AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 vs Intel Core 3 304 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data splits this matchup into two clear territories: multi-core and throughput-heavy workloads favor the AMD Ryzen AI 5 330, while the Intel Core 3 304 takes a set of focused single-threaded and math-oriented tests. Of the 15 recorded head-to-head comparisons, the AMD processor wins 8 and the Intel processor wins 7, but the margins tell a more decisive story.

The largest advantage for the AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 appears in PassMark integer math, where it scores 37771 against 24640 for the Intel Core 3 304, a lead of 53.3%. That result aligns with the Cinebench multi-core pattern. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD chip posts 7840 versus 5263, a 49% advantage. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a similar gap: 1191 against 849, or 40.3% ahead. These are substantial deltas, indicating the AMD processor sustains multi-threaded performance much more effectively.

Data compression also favors AMD heavily. The PassMark data compression score is 152012 for the Ryzen AI 5 330 and 114775 for the Core 3 304, a 32.4% difference. Random string sorting follows the same direction: 16188 versus 13659, an 18.5% win. Extended instructions, a test of CPU instruction set throughput, goes to AMD by 14.8% (11124 versus 9686). PassMark multithread, the aggregate threaded workload score, shows AMD ahead 12797 to 11625, a 10.1% margin.

The Intel Core 3 304 wins its share with narrower but consistent single-thread results. In Cinebench R15 single-core, Intel leads 264 to 199.9, a 24.3% margin. That is the largest Intel win in the entire dataset. Cinebench R23 single-core is much closer: 1812 for AMD versus 1765 for Intel, a 2.7% AMD advantage. PassMark single-thread shows Intel ahead 3614 to 3515, a 2.7% margin. So in the two most recent single-core render tests, the two processors are nearly tied, while the older R15 test strongly favors Intel.

Intel also wins several PassMark sub-tests that emphasize scalar or physics-style execution. Find prime numbers: 68 for Intel versus 42 for AMD, a 38.2% advantage. Physics: 868 versus 705, an 18.8% win. Floating-point math: 29722 versus 26196, an 11.9% edge. Data encryption: 8501 versus 7251, a 14.7% win for Intel. These results suggest the Intel part handles certain integer-loop and floating-point workloads more efficiently per clock, even though its overall multi-threaded throughput is lower.

The average benchmark scores place the two parts at different performance tiers overall. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 records an average benchmark score of 18811, which places it in the 73rd percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Intel Core 3 304 averages 13745, sitting in the 68th percentile. The nearest rivals for AMD include the Intel Core i7-1355U at 18730 (0.4% behind AMD) and the Intel Core i5-12400 at 18683 (0.7% behind). For Intel, the closest comparisons are the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX at 13786 (0.3% above the Core 3 304) and the Intel Core i7-8750H at 13868 (0.9% above). This positions the AMD part against higher-scoring desktop and mobile chips, while the Intel part sits closer to older H-series mobile processors.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward verdict: the AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 is the stronger processor for threaded workloads, and the Intel Core 3 304 is the stronger processor for specific single-threaded and scalar tasks, though with a smaller aggregate score. The average benchmark score difference is substantial: 18811 for AMD against 13745 for Intel, a gap of roughly 5066 points. That difference is reflected in the percentile ranks: 73rd versus 68th.

For anyone running render workloads, compression, sorting, or integer-heavy parallel tasks, the AMD processor wins by wide margins. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 7840 versus 5263 is a 49% advantage, and the integer math score of 37771 versus 24640 is a 53.3% advantage. These are not marginal differences; they represent a clear tier gap in sustained multi-core execution.

For single-threaded tasks, the choice is less clear. The Intel Core 3 304 wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 24.3% and PassMark single-thread by 2.7%, while the AMD chip wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 2.7%. In practice, the Intel part appears to have an edge in legacy single-thread tests and in scalar math loops, but the AMD part matches or slightly exceeds it in the newer R23 single-core test.

The Intel Core 3 304 also shows strengths in floating-point math (11.9% ahead), physics simulation (18.8% ahead), find-prime-number loops (38.2% ahead), and data encryption (14.7% ahead). These wins indicate that for particular code paths, especially those that do not scale across many threads, the Intel architecture is efficient. However, those wins do not offset the large multi-core deficits.

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The thread count difference is critical: AMD offers simultaneous multithreading, Intel does not in this part. That explains why AMD dominates multi-threaded tests despite having fewer physical cores. The AMD chip also has a higher boost clock at 4.50 GHz versus 4.30 GHz for Intel, and a higher base clock at 2.00 GHz versus 1.50 GHz.

There is no recorded launch MSRP for the AMD part, while the Intel Core 3 304 has a launch MSRP of $309. The database does not include a price for the AMD processor, so any price comparison is not possible from these records.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 has an average benchmark score of 18811, compared to 13745 for the Intel Core 3 304.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 scores 7840 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Core 3 304 scores 5263. That is a 49% advantage for AMD.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 304 win any single-core tests?

A: Yes. The Intel Core 3 304 wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 24.3% (264 versus 199.9) and PassMark single-thread by 2.7% (3614 versus 3515). The AMD chip wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 2.7% (1812 versus 1765).

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 has 8 threads from 4 cores. The Intel Core 3 304 has 5 threads from 5 cores, meaning it does not use simultaneous multithreading.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Core 3 304 uses a 3 nm process from Intel.

Q: Which processor supports wider memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 uses a dual-channel memory bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 3 304 uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. AMD uses simultaneous multithreading, Intel does not. Base clocks are 2.00 GHz for AMD and 1.50 GHz for Intel. Boost clocks are 4.50 GHz for AMD and 4.30 GHz for Intel. Thermal design power is 28 W for AMD and 15 W for Intel. The AMD part uses socket AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel part uses Intel BGA 1516.

Memory support differs in bus width: AMD runs dual-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, Intel runs single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s. Neither part supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs: AMD provides Gen 4 with 14 lanes (CPU only), Intel provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics are different: AMD uses the Radeon 820M, Intel uses the Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe).

Release dates differ significantly. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 was released on 2025-07-15, while the Intel Core 3 304 was released on 2026-04-15. The Intel part carries a launch MSRP of $309; no launch MSRP is recorded for the AMD part. Both parts are currently marked as Active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 is built on Zen 5 architecture with the codename Krackan Point 2, belonging to the Ryzen AI 300 generation that includes both Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. The process node is 4 nm, fabricated by TSMC. Cache is organized per core: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of L3 total.

The Intel Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation. Its process node is 3 nm, fabricated by Intel. Cache organization is different: 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2 total, and 6 MB of shared L3. This means Intel has more total L3 cache (6 MB versus 4 MB) and more L1 cache, while AMD has a per-core L2 design that gives 4 MB total across its 4 cores.

The architecture differences explain several benchmark patterns. AMD's Zen 5 with simultaneous multithreading and a higher boost clock sustains heavy parallel workloads. Intel's 3 nm process and single-threaded design deliver strong scalar performance in tests like find prime numbers and physics, where the Intel part leads by 38.2% and 18.8% respectively. The single-channel memory bus on Intel is a limiting factor for memory-bandwidth-sensitive tasks, which is reflected in the large compression and sorting deficits.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 wins in multi-core rendering, parallel integer math, data compression, random string sorting, extended instruction throughput, and aggregate multithreaded performance. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 7840 and the 53.3% integer math advantage make it the clear choice for compiled workloads, batch processing, and any application that spreads work across threads. The 49% Cinebench R23 multi-core lead and the 40.3% Cinebench R15 multi-core lead confirm consistent behavior across render versions.

The Intel Core 3 304 wins in legacy single-core rendering, prime-number loops, physics simulation, floating-point math, data encryption, and PassMark single-thread performance. The 24.3% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core is the largest Intel margin. The 38.2% lead in find prime numbers and the 18.8% lead in physics suggest strong per-clock scalar execution. The encryption win of 14.7% also points to efficient cryptographic instruction handling.

The data indicates a trade-off: AMD delivers broad multi-threaded dominance with a higher average score and a higher percentile rank, while Intel offers targeted wins in specific single-threaded and scalar workloads. The AMD part also provides dual-channel memory bandwidth (89.6 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s) and more PCIe lanes (14 versus 6), which matter for systems that move data through the CPU. The Intel part counters with a smaller process node (3 nm versus 4 nm) and a lower 15 W TDP, which may be relevant for power-constrained mobile designs, although the database does not include power efficiency measurements.