Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core 5 120 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear picture: the Intel Core 5 120 dominates the multi-threaded and most single-threaded workloads, while the Intel Core 3 304 manages narrow wins in older single-core tests. Across the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, the Core 5 120 secures 14 victories, with the Core 3 304 claiming 3.

The largest margin appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core 5 120 scores 18255 against 5263 for the Core 3 304, a delta of -71.2%. This indicates the Core 5 120 delivers roughly three and a half times the multi-threaded rendering performance. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a similar pattern: 7667 versus 4160, a -45.7% delta. PassMark integer math reveals another significant gap, with the Core 5 120 at 60462 and the Core 3 304 at 24640, a -59.2% difference.

Single-core results are more nuanced. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core 3 304 wins 264 to 259, a 1.9% advantage. PassMark single-thread also favors the Core 3 304, 3614 to 3595, a 0.5% margin. However, newer single-core tests flip the result. Cinebench R20 single-core goes to the Core 5 120, 1082 to 587, a -45.7% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core likewise favors the Core 5 120, 2577 to 1765, a -31.5% gap. This suggests the Core 5 120 has a more efficient architecture for modern instruction sets, despite the Core 3 304's edge in legacy workloads.

Other PassMark tests reinforce the Core 5 120's lead. Data compression shows 219535 versus 114775, a -47.7% delta. Floating point math delivers 45383 versus 29722, a -34.5% difference. Extended instructions produce 14264 versus 9686, a -32.1% gap. Physics simulation (1333 versus 868), random string sorting (21499 versus 13659), and multi-thread (18597 versus 11625) all show the Core 5 120 ahead by roughly a third to a half. Data encryption (11131 versus 8501) and prime number finding (77 versus 68) complete the Core 5 120's win column with -23.6% and -11.7% deltas respectively.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 120 is the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18255 places it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs in the database, compared to the Core 3 304's 68th percentile. The average benchmark score reinforces this: 25362 for the Core 5 120 versus 13745 for the Core 3 304. Nearly every PassMark workload, from integer math to data compression, shows the Core 5 120 delivering substantially higher throughput. The 12 threads versus 5 threads, combined with the higher 4.50 GHz boost clock, explain the consistent multi-threaded advantage.

The Core 3 304 wins only in Cinebench R15 single-core and PassMark single-thread tests. These are older benchmarks that may not fully utilize the Core 5 120's newer instruction scheduling. The 1.9% and 0.5% margins are small, indicating near-parity in legacy single-threaded performance. For applications that rely on older single-core code paths, the Core 3 304 holds a slight edge. However, this advantage does not extend to newer Cinebench R20 or R23 single-core tests, where the Core 5 120 leads by wide margins.

The Core 3 304's design targets efficiency. Its 15 W TDP and single-channel memory bus suggest a low-power mobile focus, while the Core 5 120's 65 W TDP and dual-channel memory bus point to desktop performance. The data confirms this split: the Core 3 304 trades raw compute for power economy, while the Core 5 120 prioritizes throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design lineages. The Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename on a 3 nm process node, manufactured by Intel. The Core 5 120 uses the Raptor Lake-R codename, part of the Raptor Lake architecture, built on a 10 nm node with a die size of 163 mm². The process node difference is substantial: 3 nm versus 10 nm, which affects transistor density and power efficiency.

Core and thread counts differ significantly. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. The Core 5 120 has 6 cores and 12 threads, doubling the thread count via hyper-threading. This directly explains the multi-threaded benchmark gaps.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core 5 120 specifies 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. With 6 cores, the Core 5 120's total L2 reaches roughly 7.5 MB, and the L3 is three times larger at 18 MB. This larger cache pool supports the Core 5 120's higher scores in data compression and random string sorting.

Memory support differs by generation. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core 5 120 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus; the database does not record a bandwidth figure for it. PCIe connectivity also varies: the Core 3 304 offers Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core 5 120 offers Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe unit, a newer architecture. The Core 5 120 uses UHD Graphics 730, an older design. Neither has ECC memory support. The Core 3 304 targets the Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the Core 5 120 uses Intel Socket 1700. Release dates and launch MSRP values are recorded, but the architectural differences above drive the performance gap.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 5 120 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads.

Q: How large is the L3 cache on each processor?

A: The Core 3 304 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 5 120 has 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The Core 3 304 uses a 3 nm node. The Core 5 120 uses a 10 nm node.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Core 5 120 scores 18255, while the Core 3 304 scores 5263, a -71.2% delta favoring the Core 5 120.

Q: Are there any tests where the Core 3 304 wins?

A: Yes, the Core 3 304 wins in Cinebench R15 single-core (264 versus 259) and PassMark single-thread (3614 versus 3595).

Q: What memory types does each support?

A: The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus. The Core 5 120 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 304 | Intel Core 5 120 |

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

| Cores | 5 | 6 |

| Threads | 5 | 12 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Raptor Lake-R |

| Architecture | Not recorded | Raptor Lake |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 163 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2.5 MB | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

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

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | Not recorded |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes | Gen 5, 16 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2025-07-30 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | $211 |

The Verdict

The Intel Core 5 120 is the superior processor for multi-threaded workloads. Its 12 threads, 18 MB of L3 cache, and 4.50 GHz boost clock produce average benchmark scores of 25362, nearly double the Core 3 304's 13745. The 77th percentile ranking versus the 68th percentile confirms this. Applications that rely on integer math, data compression, or Cinebench rendering will see substantial gains with the Core 5 120. Its dual-channel memory bus and Gen 5 PCIe support also make it suitable for desktop builds where bandwidth matters.

The Intel Core 3 304 serves a different purpose. Its 15 W TDP and single-channel memory indicate a low-power mobile design. The 3 nm process node and Wildcat Lake codename point to a newer, more efficient architecture. In legacy single-core benchmarks like Cinebench R15 single-core and PassMark single-thread, it holds a slight edge. For battery-conscious mobile systems that need basic single-core responsiveness, the Core 3 304 makes sense.

Data-driven buyers should choose based on workload. If the primary tasks are multi-threaded rendering, data processing, or physics simulation, the Core 5 120 wins decisively. If the priority is power efficiency in a mobile form factor with acceptable legacy single-core performance, the Core 3 304 fits that niche. The recorded benchmarks show no scenario where the Core 3 304 matches the Core 5 120 in modern multi-threaded tests, and its single-core wins are marginal in older tests only. The Core 5 120 is the performance pick; the Core 3 304 is the efficiency pick.