Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core 3 N350 Comparison

Intel Core 3 304 and Intel Core 3 N350 are both active mobile processors from Intel, but they target different ends of the performance spectrum. The Core 3 304 is a 5-core, 5-thread Wildcat Lake part built on a 3 nm process, while the Core 3 N350 is an 8-core, 8-thread Twin Lake part on a 10 nm process. Across 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the Core 3 304 takes 15 wins, while the N350 takes 2. The average benchmark score for the Core 3 304 is 13745, placing it at the 68th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the N350's average of 9903 at the 66th percentile. This places the Core 3 304 in the company of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (0.3% faster) and the Intel Core i7-8750H (0.9% faster), while the N350 sits near the Intel Core i7-3770 (2% slower) and the Intel Core i5-1035G1 (2.3% slower).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 3 304 dominates the vast majority of workloads, particularly those that depend on single-core speed and memory bandwidth. The largest single-core advantage appears in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the 304 scores 264 against the N350's 89, a 196.6% lead. Similar results appear in Cinebench R23 single-core (1765 vs 885, a 99.4% lead) and PassMark single-thread (3614 vs 1974, an 83.1% lead). The 304 also wins heavily in extended instruction workloads: PassMark extended instructions shows 9686 vs 3981, a 143.3% lead, and prime number finding shows 68 vs 20, a 240% lead. These results indicate the 304 is the clear pick for latency-sensitive tasks, legacy single-threaded applications, and workloads that use modern instruction sets.

The Intel Core 3 N350 wins only two head-to-head tests. It takes Cinebench R23 multicore with 6274 vs 5263, a 16.1% lead, and PassMark integer math with 27669 vs 24640, a 10.9% lead. These two wins point to a narrow niche: sustained all-core integer throughput in workloads that scale well across all eight of its cores. The N350's higher core count (8 vs 5) helps it in this specific scenario, but the effect is limited. In most other multicore tests, the 304 wins despite having fewer cores. For example, Cinebench R20 multicore goes to the 304 at 4160 vs 2635, a 57.9% lead, and Cinebench R15 multicore goes to the 304 at 849 vs 632, a 34.3% lead. The N350's wins are real but narrow, and they do not generalize to other multithreaded workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different process nodes and microarchitectures. The Core 3 304 uses a 3 nm process and the Wildcat Lake codename, belonging to the Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) generation. The Core 3 N350 uses a 10 nm process and the Twin Lake codename, belonging to the Core 3 (Alder Lake-N) generation. This process gap explains much of the performance difference: the 3 nm part achieves higher clock speeds and better instruction throughput per clock, while the 10 nm part relies on a larger core count.

Core configuration differs significantly. The 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, with no hyper-threading. The N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, also without hyper-threading. The N350 has a 60% core count advantage, yet it loses most benchmarks, indicating that the 304's per-core efficiency more than compensates. Clock speeds tell a similar story. The 304 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The N350 has a base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The 304 boosts 0.40 GHz higher, and its much higher base clock suggests it sustains performance more consistently under load.

Cache layout also differs. The 304 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The N350 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. Both share the same total L3 amount, but the 304's larger L2 and L1 configuration supports its higher single-core performance. Memory support diverges as well. The 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X on a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 on a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s. The 304 offers 55.5% more memory bandwidth, which directly benefits memory-heavy workloads like data compression and encryption.

Connectivity and graphics differ too. The 304 uses PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes and integrates Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe). The N350 uses PCIe Gen 3 with 9 CPU lanes and integrates UHD Graphics 770. The 304 has a newer PCIe generation but fewer lanes, while the N350 has an older generation with more lanes. The 304 draws 15 W TDP compared to the N350's 7 W TDP, a 8 W difference that reflects the 304's higher performance ceiling and the N350's efficiency focus. The 304 launched with a $309 MSRP, while the N350 has no recorded launch MSRP. Both processors use different sockets: the 304 uses Intel BGA 1516, and the N350 uses Intel BGA 1264.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single-core results are stark. Cinebench R15 single-core shows the 304 at 264 vs the N350's 89, a 196.6% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 587 vs 371, a 58.2% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 1765 vs 885, a 99.4% lead. PassMark single-thread shows 3614 vs 1974, an 83.1% lead. The 304's single-core performance is roughly double the N350's in several tests, which makes it the better choice for any workload that cannot use multiple cores effectively.

Multicore results are more mixed. Cinebench R15 multicore goes to the 304 at 849 vs 632, a 34.3% lead. Cinebench R20 multicore goes to the 304 at 4160 vs 2635, a 57.9% lead. However, Cinebench R23 multicore goes to the N350 at 6274 vs 5263, a 16.1% lead. This reversal is unusual and suggests the N350's eight cores scale better in the R23 workload, which is more sensitive to sustained all-core throughput. The N350 also wins PassMark integer math at 27669 vs 24640, a 10.9% lead, indicating that its core count helps with pure integer arithmetic.

PassMark work-level tests heavily favor the 304. Data compression goes to the 304 at 114775 vs 80444, a 42.7% lead. Data encryption goes to the 304 at 8501 vs 5693, a 49.3% lead. Floating point math goes to the 304 at 29722 vs 17781, a 67.2% lead. Physics goes to the 304 at 868 vs 446, a 94.6% lead. Random string sorting goes to the 304 at 13659 vs 10102, a 35.2% lead. Extended instructions go to the 304 at 9686 vs 3981, a 143.3% lead. Prime number finding goes to the 304 at 68 vs 20, a 240% lead. The PassMark multithread score goes to the 304 at 11625 vs 7382, a 57.5% lead. The 304 wins 15 of 17 tests, with only the two previously mentioned exceptions.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 wins every single-core benchmark by a large margin. PassMark single-thread scores are 3614 for the 304 vs 1974 for the N350, an 83.1% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 1765 vs 885, a 99.4% lead, and Cinebench R15 single-core shows 264 vs 89, a 196.6% lead.

Q: Does the N350's 8-core design beat the 304 in multithreaded workloads?

A: Only in two specific tests. The N350 wins Cinebench R23 multicore with 6274 vs 5263, a 16.1% lead, and PassMark integer math with 27669 vs 24640, a 10.9% lead. In all other multithreaded tests, including Cinebench R20 multicore (4160 vs 2635) and PassMark multithread (11625 vs 7382), the 304 wins.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between these two CPUs?

A: The Core 3 304 supports 59.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth on a single-channel DDR5/LPDDR5X bus. The Core 3 N350 supports 38.4 GB/s on a single-channel DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5 bus. The 304 offers 55.5% more bandwidth.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Core 3 304 has a 15 W TDP, while the Core 3 N350 has a 7 W TDP. The N350 uses 8 W less, making it the more power-efficient option, though the 304 delivers substantially higher performance in most benchmarks.

Q: Which processor has the newer process node?

A: The Core 3 304 is built on a 3 nm process, while the Core 3 N350 uses a 10 nm process. The 304's 3 nm node is a significant architectural advantage, contributing to its higher clock speeds and per-core efficiency.

Q: What is the difference in integrated graphics?

A: The Core 3 304 integrates Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe), while the Core 3 N350 integrates UHD Graphics 770. The 304 uses the newer Xe3 graphics architecture.

The Verdict

The Intel Core 3 304 is the stronger processor across nearly every measured workload. It wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests, including all single-core benchmarks, all PassMark work-level tests except integer math, and most multithreaded tests. Its 3 nm process, 4.30 GHz boost clock, and 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth give it a decisive edge in data compression, encryption, floating point math, and physics. The 304 sits at the 68th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 13745, matching or exceeding the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and the Intel Core i7-8750H. It is the right choice for any workload that values responsiveness, single-thread speed, or mixed-use performance.

The Intel Core 3 N350 is a narrower product. Its 8 cores and 7 W TDP give it a specific advantage in Cinebench R23 multicore and PassMark integer math, where it beats the 304 by 16.1% and 10.9% respectively. Its 66th percentile ranking and average score of 9903 place it near the Intel Core i7-3770 and Intel Core i5-1035G1. The N350's wins are real, but they do not offset its losses elsewhere. It loses to the 304 by 99.4% in Cinebench R23 single-core, by 83.1% in PassMark single-thread, and by 49.3% in data encryption. The N350 is the better choice only if the workload is specifically Cinebench R23 multicore or integer-heavy arithmetic, and if the 7 W power envelope is a hard requirement. For everything else, the data points to the Core 3 304.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 304 | Intel Core 3 N350 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 5 | 8 |

| Threads | 5 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 0.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 7 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 1264 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Twin Lake |

| Generation | Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) | Core 3 (Alder Lake-N) |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2.5 MB | 2 MB (shared) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 9 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | UHD Graphics 770 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Mobile |

| Production Status | Active | Active |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2025-01-06 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | None |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Part Number | SAE3K | SRPNS |