AMD Ryzen 7 8700F vs Intel Core 3 304 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F and Intel Core 3 304 occupy different corners of the processor market, with the former built as a desktop part for performance and the latter designed as a low-power mobile chip. The recorded data shows a complete sweep in head-to-head testing: the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F wins all 17 shared benchmarks, with no wins recorded for the Intel Core 3 304. The average benchmark score for the AMD part is 30746, placing it in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel chip averages 13745, good for the 68th percentile. The performance gap is substantial across every workload category, though the single-threaded results are far closer than the multi-threaded ones.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F wins every benchmark category in the database, so the practical question is not which processor wins a given test but how large the margin is. The largest advantage appears in heavily threaded workloads. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the AMD chip scores 26646 against 5263 for the Intel Core 3 304, a delta of 406.3%. The passmark integer math test shows a 307.3% advantage, with the AMD part scoring 100371 versus 24640. The passmark random string sorting test shows a 232.6% lead, and data compression shows a 229.5% lead. These results indicate that the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F is the clear choice for rendering, compiling, and other parallel workloads where core count and thread count matter.

The Intel Core 3 304 has no benchmark wins, but its closest relative performance is in single-threaded tests. In passmark single thread, the AMD chip scores 3872 against 3614, a delta of only 7.1%. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows a 43.2% gap, but that is the exception; the newer single-threaded tests show a smaller divide. The Intel part's integrated graphics, Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe), give it a feature that the AMD chip lacks entirely, since the Ryzen 7 8700F has no integrated graphics. For systems requiring a display output without a discrete GPU, the Intel Core 3 304 is the only one of the pair that can function alone, though the database contains no graphics benchmarks to quantify that advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use fundamentally different designs. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F is built on Zen 4 architecture with the Phoenix codename, part of the 8000 series, and uses an 8-core, 16-thread configuration. The Intel Core 3 304 uses Wildcat Lake architecture with 5 cores and 5 threads, meaning it has no hyper-threading or equivalent. The process nodes differ: AMD uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while Intel uses a 3 nm process from its own foundry. The AMD chip has a 65 W TDP, while the Intel part is rated at 15 W, reflecting its mobile positioning.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1 cache total, 2.5 MB of L2 cache total, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part uses a dual-channel DDR5 memory bus with 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel chip supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F uses AMD Socket AM5 and has an unlocked multiplier, meaning it can be overclocked. The Intel Core 3 304 is soldered to Intel BGA 1516, has a locked multiplier, and is classified as a mobile part. The AMD chip provides Gen 4 PCIe with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel chip provides Gen 4 PCIe with 6 lanes. The AMD processor has no integrated graphics; the Intel part includes Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe). The transistor count and die size are only recorded for the AMD part, at 25,000 million transistors and 178 mm², respectively.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows the widest multi-threaded margins. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F scores 26646, which is 406.3% higher than the Intel Core 3 304's 5263. Cinebench R20 multicore shows a 169% delta, with scores of 11191 and 4160, and Cinebench R15 multicore shows a 216.3% delta, with scores of 2685 and 849. The single-core Cinebench results are also lopsided but less extreme: Cinebench R23 single-core shows 3761 versus 1765, a 113.1% delta, and Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1579 versus 587, also a 169% delta.

PassMark results follow the same pattern. The integer math test shows the AMD part scoring 100371 against 24640, a 307.3% delta. Data compression shows 378160 versus 114775, a 229.5% delta. Random string sorting shows 45425 versus 13659, a 232.6% delta. Extended instructions show 28474 versus 9686, a 194% delta. Data encryption shows 22117 versus 8501, a 160.2% delta. Floating point math shows 62629 versus 29722, a 110.7% delta. The physics test shows 1553 versus 868, a 78.9% delta. The find prime numbers test shows 98 versus 68, a 44.1% delta.

The closest result in the entire comparison is the passmark single-thread test, where the AMD chip scores 3872 and the Intel chip scores 3614, a 7.1% delta. This is the only benchmark where the Intel Core 3 304 comes within single digits of the AMD part. The passmark multithread test shows a 165.7% delta, with scores of 30893 and 11625. Across all 17 shared tests, the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F holds a commanding lead, and the average benchmark score difference of 17001 points reflects that dominance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F wins all multi-threaded tests by large margins. The Cinebench R23 multicore test shows a 406.3% advantage, and the passmark multithread test shows a 165.7% advantage.

Q: How close is single-threaded performance between the two?

A: The closest result in the database is the passmark single-thread test, where the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F scores 3872 against 3614 for the Intel Core 3 304, a 7.1% delta. Other single-threaded tests show larger gaps, such as Cinebench R23 single-core with a 113.1% delta.

Q: Do either of these processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F and the Intel Core 3 304 have ECC memory support listed as false in the database.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core 3 304 has integrated graphics, using Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe). The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F has no integrated graphics and requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: What are the socket and form factor differences?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F uses AMD Socket AM5 and is a desktop part with an unlocked multiplier. The Intel Core 3 304 uses Intel BGA 1516, is a mobile part, and has a locked multiplier.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F has an average benchmark score of 30746, while the Intel Core 3 304 has an average benchmark score of 13745.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 8700F | Intel Core 3 304 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 5 |

| Threads | 16 | 5 |

| Base clock | 4.10 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.00 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 15 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Codename | Phoenix | Wildcat Lake |

| 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 | Yes | No |

| Launch MSRP | $270 | $309 |

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a straightforward choice for raw compute performance: the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F is faster in every recorded test. The multi-threaded deltas are extreme, with Cinebench R23 multicore showing a 406.3% advantage and passmark integer math showing a 307.3% advantage. The AMD chip also leads in single-threaded performance, though the 7.1% delta in passmark single thread shows the Intel Core 3 304 is not entirely outclassed in lightly threaded tasks. The AMD part's 8 cores and 16 threads, dual-channel memory bus, and 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes make it the appropriate choice for desktop builds where compute density and expansion capability are priorities. Its 65 W TDP is higher than the Intel part's 15 W, but the performance return is substantial.

The Intel Core 3 304 does have specific advantages in the specification sheet. Its 3 nm Intel process node is smaller than the 4 nm TSMC node used by AMD. It includes integrated graphics, which the AMD chip lacks, and it supports LPDDR5X memory in addition to DDR5. Its mobile form factor, BGA 1516 socket, and 15 W TDP make it suited for compact or battery-powered systems where power draw and physical size matter more than raw throughput. The Intel part also has a higher launch MSRP of $309 compared to $270 for the AMD chip, despite delivering far lower benchmark scores. The average benchmark score of 13745 for the Intel part places it near the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and Intel Core i7-8750H, while the AMD part's 30746 average sits close to the Intel Core i5-13600H and Intel Core Ultra 5 225T. Users who need integrated graphics and minimal power consumption should consider the Intel Core 3 304; users who need processing performance above all else should choose the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F.