AMD Ryzen 5 8600G vs Intel Core 3 304 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records a decisive sweep: the AMD Ryzen 5 8600G wins all 17 shared tests, with no test favoring the Intel Core 3 304. The largest margin appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the AMD part scores 21,503 against 5,263 for the Intel part, a 308.6% advantage. This single result encapsulates the gulf in sustained multi-threaded throughput between the two processors.

The multi-core dominance extends across every rendering workload. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the 8600G scores 9,031 versus 4,160, a 117.1% lead. The older Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows 2,167 against 849, a 155.2% delta. PassMark multi-thread follows the same pattern: 25,294 versus 11,625, a 117.6% advantage. Integer math delivers one of the starkest differences, with the AMD processor scoring 77,042 against 24,640, a 212.7% lead. Data compression shows 293,306 versus 114,775, a 155.5% margin, and random string sorting lands at 35,067 versus 13,659, a 156.7% delta.

Single-thread results narrow considerably but still favor the Ryzen 5 8600G. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 3,035 versus 1,765, a 72% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core records 1,274 versus 587, a 117% gap that is unusually large for a single-thread test. Cinebench R15 single-core shows only 305 versus 264, a 15.5% margin. PassMark single-thread is the closest contest of the entire comparison: 3,878 versus 3,614, a 7.3% edge. That small delta indicates the Intel Core 3 304 has competitive per-core frequency behavior in at least one workload, but it cannot overcome the AMD part's higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.30 GHz.

Other specialized tests reinforce the pattern. Floating point math scores 47,919 versus 29,722, a 61.2% lead. Physics simulation records 1,450 versus 868, a 67.1% gap. Extended instruction workloads show 22,610 versus 9,686, a 133.4% delta. Data encryption delivers 17,181 versus 8,501, a 102.1% advantage. Prime number finding, a test sensitive to integer throughput, shows 96 versus 68, a 41.2% margin.

The average benchmark score places the Ryzen 5 8600G at 24,089, which sits at the 76th percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7540U at 24,188 (0.4% higher), the AMD Ryzen 7 8840U at 23,982 (0.4% lower), the Intel Core i5-13400 at 24,280 (0.8% lower), and the Intel Core i7-1360P at 24,344 (1% lower). The Intel Core 3 304 averages 13,745, placing at the 68th percentile, with rivals such as the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX at 13,786 (0.3% higher), the Intel Core i7-8750H at 13,868 (0.9% higher), the Intel Core 5 120UL at 13,594 (1.1% lower), and the AMD EPYC 7443 at 13,936 (1.4% higher). The 75.2% gap in average score between the two reviewed processors is far larger than any delta within their respective rival clusters.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 8600G belongs to the 8000 series and uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Phoenix codename. It is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is built on a 3 nm process at Intel. The database does not list transistor count or die size for the Intel part.

Core configuration differs sharply. The AMD chip offers 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel chip provides 5 cores and 5 threads. The Intel part has no hyper-threading, which explains part of the multi-core deficit. Base clocks diverge heavily: 4.30 GHz for the AMD versus 1.50 GHz for the Intel, although boost clocks are closer at 5.00 GHz versus 4.30 GHz.

Cache layouts are also distinct. The Ryzen 5 8600G uses 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. The Core 3 304 lists 192 KB L1 total, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The AMD processor's larger shared L3 cache, combined with its higher thread count, supports its strong showing in compression and sorting workloads.

Memory architecture favors the AMD side as well. The Ryzen 5 8600G supports dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but only through a single-channel memory bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s. Neither processor supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs: the AMD part offers Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, while the Intel part provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics present a notable split. The Ryzen 5 8600G includes Radeon 760M graphics, while the Intel Core 3 304 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The database does not provide comparative graphics benchmarks, so the analysis cannot quantify their relative gaming or media performance.

The market segments differ: the AMD processor is a desktop part on Socket AM5, while the Intel processor is a mobile part on BGA 1516. The Intel chip carries a 15 W TDP compared with 65 W for the AMD part, which explains the mobile-oriented positioning. The AMD multiplier is unlocked, allowing overclocking, while the Intel multiplier is locked. Release dates also differ, with the Ryzen 5 8600G launching in January 2024 and the Core 3 304 in April 2026.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmarks in the comparison?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8600G wins all 17 shared head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 3 304 does not win any.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest margin is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Ryzen 5 8600G scores 21,503 versus 5,263, a 308.6% difference.

Q: How close are the single-thread scores?

A: PassMark single-thread shows the closest result: 3,878 versus 3,614, a 7.3% lead for the AMD part. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 15.5% margin, while Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 117% gap.

Q: Do the two processors use the same memory configuration?

A: No. The Ryzen 5 8600G uses dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 3 304 uses single-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The Ryzen 5 8600G has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 3 304 has a locked multiplier.

Q: How do their average scores compare to nearby CPUs in the database?

A: The Ryzen 5 8600G averages 24,089, sitting between the AMD Ryzen 5 7540U at 24,188 and the AMD Ryzen 7 8840U at 23,982. The Core 3 304 averages 13,745, between the Intel Core 5 120UL at 13,594 and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX at 13,786.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Ryzen 5 8600G | Intel Core 3 304 |

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

| Cores | 6 | 5 |

| Threads | 12 | 5 |

| Base clock | 4.30 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.00 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 15 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Not listed |

| Codename | Phoenix | Wildcat Lake |

| Process node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | Not listed |

| Die size | 178 mm² | Not listed |

| L1 cache | 64 KB per core | 192 KB total |

| L2 cache | 1 MB per core | 2.5 MB total |

| 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 | Gen 4, 6 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 760M | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Multiplier unlocked | Yes | No |

| Launch MSRP | $229 | $309 |

| Release date | January 2024 | April 2026 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 8600G wins every recorded benchmark category. Its multi-threaded results are particularly strong: Cinebench R23 multi-core leads by 308.6%, integer math by 212.7%, and data compression by 155.5%. These results indicate heavy rendering, content creation, and data-processing workloads will favor the AMD part decisively. The 12 threads versus 5 threads, combined with the larger 16 MB L3 cache and dual-channel 83.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, provide the structural basis for these wins.

The Intel Core 3 304 does not hold a single benchmark victory in the database. Its closest relative performance comes in PassMark single-thread, where the gap narrows to 7.3%. The 15 W TDP and mobile BGA 1516 socket position it for low-power portable systems, and the single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth reflects that design priority. Its LPDDR5X support adds memory flexibility for thin devices, and the 3 nm Intel process node suggests a focus on efficiency rather than raw throughput.

For use cases defined strictly by the recorded data, the Ryzen 5 8600G is the choice for any workload that scales with threads, cache, or memory bandwidth. The Intel part's only distinguishing characteristics in the specification table are its lower TDP, mobile form factor, LPDDR5X support, and newer process node. No benchmark in the database rewards those traits.

The Verdict

The data presents an unambiguous outcome. The AMD Ryzen 5 8600G outperforms the Intel Core 3 304 in every shared test, with margins ranging from 7.3% in PassMark single-thread to 308.6% in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The average benchmark score of 24,089 for the AMD part versus 13,745 for the Intel part places them in entirely different performance tiers, despite the Intel chip's higher launch MSRP of $309 compared with $229 for the AMD part.

The Intel Core 3 304 belongs to a different product category: a 15 W mobile processor on a BGA socket, with a single-channel memory bus and 5 threads. Its 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs places it near older desktop parts like the Intel Core i7-8750H and server processors like the AMD EPYC 7443. The Ryzen 5 8600G, by contrast, sits at the 76th percentile, competing with the Intel Core i5-13400 and the AMD Ryzen 7 8840U.

Buyers should select the AMD Ryzen 5 8600G for any compute-focused task where the recorded benchmarks apply: rendering, encryption, compression, physics, and math-heavy workloads. The Intel Core 3 304 makes sense only for systems that require its mobile socket, 15 W envelope, or LPDDR5X memory support, since the performance data offers no other basis for selection. The verdict follows the numbers: the Ryzen 5 8600G is the faster processor by every measured metric, and the Intel part's advantages are confined to power and platform characteristics rather than benchmark performance.