AMD Ryzen 3 4100 vs Intel Core 3 304 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 3 4100 and Intel Core 3 304 come from different eras and different markets, yet the database places them remarkably close in overall standing: the Ryzen sits in the 69th percentile against all recorded CPUs with an average benchmark score of 14505, while the Core 3 sits in the 68th percentile at 13745. That near-identical aggregate hides a sharply split performance profile. The Ryzen 3 4100 dominates sustained multi-core rendering work, while the Core 3 304 crushes it in single-thread responsiveness. The head-to-head record makes the split plain: Intel takes 10 of 17 recorded benchmark wins, AMD takes 7, but the margins tell very different stories depending on the workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Start with the single-threaded results, because they are the most lopsided. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core 3 304 scores 264 against 133 for the Ryzen 3 4100, a gap of roughly 50 percent. The pattern repeats everywhere: Cinebench R20 single-core goes to Intel 587 to 556, Cinebench R23 single-core goes to Intel 1765 to 1326 (about 25 percent ahead), and Passmark single-thread is a 30 percent win for Intel at 3614 versus 2531. The Core 3 304's maximum boost of 4.30 GHz, against 4.00 GHz for the Ryzen, only partly explains it; the underlying design is simply faster per thread in every recorded single-threaded test.

The multi-core picture is messier and more interesting. Cinebench R23 multi-core is the standout result for AMD: 9394 versus 5263, a lead of nearly 79 percent. That is the single largest margin in the entire comparison, and it exists because the Ryzen 3 4100 runs 4 cores and 8 threads while the Core 3 304 runs 5 cores with no hyper-threading, 5 threads total. Sustained all-core rendering loves the extra threads. Cinebench R15 multi-core also goes to AMD, 946 to 849, an 11 percent edge.

But Cinebench R20 multi-core flips to Intel, 4160 to 3945, a 5 percent win for the 5-core chip. Passmark multithread also favors Intel, 11625 to 11050. The multi-core verdict genuinely depends on which suite you trust: AMD owns the long Cinebench R23 run and the R15 test, Intel takes R20 and Passmark's overall multithread score.

The Passmark component tests split along compute-type lines. AMD wins integer math 32307 to 24640 (31 percent ahead), data compression 149609 to 114775 (30 percent ahead), string sorting 15760 to 13659 (15 percent ahead), encryption 9133 to 8501, and extended instructions 9923 to 9686. Intel wins floating point math 29722 to 19128, a 36 percent advantage, physics 868 to 563 (also about 35 percent), and prime finding 68 to 23, the largest Intel-side margin in the set at 66 percent. In short: integer-heavy and memory-movement work favors the Ryzen, floating point and physics-style computation favors the Core 3.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split follows directly from the data. Pick the Ryzen 3 4100 for anything that runs flat-out on all threads for extended periods: Cinebench R23 multi-core at 9394 is in a different league than 5263, and the compression, integer math, and sorting wins all point to encode, archive, batch-processing, and general productivity loads that lean on many threads. Its 65 watt TDP rating and Socket AM4 packaging also mean it is a desktop part designed to run at full speed under sustained load.

Pick the Core 3 304 when per-thread speed matters most. Every single-threaded test favors it, from 30 percent in Passmark single-thread to nearly 50 percent in Cinebench R15. Applications that lean on one fast thread, snappy general responsiveness, and workloads like the physics test (868 versus 563) or floating point math (29722 versus 19128) are clearly its territory. It is also a mobile chip with a 15 watt TDP rating and integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe), which makes it suitable for thin portable systems where the Ryzen 3 4100, with no integrated graphics at all, cannot operate without a discrete card.

Architecture Differences

These two parts could hardly be more architecturally distinct. The Ryzen 3 4100 is a Zen 2 design, codename Renoir, built on TSMC's 7 nm process. It packs 9,800 million transistors onto a 156 mm² die. The Core 3 304 is codename Wildcat Lake, built on Intel's 3 nm process, with transistor count and die size not recorded in the database.

The core configurations diverge sharply. AMD uses 4 cores with SMT for 8 threads; Intel uses 5 cores without SMT for 5 threads. That is why AMD wins the heavy multi-core tests while Intel wins the light ones. Clock behavior is inverted at each end: the Ryzen holds a much higher base clock of 3.80 GHz versus 1.50 GHz, while the Core 3 boosts higher at 4.30 GHz versus 4.00 GHz. That base-clock gap reflects the mobile chip's power-first design and the desktop chip's expectation of continuous cooling headroom.

Cache layouts differ in philosophy too. The Ryzen gives each core 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2, with 8 MB of shared L3. The Core 3 304 lists 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. Platform support diverges as well: the Ryzen is DDR4 only on a dual-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth and PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes. The Core 3 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, and despite a single-channel bus it records higher memory bandwidth at 59.7 GB/s, with PCIe Gen 4 over 6 CPU lanes. Neither chip supports ECC memory. Only the Ryzen has an unlocked multiplier; the Core 3 does not.

Specification Differences

The fields where these two differ, side by side:

• Segment and socket: Desktop on AMD Socket AM4 versus Mobile on Intel BGA 1516, meaning the Ryzen is socketed and replaceable while the Intel chip is soldered.
• Cores/threads: 4 cores, 8 threads versus 5 cores, 5 threads.
• Clocks: 3.80 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost versus 1.50 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost.
• TDP rating: 65 watts versus 15 watts.
• Process: TSMC 7 nm versus Intel 3 nm.
• Memory: DDR4 dual-channel at 51.2 GB/s versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X single-channel at 59.7 GB/s.
• PCIe: Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes versus Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes.
• Graphics: none versus Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe).
• Overclocking: unlocked multiplier versus locked.
• Launch MSRP: $99 for the Ryzen 3 4100, $309 for the Core 3 304.
• Release dates: April 2022 for the Ryzen, April 2026 for the Core 3.

Both are active production parts, both lack ECC, and both carry the same average standing: 69th percentile for AMD, 68th for Intel.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster overall?

A: The recorded data shows a near tie with different strengths. AMD's average benchmark score is 14505 (69th percentile) and Intel's is 13745 (68th percentile). Intel wins more individual tests, 10 to 7, but AMD's wins include the biggest margins in multi-core rendering.

Q: Which is better for rendering and heavy multi-threaded work?

A: The Ryzen 3 4100. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 9394 beats the Core 3 304's 5263 by about 79 percent, and it also leads in compression, integer math, and string sorting.

Q: Which is better for single-threaded tasks?

A: The Core 3 304, decisively. It leads every recorded single-thread test: 3614 to 2531 in Passmark single-thread, 1765 to 1326 in Cinebench R23, and 264 to 133 in Cinebench R15.

Q: Can either chip run without a graphics card?

A: Only the Core 3 304, which includes Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe). The Ryzen 3 4100 has no integrated graphics and requires a discrete card to display anything.

Q: Can they be overclocked?

A: The Ryzen 3 4100 has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 3 304 does not.

Q: How do they compare against their own nearest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 3 4100 scores essentially identically to the AMD Ryzen 3 4300G and within about one percent of the Intel Xeon 6315P, AMD EPYC 7473X, and Ryzen 5 5500U. The Core 3 304 sits within about one percent of the Threadripper PRO 3975WX, Core i7-8750H, and EPYC 7443, and about one percent above the Core 5 120UL.

The Verdict

The data points to a clean decision tree. For a desktop where the machine will run multi-threaded workloads for long stretches, rendering, encoding, compressing, sorting, the Ryzen 3 4100 is the clear pick: a 79 percent Cinebench R23 multi-core advantage is not a marginal win, and its 65 watt desktop packaging is built for exactly that duty. For anything driven by one fast thread, or any system that needs to run without a discrete graphics card, the Core 3 304 wins every relevant test, often by 25 to 50 percent. Buyers should also weigh platform constraints: AM4 with socketed installation and DDR4 versus a soldered BGA mobile chip with DDR5, LPDDR5X, and PCIe Gen 4. There is no universal winner here, only two chips tuned for opposite jobs that happen to land one percentile point apart.