AMD Ryzen 7 250 vs Intel Core 3 304 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 250 and Intel Core 3 304 are both mobile processors, but their benchmark profiles could not be more different. The data shows a decisive victory for AMD in nearly every recorded test, with Intel managing a single win in one Cinebench R23 single-core run. The overall average benchmark scores reflect this gap: the Ryzen 7 250 scores 38221, placing it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 304 scores 13745, landing in the 68th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest margin of victory for the AMD Ryzen 7 250 appears in the PassMark integer math test, where it scores 91565 against the Intel Core 3 304's 24640. That is a 271.6% advantage, the single biggest delta in the entire comparison. This indicates a massive throughput advantage in basic arithmetic operations, which often correlates with general processor responsiveness.

Multi-core rendering workloads show a similarly lopsided result. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD scores 14676 versus 5263 for Intel, a 178.9% lead. The older Cinebench R15 multi-core test tells the same story: 2302 for AMD versus 849 for Intel, a 171.1% difference. These numbers confirm that the Ryzen 7 250 is in a different performance class for parallel workloads.

Data compression and encryption follow the trend. The Ryzen 7 250 scores 300708 in PassMark data compression, which is 162% higher than the Core 3 304's 114775. In data encryption, the margin is 107.8%, with scores of 17661 and 8501 respectively. For users handling archives, databases, or encrypted data, the AMD part delivers over double the throughput in these specific tests.

Extended instruction workloads, which measure SIMD and AVX performance, favor AMD by 123.1%. The Ryzen 7 250 scores 21613, while the Intel part manages 9686. Random string sorting, another test sensitive to memory and cache behavior, shows AMD ahead by 162.5%, scoring 35861 versus 13659.

The multi-thread PassMark test, which aggregates overall parallel performance, gives AMD a 115.8% lead (25089 versus 11625). Physics simulation scores are closer but still favor AMD: 1147 versus 868, a 32.1% advantage.

Single-thread results are far closer. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel Core 3 304 actually wins, scoring 1765 versus AMD's 1715, a 2.8% margin in Intel's favor. This is the only head-to-head test that Intel wins out of 15 recorded comparisons. PassMark single-thread scores show AMD slightly ahead at 3678 versus 3614, a 1.8% difference. Cinebench R15 single-core also goes to AMD by a narrow 1.9% margin (269 versus 264).

The overall win count is 14 for AMD and 1 for Intel. The average benchmark score for the Ryzen 7 250 is 38221, which puts it within 0.1% of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T (38194) and within 0.2% of the Intel Core i5-14490F (38149). The Core 3 304's average of 13745 sits near the Intel Core i7-8750H (13868, a 0.9% difference) and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (13786, a 0.3% difference).

Architecture Differences

The core configurations explain the benchmark gap. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 uses 8 cores and 16 threads based on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Hawk Point. It is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core 3 304 uses 5 cores and 5 threads, meaning no hyper-threading is present. It uses the Wildcat Lake architecture on Intel's 3 nm process.

The AMD part has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Even in single-thread tests, the boost clock difference of 0.80 GHz is noticeable, though the Intel part does manage to win one single-core test.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The Ryzen 7 250 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2 total, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD part has nearly triple the L3 cache, which likely contributes to its massive lead in data compression and random string sorting.

Memory support also diverges. The AMD part uses dual-channel DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but only in a single-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. This 29.9 GB/s difference in theoretical bandwidth is a major factor in bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

PCIe lanes differ as well. The AMD processor provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel processor provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU. This affects expandability for discrete GPUs and high-speed storage.

The integrated graphics units are completely different. AMD includes the Radeon 780M, while Intel includes the Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The transistor count for AMD is 25,000 million on a 178 mm² die. Intel's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Power targets are also distinct. The AMD part has a TDP of 28 watts, while the Intel part has a TDP of 15 watts. This makes the Intel part more power-efficient on paper, though the performance data shows a large cost in throughput for that power reduction.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core rendering?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 wins decisively. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 14676 versus 5263 for the Intel Core 3 304, a 178.9% advantage. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows a 171.1% lead for AMD (2302 versus 849).

Q: Is the Intel Core 3 304 faster in any benchmark?

A: Yes, in one test. The Intel Core 3 304 wins Cinebench R23 single-core with a score of 1765 versus 1715 for the AMD, a 2.8% margin. However, AMD wins the other two single-thread tests: Cinebench R15 single-core (269 versus 264) and PassMark single-thread (3678 versus 3614).

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 has an average benchmark score of 38221, placing it in the 86th percentile. The Intel Core 3 304 has an average score of 13745, placing it in the 68th percentile. The AMD part scores roughly 2.8 times higher on average.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 uses dual-channel DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 3 304 uses single-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part has a 29.9 GB/s higher theoretical bandwidth.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The AMD part has 3 more cores and 11 more threads.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 has a TDP of 28 watts. The Intel Core 3 304 has a TDP of 15 watts. The Intel part uses 13 watts less, but the benchmark data shows a large performance penalty for that power savings.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear choice for anyone prioritizing raw performance: the AMD Ryzen 7 250 delivers more than 2.7 times the integer math throughput, nearly 2.8 times the multi-core Cinebench score, and an overall average benchmark score that is roughly 2.8 times higher than the Intel Core 3 304. The AMD part also holds the 86th percentile ranking versus the 68th percentile for Intel.

The Intel Core 3 304 is only competitive in one narrow area: Cinebench R23 single-core, where it beats the AMD by 2.8%. It also has a lower TDP (15 watts versus 28 watts), which makes it suitable for fanless or ultra-low-power designs. However, the performance trade-off is severe. The Intel part scores less than half of the AMD in PassMark multi-thread, less than a third in data compression, and less than a third in integer math.

The nearest rivals in the database reinforce this split. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 sits within 0.2% of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T and the Intel Core i5-14490F, both significantly more powerful desktop or mobile parts. The Intel Core 3 304 sits near the Intel Core i7-8750H and the AMD EPYC 7443, but those comparisons show that it is not punching above its weight class.

For a mobile workstation or a high-performance thin-and-light laptop, the Ryzen 7 250 is the only rational choice based on benchmark data. For a device where power draw is the absolute priority and performance is secondary, the Core 3 304 has a place. The 13-watt TDP difference is substantial, but it comes at the cost of 14 out of 15 benchmark losses.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 250 | Intel Core 3 304 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 5 |

| Threads | 16 | 5 |

| Base Clock | 3.30 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.10 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 15 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Wildcat Lake |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| 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 | 89.6 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes | Gen 4, 6 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 780M | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | Not recorded |

| Release Date | 2025-01-05 | 2026-04-15 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $309 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 250 wins in every multi-threaded and parallel workload recorded. It dominates integer math (271.6% lead), multi-core Cinebench (178.9% lead), data compression (162% lead), random string sorting (162.5% lead), extended instructions (123.1% lead), and multi-thread PassMark (115.8% lead). It also wins in data encryption by 107.8%, floating-point math by 79.3%, physics by 32.1%, and prime number finding by 7.4%. For video encoding, 3D rendering, software compilation, or heavy multitasking, the Ryzen 7 250 is the clear performer.

The Intel Core 3 304 wins in exactly one scenario: Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 1765 versus 1715. This suggests a slight advantage in lightly-threaded, short-duration tasks that rely on a single core. It also has a 13-watt lower TDP, making it the better choice for passive cooling or battery-constrained designs. The single-channel memory bus and 6 PCIe lanes, however, limit its potential for high-throughput storage or discrete graphics. The data shows that the Intel part is a low-power processor with a narrow single-core edge, while the AMD part is a high-performance processor that wins across the board.