AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 vs Intel Core 3 304 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a starkly one-sided picture. Across all 15 recorded head-to-head tests, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 takes every win, leaving the Intel Core 3 304 with zero victories. That does not mean the Intel part has no role, but its strengths are contextual rather than competitive in raw performance.

The AMD processor dominates every category where thread count and sustained throughput matter. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD scores 21,812 against Intel's 5,263, a 314.4% advantage. The PassMark integer math test shows the largest single gap: AMD posts 121,754 versus Intel's 24,640, a 394.1% delta. Data compression favors AMD by 252.8% (404,918 to 114,775), and random string sorting shows a 226.2% lead (44,552 to 13,659). These are workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth, and the AMD part has both in far greater measure.

Single-threaded performance tells a closer story, though AMD still wins. In Cinebench R23 single-core, AMD scores 1,988 against Intel's 1,765, a 12.6% margin. PassMark single-thread shows 3,867 versus 3,614, only 7% apart. The Intel Core 3 304 is not a slow chip per-core; it simply lacks the AMD part's parallel resources. For lightly threaded tasks like everyday web browsing, office documents, or legacy applications, the gap narrows considerably, and the Intel chip's efficiency-focused design may be sufficient.

The Intel part's realistic win condition is in power-constrained, low-cost mobile designs. Its 15 W TDP, single-channel memory, and 5-core configuration target entry-level laptops where the AMD's 28 W TDP and 12-core layout would be overkill. The data shows AMD wins every benchmark, but the Intel chip competes in a different tier of machine, one where the AMD part may not even be an option due to thermal and platform constraints.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. AMD builds the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 on a 4 nm TSMC process with a 233 mm² die, using the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Point codename. It belongs to the Ryzen AI 300 generation, which combines Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. Intel's Core 3 304 uses a 3 nm Intel foundry process with the Wildcat Lake codename, part of the Core 3 generation. The process node advantage sits with Intel, but the architectural complexity favors AMD.

Core counts diverge sharply. The AMD chip provides 12 cores and 24 threads, while Intel offers 5 cores and 5 threads with no hyperthreading. That explains the multi-threaded benchmark gap almost entirely. Cache hierarchies reflect the same disparity. AMD allocates 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. Intel's cache structure is simpler: 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The AMD part has nearly three times the L3 capacity, which helps with data reuse in complex workloads.

Memory architecture differs substantially. AMD uses a dual-channel memory bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, supporting DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Intel uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, also supporting DDR5 and LPDDR5X but at a 33% lower peak transfer rate. Neither chip supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also splits: AMD provides Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes, Intel provides Gen 4 with only 6 CPU lanes. That limits Intel's ability to drive high-speed storage and external GPUs.

Integrated graphics present another clear distinction. AMD integrates the Radeon 890M, a substantial GPU that can handle modern gaming at modest settings. Intel integrates Xe3 Graphics with a single Xe core, which is considerably less capable for graphics-heavy tasks. The target platforms differ as well: AMD uses the FP8 socket, Intel uses BGA 1516. Both are mobile soldered parts with no unlocked multiplier.

Release timing is notable. AMD launched on 2024-06-30, while Intel's release date is listed as 2026-04-15. That nearly two-year gap means the Intel part arrives in a market where the AMD chip has already established its position. Intel's process advantage (3 nm versus 4 nm) does not translate into a performance win in the recorded data, which suggests the Intel design prioritizes efficiency over absolute throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest recorded delta occurs in PassMark integer math. AMD scores 121,754, Intel scores 24,640, a 394.1% advantage for AMD. This test stresses arithmetic operations on integer data, and the AMD part's 12 cores with 24 threads simply overwhelm Intel's 5 threads. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows a similar pattern: AMD at 21,812 versus Intel at 5,263, a 314.4% gap. Cinebench R15 multi-core follows with AMD at 3,334 and Intel at 849, a 292.7% difference.

Data compression favors AMD by 252.8%, with scores of 404,918 and 114,775. Random string sorting shows a 226.2% delta (44,552 versus 13,659). Extended instructions, which test SIMD and vector workload efficiency, show AMD ahead by 202.2% (29,269 versus 9,686). The multi-thread PassMark test records AMD at 32,916 against Intel's 11,625, a 183.1% lead. Floating-point math gives AMD 75,153 versus Intel's 29,722, a 152.9% margin. Data encryption shows a 144.7% gap (20,802 versus 8,501), and physics simulation gives AMD 1,819 versus 868, a 109.6% advantage. Prime number finding shows a smaller but still decisive 79.4% delta (122 versus 68).

The closest results come in single-threaded tests. Cinebench R23 single-core has AMD at 1,988 and Intel at 1,765, a 12.6% delta. Cinebench R15 single-core shows AMD at 301 and Intel at 264, a 14% gap. PassMark single-thread records AMD at 3,867 and Intel at 3,614, just 7% apart. These margins indicate that Intel's Wildcat Lake core design is competitive per clock, but the AMD Zen 5 core still holds a consistent edge even without parallel scaling.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ in nearly every major specification. AMD provides 12 cores and 24 threads; Intel provides 5 cores and 5 threads. Base clocks run at 2.00 GHz for AMD and 1.50 GHz for Intel, while boost clocks reach 5.10 GHz for AMD and 4.30 GHz for Intel. Thermal design power is 28 W for AMD and 15 W for Intel.

Process node and foundry differ: AMD uses 4 nm TSMC, Intel uses 3 nm Intel. Die size is 233 mm² for AMD, not listed for Intel. Cache structures diverge completely: AMD has 80 KB L1 per core and 1 MB L2 per core, Intel has 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2 as flat values. L3 is 16 MB for AMD versus 6 MB shared for Intel.

Memory bus width differs: AMD is dual-channel with 89.6 GB/s, Intel is single-channel with 59.7 GB/s. PCIe lanes are 16 Gen 4 for AMD versus 6 Gen 4 for Intel. Integrated graphics are Radeon 890M versus Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. Socket types are AMD FP8 versus Intel BGA 1516. The AMD part number is 100-000001682, Intel's is SAE3K. Intel has a launch MSRP of $309; AMD has no recorded launch MSRP. Release dates are 2024-06-30 for AMD and 2026-04-15 for Intel. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, both lack ECC support, and both have locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD part leads by 314.4% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (21,812 versus 5,263) and by 292.7% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (3,334 versus 849).

Q: What is the closest benchmark result between the two processors?

A: The smallest gap is in PassMark single-thread, where AMD scores 3,867 and Intel scores 3,614, a 7% difference. Cinebench R23 single-core is close as well at 12.6% (1,988 versus 1,765).

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 304 win any recorded benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows AMD winning all 15 tests, with Intel recording zero wins.

Q: What is the core and thread difference?

A: AMD has 12 cores and 24 threads, while Intel has 5 cores and 5 threads. Intel does not implement simultaneous multithreading.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: AMD uses dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, Intel uses single-channel with 59.7 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: AMD is rated at 28 W, Intel at 15 W. The Intel part targets lower-power designs, while the AMD part uses additional power to deliver higher performance.