Intel Core 3 100HL vs Intel Core 3 304 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison between the Intel Core 3 100HL and the Intel Core 3 304 shows a dominant performance profile for the 100HL, which wins 15 of 17 recorded benchmarks. The 304 takes only 2 wins, both in specific single-threaded or specialized workloads.

The largest margin comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the 100HL scores 14948 against the 304's 5263, a 184% advantage. This is the clearest signal of the performance gap between the two processors. The R20 multi-core test shows a similar pattern, with the 100HL at 6278 and the 304 at 4160, a 50.9% lead. PassMark integer math also heavily favors the 100HL, which scores 56308 versus 24640, a 128.5% difference.

The 100HL also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 77.4%, scoring 1506 against 849. Data compression follows with a 76.2% lead (202225 vs 114775), and random string sorting shows a 70% advantage (23223 vs 13659). Floating point math favors the 100HL by 41.7% (42108 vs 29722), and data encryption shows a 40.7% edge (11964 vs 8501). Extended instructions come in at a 28.7% advantage for the 100HL (12463 vs 9686).

Multi-threaded performance in PassMark shows the 100HL at 17586 versus 11625, a 51.3% lead. The Cinebench R20 single-core test presents an interesting anomaly: the 100HL wins with 886 against 587, a 50.9% margin, but the R15 single-core test goes the other way. In R15 single-core, the 304 scores 264 versus the 100HL's 212, a 19.7% win for the 304. This inconsistency across Cinebench versions suggests different workload scaling between the two chips, but the R23 single-core result favors the 100HL at 2110 versus 1765, a 19.5% margin.

The 304's other win comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 68 against the 100HL's 48, a 29.4% advantage. This indicates a specific strength in integer-heavy prime-finding workloads, likely tied to its architecture's per-core efficiency. However, the PassMark single-thread test gives the 100HL a modest 3.3% edge (3735 vs 3614), and physics simulation also favors the 100HL by 6.9% (928 vs 868).

Overall average benchmark scores reinforce the gap: the 100HL averages 23545 across all recorded tests, while the 304 averages 13745. The percentile ranking places the 100HL at 76 versus the 304's 68, meaning the 100HL sits comfortably above a larger share of all CPUs in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split in intended usage. The Intel Core 3 100HL is the processor for workloads that scale with core count and thread parallelism. Its 8 cores and 12 threads, combined with a 45 W TDP, deliver multi-core scores that dramatically outpace the 304. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 184% lead is decisive. For rendering, data compression, integer math, or any heavily threaded task, the 100HL is the correct choice.

The Intel Core 3 304, with 5 cores and 5 threads at a 15 W TDP, is a different proposition. Its single-core Cinebench R15 result (264 vs 212) and prime number finding (68 vs 48) show that per-core efficiency can outperform the larger chip in narrow workloads. But the 304 loses the majority of single-core tests, including R20, R23, and PassMark single-thread, so its advantages are limited to specific algorithmic patterns.

The database shows the 100HL in the 76th percentile of all CPUs, while the 304 sits at the 68th percentile. The 100HL's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8540U at an average score of 23709 (0.7% lower) and the Intel Core i5-11500 at 23718 (0.7% lower). The 304's nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX at 13786 (0.3% lower) and the Intel Core i7-8750H at 13868 (0.9% lower). These comparisons place the 100HL in a performance class roughly 71% higher than the 304 based on average scores.

For a user choosing between these two, the decision hinges on whether the workload is multi-threaded or single-threaded. The 100HL wins 15 benchmarks outright, including all multi-core tests and most single-core tests. The 304 wins only 2 benchmarks, and those wins are not enough to compensate for its deficits elsewhere. The data indicates the 100HL is the stronger all-around processor, with the 304 serving a narrower role where its 15 W power envelope and specific per-core strengths matter more than raw throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher Cinebench R23 multi-core score?

A: The Intel Core 3 100HL scores 14948, while the Intel Core 3 304 scores 5263, giving the 100HL a 184% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 304 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins 2 of 17 recorded benchmarks: Cinebench R15 single-core (264 vs 212, a 19.7% lead) and PassMark find prime numbers (68 vs 48, a 29.4% lead).

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The 100HL has an average benchmark score of 23545, while the 304 has 13745. The 100HL's average is roughly 71% higher.

Q: How do the two compare in PassMark single-thread performance?

A: The 100HL scores 3735, and the 304 scores 3614, a 3.3% advantage for the 100HL.

Q: Which processor has the higher percentile ranking among all CPUs?

A: The 100HL ranks in the 76th percentile, while the 304 ranks in the 68th percentile.

Q: What is the 100HL's margin in data compression?

A: The 100HL scores 202225 in PassMark data compression, against the 304's 114775, a 76.2% lead.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The Intel Core 3 100HL uses 8 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core 3 304 uses 5 cores and 5 threads. Base clock speeds differ as well: the 100HL runs at 2.10 GHz, and the 304 at 1.50 GHz. Boost clocks show a smaller gap, with the 100HL reaching 4.60 GHz and the 304 reaching 4.30 GHz.

Thermal design power is a major distinction. The 100HL has a 45 W TDP, while the 304 has a 15 W TDP. This reflects their different market segments: the 100HL is a desktop processor, and the 304 is a mobile processor. Socket compatibility follows this split, with the 100HL using Intel Socket 1700 and the 304 using Intel BGA 1516.

Memory support also differs. The 100HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in a single-channel configuration, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The 100HL has no listed memory bandwidth figure in the database.

PCIe lanes differ: the 100HL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the 304 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). Cache configurations are markedly different. The 100HL lists L1 cache at 80 KB per core, L2 at 2 MB per core, and L3 at 12 MB shared. The 304 lists L1 cache at 192 KB total, L2 at 2.5 MB total, and L3 at 6 MB shared.

The 304 has a launch MSRP of $309. The 100HL has no launch MSRP recorded. The 304 has a part number of SAE3K, while the 100HL's part number is listed as unknown. Both processors have locked multipliers and do not support ECC memory.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two processors is fundamental. The Intel Core 3 100HL uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS codename, built on a 10 nm process node from Intel's own foundry. The Intel Core 3 304 uses Wildcat Lake codename on a 3 nm process node, also from Intel's foundry. This process difference is significant, with the 304 using a substantially smaller node.

The core counts reflect this architectural divergence. The 100HL's 8 cores with 12 threads indicate a hybrid or hyper-threaded design, while the 304's 5 cores with 5 threads show no hyper-threading. The 100HL's cache hierarchy is per-core for L1 and L2, with shared L3 at 12 MB. The 304's cache is listed as total amounts, with 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The L3 cache difference is notable: 12 MB versus 6 MB, a 2x disparity.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The 100HL features Iris Xe Graphics with 48 execution units. The 304 features Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The 304's integrated graphics is a newer generation, but the 100HL's 48 EU configuration suggests higher graphics throughput potential.

The 304's single-channel memory bus is a notable architectural choice, especially when paired with LPDDR5X support. The 100HL's dual-channel support for both DDR4 and DDR5 gives it more memory flexibility, though the 304's recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s provides a concrete figure for its memory subsystem.

Release dates differ by roughly two years, with the 100HL released in April 2024 and the 304 in April 2026. Both are listed as Active in production status. The 100HL's generation is recorded as Core 3 (Raptor Lake-PS), and the 304's as Core 3 (Wildcat Lake). Neither processor has a recorded transistor count or die size in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 3 100HL dominates in multi-threaded and most single-threaded workloads. Its wins span Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, plus R20 and R23 single-core tests. It also leads in PassMark data compression, encryption, extended instructions, floating point math, integer math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread tests. This breadth makes it the default choice for rendering, data processing, encryption tasks, and general productivity workloads.

The 100HL's 184% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core makes it suitable for CPU-bound rendering and 3D workload applications. Its 128.5% advantage in integer math points to strength in computational tasks that rely on integer arithmetic, such as encryption or certain scientific calculations. The 76.2% lead in data compression suggests file archiving and compression utilities will see large performance gains.

The Intel Core 3 304 wins only in Cinebench R15 single-core and PassMark find prime numbers. The Cinebench R15 single-core win (264 vs 212) is a legacy benchmark result that does not carry over to newer Cinebench versions, where the 304 loses by 50.9% in R20 single-core and 19.5% in R23 single-core. This suggests the R15 result may reflect specific instruction scheduling rather than a general single-core advantage.

The PassMark find prime numbers win (68 vs 48) is a narrow workload focused on prime number generation. This test benefits from the 304's per-core efficiency and its 3 nm process node, which allows higher effective instruction throughput in this specific algorithm. However, the 304's 15 W TDP and 5-core, 5-thread configuration limit its applicability beyond such targeted tasks.

For mobile or power-constrained environments, the 304's 15 W TDP is a clear advantage over the 100HL's 45 W TDP. The 304's BGA 1516 socket and mobile market segment indicate it is designed for laptops or compact systems where power draw is a primary constraint. The 100HL's desktop socket and 45 W TDP suit it for desktop builds with adequate cooling.

The recorded data shows the 100HL as the superior all-around performer, with an average benchmark score 71% higher than the 304. The 304's wins are limited to 2 specific tests, and its percentile ranking (68) trails the 100HL (76) by a meaningful margin. For users prioritizing multi-threaded performance, desktop compatibility, and higher cache capacity, the 100HL is the clear choice. For users prioritizing power efficiency, mobile form factor, and specific prime-finding or legacy single-core workloads, the 304 holds a narrow niche.