, favors the Core Ultra X9 388H. That said, the magnitude of the losses varies by workload type, which reveals where each processor is relatively stronger.

For lightly threaded tasks, the Core 3 304 is less disadvantaged. The Cinebench R15 single-core delta of -14.7% and PassMark single-thread delta of -15.6% represent the Core 3 304's closest results. Cinebench R23 single-core at -19.8% is also comparatively close. This indicates that the Core 3 304's single-core performance, while lower, is not catastrophically behind, and its 4.30 GHz boost clock partially compensates for architectural gaps.

The Core 3 304's weakest relative showing is in prime number finding at -81%, followed by floating-point math at -73.6% and physics at -73.1%. These workloads depend heavily on sustained multi-thread throughput, where the Core 3 304's 5 cores and 5 threads cannot compete with the Core Ultra X9 388H's 16 cores and 16 threads.

The Core Ultra X9 388H excels across all multi-threaded workloads, with its largest margins in prime number finding, floating-point math, and physics. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 18,911 is roughly 3.6 times the Core 3 304's 5,263. The Core Ultra X9 388H also shows strong data compression and encryption performance, scoring 361,763 and 28,490 respectively, which are over 3 times the Core 3 304's 114,775 and 8,501.

For users prioritizing single-thread responsiveness, the Core 3 304 remains functional, but the data consistently places the Core Ultra X9 388H ahead. The Core Ultra X9 388H's average benchmark score of 44,466 places it at the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 304 sits at the 68th percentile with an average score of 13,745.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 3 nm process node and Intel as the foundry, but their underlying architectures diverge sharply. The Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename with a generation label of "Core 3 (Wildcat Lake)", while the Core Ultra X9 388H uses the Panther Lake architecture with a generation label of "Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H)" and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 family.

Core configuration differs substantially. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, meaning no hyperthreading or simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads, also without extra threads per core. The Core Ultra X9 388H therefore offers 11 additional physical cores.

Clock speeds favor the Core Ultra X9 388H on both ends. Its base clock is 2.10 GHz versus 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 304, and its boost clock reaches 5.10 GHz versus 4.30 GHz. The Core Ultra X9 388H also carries a higher TDP of 25 watts compared to 15 watts for the Core 3 304.

Cache hierarchies differ in both size and organization. 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 X9 388H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 allocation gives the Core Ultra X9 388H far more total on-chip cache.

Memory support is another major differentiator. The Core 3 304 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Core Ultra X9 388H supports only LPDDR5X. The Core 3 304 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Core Ultra X9 388H uses a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, more than 2.5 times the memory throughput.

PCIe capabilities also differ. The Core 3 304 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra X9 388H uses Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 3 304 has Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the Core Ultra X9 388H has Arc B390 graphics.

Sockets are incompatible. The Core 3 304 uses Intel BGA 1516, and the Core Ultra X9 388H uses Intel BGA 2540. Both processors are mobile-market parts with active production status. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory. The Core 3 304 has a launch MSRP of $309, while the Core Ultra X9 388H has no listed launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads.

Q: How much faster is the Core Ultra X9 388H in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Core Ultra X9 388H scores 18,911 in Cinebench R23 multicore, compared to 5,263 for the Core 3 304, a delta of -72.2%.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra X9 388H scores 2,200.5 versus 1,765 for the Core 3 304, a -19.8% delta. PassMark single-thread shows 4,280 versus 3,614, a -15.6% delta.

Q: Do both processors use the same process node?

A: Yes, both are built on a 3 nm process node with Intel as the foundry, but they use different architectures: Wildcat Lake for the Core 3 304 and Panther Lake for the Core Ultra X9 388H.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The Core 3 304 has a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra X9 388H has a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra X9 388H has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, while the Core 3 304 has a boost clock of 4.30 GHz.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H outperforms the Intel Core 3 304 in every recorded test. The Core Ultra X9 388H wins 17 out of 17 head-to-head comparisons, with no test favoring the Core 3 304.

The Core Ultra X9 388H is the clear choice for users who need maximum multi-threaded throughput. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 18,911, PassMark multithread score of 36,811, and PassMark physics score of 3,226 place it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs. The 16-core, 16-thread configuration, combined with 18 MB of shared L3 cache and 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, delivers roughly three to four times the performance of the Core 3 304 in heavily threaded workloads.

The Core 3 304, with its 5 cores, 5 threads, 6 MB of shared L3 cache, and 59.7 GB/s single-channel memory bandwidth, provides substantially lower multi-core performance, as reflected in its 68th percentile ranking. Its closest relative performance comes in single-threaded tests, where it trails by only 14.7% to 19.8%. Users whose workloads are predominantly single-threaded may find this gap more tolerable, but the Core Ultra X9 388H still wins every single-thread test in the database.

The Core 3 304 does offer DDR5 memory support in addition to LPDDR5X, whereas the Core Ultra X9 388H supports only LPDDR5X. It also uses 6 PCIe Gen 4 lanes compared to 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes on the Core Ultra X9 388H. However, these interface differences do not compensate for the Core Ultra X9 388H's overwhelming performance advantage.

Data compression, encryption, extended instructions, floating-point math, integer math, and random string sorting all favor the Core Ultra X9 388H by margins between -67.7% and -73.6%. Prime number finding shows the largest gap at -81%. The Core Ultra X9 388H also has a higher base clock of 2.10 GHz versus 1.50 GHz, a higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz versus 4.30 GHz, and a higher TDP of 25 watts versus 15 watts.

The data indicates that the Core Ultra X9 388H is the superior processor for virtually any workload category represented in the benchmarks. The Core 3 304 may be adequate for light, single-threaded tasks, but the recorded measurements do not show any scenario where it leads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 304 | Intel Core Ultra X9 388H |

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

| Cores | 5 | 16 |

| Threads | 5 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Panther Lake |

| Architecture | (not specified) | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H) |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 3 nm |

| 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 (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

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

| Launch MSRP | $309 | (not listed) |

| Part Number | SAE3K | SA4QWQ9EK |