CPU Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7443 and Intel Core 3 304 are not competitors in any conventional sense. The data shows a complete mismatch in workload capability, market segment, and architectural design. The EPYC 7443 wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, often by margins exceeding 300%. The Core 3 304, however, is not a failure; it is a low-power mobile processor designed for efficiency and basic tasks, where its modest performance is appropriate. The verdict is clear: the EPYC 7443 is for heavy server workloads, while the Core 3 304 is for thin-and-light laptops.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 7443 dominates the Intel Core 3 304 across every Cinebench test. The most extreme gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the AMD chip scores 48,183 against the Intel chip’s 5,263. That is an 815.5% advantage, a figure that reflects the EPYC’s 24 cores and 48 threads versus the Core 3’s 5 cores and 5 threads. This is not a close race; it is a different performance tier entirely.

Even in single-core tests, where the Core 3’s higher boost clock (4.30 GHz vs 4.00 GHz) might suggest a chance, the EPYC wins decisively. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 6,802, which is 285.4% higher than the Core 3’s 1,765. The Core 3’s 1.50 GHz base clock and 5-core design hurt its single-threaded ceiling, despite the boost advantage.

The pattern repeats in older benchmarks. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the EPYC scores 20,236 versus 4,160, a 386.4% lead. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the margin is 386.5%, with scores of 2,856 and 587 respectively. The Cinebench R15 tests show the same story: multi-core scores of 4,856 vs 849 (472% delta) and single-core scores of 685 vs 264 (159.5% delta).

The average benchmark scores are misleadingly close, 13,936 for the EPYC and 13,745 for the Core 3, because they include Passmark tests where the Core 3 has more data points. However, the head-to-head Cinebench results are unambiguous: the EPYC wins all 6 tests, with zero wins for the Core 3. The EPYC’s 68th percentile versus all CPUs matches the Core 3’s, but that percentile is driven by different benchmark mixes, not by comparable performance in any single test.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7443 wins every compute-heavy workload. Its multi-core scores are 815.5% higher in R23, 386.4% higher in R20, and 472% higher in R15. This makes it the clear choice for rendering, scientific simulation, and any task that scales across cores. The single-core results also favor the EPYC, with a 285.4% lead in R23 single-core, meaning even lightly-threaded tasks like compilation or scripting run faster on the server chip.

The Intel Core 3 304 has no benchmark wins to claim. However, the data does not include power consumption or battery life tests, so its 15W TDP versus the EPYC’s 200W TDP is the only efficiency signal. The Core 3’s Passmark scores, such as 36,14 in single-thread and 11,625 in multithread, are not compared head-to-head with the EPYC, but they indicate a processor that can handle basic productivity. The Core 3’s integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) allows for a display output, which the EPYC lacks entirely, making the Core 3 the only option for a standalone laptop.

In short, the EPYC wins all performance categories, while the Core 3 wins only on mobility and integrated graphics availability. If the workload is CPU-bound, the EPYC is superior. If the task is a web browser or office suite on battery power, the Core 3 is the practical choice, though the data does not quantify that advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs use completely different designs from different foundries. The AMD EPYC 7443 is built on a 7 nm process by TSMC, using the Zen 3 architecture (codenamed Milan). It has 24 cores and 48 threads, with a 128 MB shared L3 cache and 64 KB L1 plus 512 KB L2 per core. The chip is a 4x 81 mm² die configuration with 16,600 million transistors, mounted on AMD Socket SP3.

The Intel Core 3 304 uses a 3 nm process by Intel, with the Wildcat Lake codename and no listed architecture name. It has only 5 cores and 5 threads (no hyper-threading), with a much smaller cache layout: 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Core 3 is a single-die mobile chip soldered to Intel BGA 1516.

The memory and I/O architectures reflect their different markets. The EPYC supports DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus, yielding 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core 3 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus, with a much lower 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC has 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 3 has just 6 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The EPYC supports ECC memory; the Core 3 does not. The EPYC has no integrated graphics, while the Core 3 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics.

These are not incremental differences. The EPYC is a server processor with massive parallel resources, while the Core 3 is a single-channel, low-lane-count mobile part. The 7 nm vs 3 nm node difference does not compensate for the 19-core gap in the EPYC’s favor.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification gap is core count: 24 cores and 48 threads for the EPYC versus 5 cores and 5 threads for the Core 3. Base clocks differ significantly, with the EPYC at 2.85 GHz and the Core 3 at 1.50 GHz. Boost clocks are closer, but the EPYC still leads at 4.00 GHz versus 4.30 GHz for the Core 3.

The TDP is the biggest practical difference: 200W for the EPYC versus 15W for the Core 3. This reflects the EPYC’s server design and the Core 3’s mobile efficiency target. The EPYC’s L3 cache is 128 MB shared, versus 6 MB shared for the Core 3. The L2 cache is 512 KB per core for the EPYC, versus 2.5 MB total for the Core 3.

Memory support is entirely different: the EPYC uses DDR4 with an eight-channel bus, while the Core 3 uses DDR5/LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus. Memory bandwidth is 204.8 GB/s for the EPYC versus 59.7 GB/s for the Core 3. The EPYC has 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes; the Core 3 has 6. ECC memory is supported only on the EPYC. The EPYC uses Socket SP3, while the Core 3 uses BGA 1516. The release dates are also far apart: March 2021 for the EPYC, April 2026 for the Core 3.

The launch MSRP for the EPYC 7443 is $2010; the Core 3 304 has a launch MSRP of $309. The EPYC’s part number is 100-000000340100-100000340WOF, and the Core 3’s is SAE3K.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7443 has 24 cores, while the Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: The EPYC 7443 leads in Cinebench R23 single-core with a score of 6,802 versus 1,765 for the Core 3, a 285.4% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 304 support ECC memory?

A: No. The EPYC 7443 supports ECC memory, but the Core 3 304 does not.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 has a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7443 boosts to 4.00 GHz.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for each?

A: The EPYC 7443 has 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth via eight-channel DDR4, while the Core 3 304 has 59.7 GB/s via single-channel DDR5/LPDDR5X.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 7443 and Intel Core 3 304 have an Active production status.

The Verdict

Choose the AMD EPYC 7443 if the workload is compute-intensive and multi-threaded. The data shows it wins every benchmark, with a minimum lead of 159.5% (Cinebench R15 single-core) and a maximum of 815.5% (Cinebench R23 multi-core). The 24-core, 48-thread design, 128 MB L3 cache, and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth make it ideal for server virtualization, rendering, and database workloads. The 200W TDP and $2010 launch MSRP are appropriate for a server chip that delivers this level of performance.

Choose the Intel Core 3 304 if the priority is battery life and a compact form factor. The 15W TDP is 13.3x lower than the EPYC’s, and the single-channel memory and 6 PCIe lanes are adequate for a mobile device. The integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics provides display capability that the EPYC lacks. The 5-core, 5-thread design with a 1.50 GHz base clock is sufficient for light productivity, and the 4.30 GHz boost helps with bursty tasks. The $309 launch MSRP reflects its position as a low-cost mobile processor.

The average benchmark scores are nearly identical (13,936 vs 13,745), but this is a statistical artifact. The EPYC’s score comes from Cinebench tests that stress multi-core performance, while the Core 3’s score includes Passmark tests that are more diverse. No test in the head-to-head shows the Core 3 winning. The EPYC is the performance winner; the Core 3 is the efficiency winner. There is no overlap in their intended use cases.