Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core 3 305 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a clear verdict: the Intel Core 3 305 dominates the Intel Core 3 304 across nearly every measured workload. Out of 17 recorded comparisons, the Core 3 305 wins 16, leaving the Core 3 304 with a single victory in Cinebench R15 single-core. The average benchmark score confirms the gap, with the Core 3 305 at 18302 against 13745 for the Core 3 304, a difference that places the two chips in different performance tiers entirely.

The most extreme margin appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core 3 305 scores 13123 against 5263 for the Core 3 304. That is a 59.9% advantage, the largest delta recorded in the entire comparison. This result indicates the Core 3 305 scales far better under sustained multi-threaded load, likely owing to its additional core. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a similar pattern at a 35.8% lead (1322 versus 849), while Cinebench R20 multi-core delivers a 24.5% gap (5511 versus 4160). These multi-core results consistently favor the Core 3 305 by margins ranging from roughly a quarter to nearly two-thirds.

Single-core performance tells a more nuanced story. The Core 3 304 wins Cinebench R15 single-core by a substantial 41.9% margin, scoring 264 against 186. That is the only test where the Core 3 304 leads, and it is a decisive one. However, the newer Cinebench R20 and R23 single-core tests flip the result. In R20 single-core, the Core 3 305 scores 777 versus 587, a 24.5% advantage. In R23 single-core, the Core 3 305 leads by a narrower 4.7% margin, scoring 1852 against 1765. PassMark single-thread also favors the Core 3 305 at 3977 versus 3614, a 9.1% lead. The R15 single-core result for the Core 3 304 appears anomalous when set against the other three single-threaded tests, which all favor the Core 3 305.

PassMark workloads reinforce the Core 3 305 advantage. Data compression shows a 21.8% lead (146857 versus 114775). Data encryption follows at 22.9% (11019 versus 8501). Extended instructions deliver a 28.5% margin (13543 versus 9686). Find prime numbers shows a 40.9% gap (115 versus 68). Floating point math sits at 29.7% (42284 versus 29722). Integer math trails at 23.7% (32295 versus 24640). Multithread performance lands at 24.7% (15439 versus 11625). Physics reaches 29.6% (1233 versus 868). Random string sorting completes the set at 22.5% (17623 versus 13659).

The percentile rankings reflect this divide. The Core 3 305 sits at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 3 304 sits at the 68th. The nearest rival data places the Core 3 305 alongside Intel Core i3-14100 (0.1% ahead of the 305 in average score), Intel Core 5 330 (0.2% ahead), and Intel Core 7 360 (0.4% ahead), while trailing AMD Ryzen 5 2600E by 0.4%. The Core 3 304, by contrast, sits near AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (0.3% ahead of the 304), Intel Core i7-8750H (0.9% ahead), and AMD EPYC 7443 (1.4% ahead), while leading Intel Core 5 120UL by 1.1%. The rival sets confirm that the Core 3 305 competes in a meaningfully higher performance class.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the majority of benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core 3 305 wins 16 of 17 head-to-head tests, with the only exception being Cinebench R15 single-core, which the Intel Core 3 304 takes by 41.9%.

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

A: The largest multi-core margin is in Cinebench R23, where the Core 3 305 scores 13123 against 5263 for the Core 3 304, a 59.9% advantage. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 35.8% gap and Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 24.5% gap.

Q: Does the Core 3 304 win any single-threaded tests besides R15?

A: No. The Core 3 304 wins only Cinebench R15 single-core at 264 versus 186. The Core 3 305 leads in Cinebench R20 single-core (777 versus 587), Cinebench R23 single-core (1852 versus 1765), and PassMark single-thread (3977 versus 3614).

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core 3 305 records an average benchmark score of 18302, while the Core 3 304 records 13745. The Core 3 305 also holds a higher percentile ranking at 72 versus 68 for the Core 3 304.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each chip?

A: The Core 3 305 sits within 0.4% of Intel Core i3-14100, Intel Core 5 330, Intel Core 7 360, and AMD Ryzen 5 2600E. The Core 3 304 sits within 1.4% of AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX, Intel Core i7-8750H, Intel Core 5 120UL, and AMD EPYC 7443.

Q: Do both processors share the same memory and platform specifications?

A: Yes. Both use the Intel BGA 1516 socket, support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, run single-channel with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, and offer PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes.

Architecture Differences

Both processors come from the same Wildcat Lake family, built on Intel's 3 nm process node. The core counts differ, which is the primary architectural distinction. The Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, while the Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Neither supports simultaneous multithreading, so thread count equals core count in both cases. The additional core in the Core 3 305 accounts for most of its multi-core benchmark advantage.

Cache configurations are identical. Both chips carry 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. Clock speeds match as well, with both running a 1.50 GHz base clock and a 4.30 GHz boost clock. The thermal design power is 15 watts for both, consistent with their mobile market segment.

Memory support is unchanged between the two. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is not supported on either part. PCIe connectivity is also identical at Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics use Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core on both chips.

The two parts differ only in part number, SAE3K for the Core 3 304 and SAE3L for the Core 3 305, and in core count. Both are active production parts released on the same date. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The launch MSRP is $309 for each processor. The shared platform details mean that system integration costs and platform requirements are identical; the performance difference stems directly from the extra core in the Core 3 305.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward selection. The Intel Core 3 305 is the stronger processor in nearly every measurable workload, with an average benchmark score of 18302 versus 13745 for the Core 3 304. It wins all multi-core tests, all PassMark workloads, and three of four single-threaded tests. Its 72nd percentile ranking versus the 68th for the Core 3 304 reinforces that it belongs to a higher performance class, sitting near Intel Core i3-14100 and Intel Core 5 330 rather than near the older desktop and server parts that surround the Core 3 304.

The Core 3 304 retains one notable advantage: Cinebench R15 single-core, where it leads by 41.9%. That result, however, is contradicted by the other three single-threaded tests, all of which favor the Core 3 305. The R15 single-core win appears isolated rather than indicative of a broader single-thread strength. For workloads that depend on the R15 single-core metric specifically, the Core 3 304 holds value. For everything else, the Core 3 305 delivers superior results.

The identical launch MSRP of $309 removes any price-based reason to choose the Core 3 304. Both chips cost the same, share the same socket, process node, cache, memory support, and integrated graphics. The only meaningful hardware difference is the sixth core in the Core 3 305, and that core produces consistent double-digit percentage gains across compression, encryption, math, and physics workloads. Given equal cost and equal platform requirements, the Core 3 305 is the rational default choice.

Specification Differences

The two processors share nearly all specifications, with the following differences recorded in the database:

• Cores: Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores; Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores.
• Threads: Intel Core 3 304 has 5 threads; Intel Core 3 305 has 6 threads.
• Part Number: Intel Core 3 304 is SAE3K; Intel Core 3 305 is SAE3L.

All other recorded specifications are identical: 1.50 GHz base clock, 4.30 GHz boost clock, 15 W TDP, Intel BGA 1516 socket, 3 nm process node, Wildcat Lake codename, 192 KB L1 cache, 2.5 MB L2 cache, 6 MB shared L3 cache, DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory support, single-channel memory bus, 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth, no ECC support, PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, mobile market segment, active production status, same release date, $309 launch MSRP, and locked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 3 305 wins in every multi-threaded scenario. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows its largest advantage at 59.9%, indicating strong scaling under heavy parallel load. Cinebench R15 multi-core follows at 35.8%, and Cinebench R20 multi-core at 24.5%. All PassMark workloads favor the Core 3 305: data compression (21.8% ahead), data encryption (22.9% ahead), extended instructions (28.5% ahead), prime number finding (40.9% ahead), floating point math (29.7% ahead), integer math (23.7% ahead), multithread (24.7% ahead), physics (29.6% ahead), and random string sorting (22.5% ahead). Single-threaded PassMark also favors the Core 3 305 at 9.1%, as do Cinebench R20 single-core at 24.5% and Cinebench R23 single-core at 4.7%.

The Intel Core 3 304 wins exactly one test: Cinebench R15 single-core, where it scores 264 against 186 for the Core 3 305, a 41.9% margin. This makes the Core 3 304 the choice for workloads benchmarked specifically against that legacy single-threaded metric. The result does not extend to other single-threaded tests, so its applicability is narrow.

For general productivity, content creation, encryption, compression, and physics simulation, the recorded data points exclusively to the Core 3 305. For any scenario where Cinebench R15 single-core performance is the deciding factor, the Core 3 304 holds a clear edge. Every other measured workload in the database favors the Core 3 305, often by substantial margins.