Intel Core 3 100UL vs Intel Core 3 304 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core 3 100UL and Intel Core 3 304 occupy different corners of the performance spectrum, and the recorded data shows a clear split between multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads. The Core 3 304 holds a decisive advantage in most multi-core benchmarks, while the Core 3 100UL counters with a higher boost clock and a different core topology.

Starting with the most demanding multi-threaded tests, the Core 3 304 delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 5263 points. The Core 3 100UL has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, meaning all direct comparisons must rely on the Core 3 304's absolute performance and its position relative to other processors. The Core 3 304's Cinebench R20 multi-core result of 4160 points and Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 849 points further confirm its multi-threaded capability.

In single-core tests, the Core 3 304 posts a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1765 points, a Cinebench R20 single-core score of 587 points, and a Cinebench R15 single-core score of 264 points. The PassMark single-thread test yields a score of 3614, which appears twice in the database under slightly different test names, confirming consistency in the measurement.

The Core 3 304's PassMark multi-thread score of 11625 places it in a competitive position among its nearest rivals. It trails the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX by 0.3%, with the rival scoring 13786 against the Core 3 304's average benchmark score of 13745. The Intel Core i7-8750H sits 0.9% behind, scoring 13868. The AMD EPYC 7443 leads by 1.4% with a score of 13936. The only rival the Core 3 304 beats is the Intel Core 5 120UL, which scores 13594, putting the Core 3 304 ahead by 1.1%.

Looking at specialized workloads, the Core 3 304 shows notable strengths in data compression and encryption. The PassMark data compression test yields a score of 114775, while data encryption reaches 8501. Extended instructions score 9686, and floating-point math hits 29722. Integer math scores 24640, and random string sorting reaches 13659. The physics test produces a score of 868, while the find prime numbers test is significantly lower at 68.

The Core 3 304's overall percentile ranking of 68 against all CPUs places it above the median, but the Core 3 100UL's percentile of 50 shows it sits exactly at the midpoint of the database. With no benchmark scores recorded for the Core 3 100UL, its average benchmark score is zero, and it has no nearest rivals listed. This absence of data limits direct head-to-head quantification, but the architectural specifications provide context for expected behavior.

The Core 3 304's boost clock of 4.30 GHz trails the Core 3 100UL's 4.50 GHz, suggesting the 100UL may have an edge in lightly threaded tasks if its architecture scales similarly. However, the 100UL's lower base clock of 1.20 GHz versus the 304's 1.50 GHz indicates the 304 starts from a higher floor. The 100UL uses 6 cores and 8 threads, while the 304 uses 5 cores and 5 threads, meaning the 100UL has more parallel resources on paper, yet the 304's newer process node and cache configuration may compensate.

The Verdict

The data indicates the Intel Core 3 304 is the stronger performer in the database's recorded benchmarks. Its average benchmark score of 13745 and 68th percentile ranking demonstrate solid multi-threaded throughput, particularly in the Cinebench suite where it scores 5263 in R23 multi-core. The nearest rival comparisons show the 304 trading blows with high-end desktop and server parts, sitting within 1.4% of the AMD EPYC 7443 and within 0.9% of the Intel Core i7-8750H.

The Intel Core 3 100UL, with no recorded benchmarks, cannot be directly scored against the 304. Its specifications suggest a different design philosophy: 6 cores with 8 threads, a higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz, and a larger shared L3 cache of 10 MB. These traits point toward better peak single-thread performance and more cache-sensitive workloads, but the database lacks the measurements to confirm this.

For users prioritizing recorded multi-core performance, the Core 3 304 is the choice supported by data. Its PassMark multi-thread score of 11625 and Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 5263 are substantial figures. The 304 also delivers competitive single-thread results, with a PassMark single-thread score of 3614 that suggests responsive everyday operation.

The Core 3 100UL targets a different segment with its Raptor Lake-PS architecture and desktop market positioning. Its 15 W TDP matches the 304, but its socket and platform differ entirely. The 100UL's higher boost clock may appeal to workloads that favor frequency over core count, but without benchmark data, this remains speculative.

The Core 3 304's mobile market segment and 3 nm process node indicate a focus on efficiency and integration, while the 100UL's desktop segment and 10 nm node suggest a more traditional approach. The 304's single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth may limit memory-intensive tasks, but its newer architecture could offset this with better memory latency characteristics.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core 3 304 compare to its closest rival, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX?

A: The Core 3 304's average benchmark score of 13745 is 0.3% lower than the Threadripper PRO 3975WX's score of 13786, making the two nearly identical in overall performance.

Q: What is the Intel Core 3 304's best benchmark result?

A: The highest recorded score is in the PassMark data compression test at 114775, followed by the Cinebench R23 multi-core test at 5263 and the PassMark multi-thread test at 11625.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 100UL have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No, the database lists zero benchmarks for the Core 3 100UL, with an average benchmark score of 0 and no nearest rivals.

Q: How does the Intel Core 3 304 perform in single-threaded workloads?

A: The Cinebench R23 single-core score is 1765, the Cinebench R20 single-core score is 587, the Cinebench R15 single-core score is 264, and the PassMark single-thread score is 3614.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 3 100UL has a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, which is 0.20 GHz higher than the Intel Core 3 304's 4.30 GHz boost clock.

Q: What is the Intel Core 3 304's percentile ranking among all CPUs?

A: The Core 3 304 ranks in the 68th percentile, while the Core 3 100UL ranks in the 50th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The Core 3 100UL uses 6 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 3 304 uses 5 cores and 5 threads. Base clocks differ by 0.30 GHz, with the 100UL at 1.20 GHz and the 304 at 1.50 GHz. Boost clocks differ by 0.20 GHz, with the 100UL at 4.50 GHz and the 304 at 4.30 GHz.

Cache configurations show significant divergence. The 100UL has an L1 cache of 80 KB per core and an L2 cache of 1.25 MB per core, while the 304 has a total L1 cache of 192 KB and an L2 cache of 2.5 MB. The L3 cache differs substantially: the 100UL has 10 MB shared, while the 304 has 6 MB shared.

Memory support varies: the 100UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus, while the 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus. The 304 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, while the 100UL has no bandwidth figure listed. PCIe lanes also differ: the 100UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the 304 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics differ: the 100UL uses UHD Graphics 64EU, while the 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe). The 100UL targets the desktop market segment on Intel Socket 1700, while the 304 targets the mobile segment on Intel BGA 1516. The 100UL's part number is unknown, while the 304's part number is SAE3K. The 304 has a launch MSRP of $309, while the 100UL has no recorded launch price. Both processors remain in active production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial. The Core 3 100UL uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the codename Raptor Lake-PS and belongs to the Core 3 (Raptor Lake-PS) generation. It is built on a 10 nm process node by Intel. The Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename under the Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) generation, built on a 3 nm process node, also by Intel. The process node difference of 7 nm represents a significant generational leap in manufacturing technology.

The core design philosophy differs fundamentally. The 100UL's 6 cores with 8 threads suggests hyper-threading support, allowing 2 additional threads beyond the physical core count. The 304's 5 cores with 5 threads indicates no hyper-threading, with each core mapping to exactly one thread. This affects how the processors handle parallel workloads, with the 100UL capable of more concurrent threads despite having only one additional physical core.

Cache architecture reflects different design priorities. The 100UL's per-core L1 and L2 allocation (80 KB and 1.25 MB per core respectively) scales with core count, while the 304's aggregate L1 of 192 KB and L2 of 2.5 MB are fixed totals. The 100UL's larger 10 MB shared L3 cache nearly doubles the 304's 6 MB shared L3, potentially improving hit rates for frequently accessed data across all cores.

Memory architecture diverges sharply: the 100UL uses a dual-channel memory bus supporting both DDR4 and DDR5, while the 304 uses a single-channel bus limited to DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The 304's recorded bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s provides a concrete performance figure, while the 100UL's bandwidth is unmeasured in the database. The single-channel configuration of the 304 may constrain memory-intensive workloads, but the newer LPDDR5X support offers power efficiency advantages for mobile use.

Integrated graphics technology differs by generation: the 100UL's UHD Graphics 64EU represents an older execution unit design, while the 304's Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) uses a newer architecture. The 304's mobile positioning with BGA 1516 socket and 3 nm node suggests a focus on power efficiency and compact system design, while the 100UL's desktop orientation with Socket 1700 and 10 nm node targets traditional tower and SFF builds. The PCIe lane count favors the 100UL with 8 lanes versus the 304's 6 lanes, both at Gen 4 speeds.