AMD Ryzen 5 8400F vs Intel Core 3 304 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core and thread counts of these two processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The AMD part also has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel processor is locked.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F boosts to 4.70 GHz, while the Intel Core 3 304 boosts to 4.30 GHz. The AMD part also has a higher base clock at 4.20 GHz compared to 1.50 GHz for the Intel chip.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has an average benchmark score of 25005, while the Intel Core 3 304 averages 13745. This places the AMD chip at the 77th percentile across all CPUs, while the Intel chip sits at the 68th percentile.

Q: What memory configurations do these processors support?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The Intel Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, but uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe). The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has no integrated graphics (N/A).

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has a TDP of 65 watts and targets the desktop segment. The Intel Core 3 304 has a TDP of 15 watts and is a mobile processor.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Phoenix codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The die measures 178 mm² and contains 25,000 million transistors. The Intel Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, built on a 3 nm process at Intel, with no transistor count or die size recorded in the database. These represent two very different manufacturing approaches: AMD relies on an external foundry, while Intel uses its own fabs for this part.

Core organization diverges sharply. The AMD chip has 6 cores and 12 threads, indicating simultaneous multithreading. The Intel chip has 5 cores and 5 threads, meaning no hyperthreading on any of its cores. Cache hierarchies also differ. The AMD processor provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel processor provides 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2 total, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD chip has roughly 2.7 times more L3 cache.

Platform integration is another major split. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F uses AMD Socket AM5 with 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU. It supports dual-channel DDR5 memory. The Intel Core 3 304 uses Intel BGA 1516, a soldered mobile socket, with only 6 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU. It supports single-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X memory. The AMD part also has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel part is locked.

Clock behavior and power targets reinforce the positioning gap. The AMD chip runs at 4.20 GHz base and 4.70 GHz boost with a 65 W TDP. The Intel chip runs at 1.50 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost with a 15 W TDP. The base clock difference is particularly large, reflecting the Intel part's mobile power envelope. The Intel chip does include integrated graphics, the Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the AMD chip has none.

The release dates are separated by roughly two years. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F launched in March 2024, while the Intel Core 3 304 launched in April 2026. Both are listed as Active in production. The AMD part carries part number 100-000001591, and the Intel part carries SAE3K.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these two processors. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F wins all 17. No benchmark in the comparison set favors the Intel Core 3 304. The margin varies widely by workload type.

The largest single advantage appears in Cinebench R23 multicore. The AMD chip scores 20851 against 5263 for the Intel chip, a delta of 296.2%. This is the biggest gap in the entire comparison set. Cinebench R20 multicore shows a similar pattern, with AMD at 8757 against 4160, a 110.5% advantage. Cinebench R15 multicore has AMD at 2101 against 849, a 147.5% lead. The pattern is clear: in heavily threaded rendering workloads, the AMD part delivers between 2.1 and 4.0 times the performance.

Integer math follows closely. PassMark integer math shows AMD at 74021 versus 24640 for Intel, a 200.4% delta. Data compression shows AMD at 288158 versus 114775, a 151.1% lead. Random string sorting shows AMD at 34604 versus 13659, a 153.3% advantage. These three workloads all involve significant parallel processing, and the AMD chip's 12 threads against 5 threads explains much of the margin.

Floating point math and extended instructions also favor AMD heavily. Floating point math scores 46217 for AMD versus 29722 for Intel, a 55.5% delta. Extended instructions score 22175 versus 9686, a 128.9% delta. Data encryption shows 16646 versus 8501, a 95.8% lead. Prime number finding shows 89 versus 68, a 30.9% delta. Physics simulation shows 1332 versus 868, a 53.5% lead.

The narrowest margins appear in single-threaded tests. PassMark single-thread scores 3685 for AMD versus 3614 for Intel, a delta of only 2%. This is the closest result in the entire set. Cinebench R15 single-core shows AMD at 296 versus 264, a 12.1% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows AMD at 2943 versus 1765, a 66.7% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows AMD at 1236 versus 587, a 110.6% lead. The single-core picture is inconsistent across tests, with the PassMark result indicating near parity while Cinebench shows larger AMD advantages.

Multithread performance in PassMark confirms the overall trend: 24389 for AMD versus 11625 for Intel, a 109.8% delta. The AMD processor's average benchmark score of 25005 nearly doubles the Intel part's 13745 average. The database's nearest rival comparisons show the AMD chip trading blows with the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F (0.2% ahead), Intel Core i7-11850H (0.3% ahead), Intel Core i7-13620H (0.4% ahead), and AMD EPYC 9474F (0.4% behind). The Intel Core 3 304 sits 0.3% behind the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX, 0.9% behind the Intel Core i7-8750H, 1.1% ahead of the Intel Core 5 120UL, and 1.4% behind the AMD EPYC 7443.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 8400F | Intel Core 3 304 |

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

| Cores | 6 | 5 |

| Threads | 12 | 5 |

| Base clock | 4.20 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.70 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 15 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Process node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 192 KB |

| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB |

| L3 cache | 16 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | N/A | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Multiplier | Unlocked | Locked |

| Launch MSRP | $170 | $309 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F wins every recorded benchmark, but the magnitude of the win varies by workload. In multithreaded rendering, the AMD part is dominant. Cinebench R23 multicore shows a 296.2% advantage, meaning the AMD chip delivers roughly four times the performance of the Intel chip in that specific test. Cinebench R15 multicore and R20 multicore also show triple-digit leads. For anyone working with 3D rendering, video encoding, or batch processing, the AMD chip is the clear choice.

Parallel compute tasks similarly favor AMD. Integer math shows a 200.4% lead, data compression shows 151.1%, and random string sorting shows 153.3%. These tasks scale with thread count, and the AMD chip's 12 threads against 5 threads provides a structural advantage. The AMD chip also leads in data encryption by 95.8%, which matters for disk encryption and secure communications workloads.

The Intel Core 3 304's strongest showing is in single-threaded PassMark, where it trails by only 2%. This indicates that for lightly threaded applications, the two chips are close. The Intel part's 1.50 GHz base clock is much lower, but its 4.30 GHz boost clock allows it to approach the AMD chip's 4.70 GHz peak in short bursts. Still, the AMD chip wins even this closest test.

The Intel chip does hold advantages in areas outside raw compute. It includes integrated graphics, making it usable without a discrete GPU. It supports LPDDR5X memory in addition to DDR5. Its 15 W TDP is dramatically lower than the AMD chip's 65 W, which matters for battery life in mobile devices. The Intel chip's market segment is mobile, while the AMD chip targets desktops. These are qualitative differentiators that do not appear in the benchmark scores.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F outperforms the Intel Core 3 304 in all 17 recorded benchmarks, with an average benchmark score of 25005 against 13745. The AMD chip sits at the 77th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel chip sits at the 68th. The largest gaps appear in multithreaded workloads, where the AMD chip leads by margins from 109.8% to 296.2%. The smallest gap is in PassMark single-thread performance, where the AMD chip leads by only 2%.

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is the appropriate choice for desktop users who need strong multithreaded performance. Its 6 cores and 12 threads, dual-channel memory support, 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, and unlocked multiplier make it suited for rendering, compute-heavy tasks, and overclocking. Its launch MSRP is $170.

The Intel Core 3 304 serves a different role. Its 5 cores and 5 threads, 15 W TDP, single-channel memory, and integrated graphics position it for low-power mobile systems. Its launch MSRP is $309. The benchmark data does not show any compute workload where the Intel chip wins, but its power envelope and integrated GPU are characteristics that the AMD chip does not offer. For a compact laptop where battery life and integrated graphics matter more than raw compute throughput, the Intel part has a functional place. For raw processing capability, the AMD processor wins every measured comparison.