CPU Comparison

The Intel Core 3 304 and Intel Core 5 120UL are both 15 W parts, but they represent fundamentally different design philosophies, and the benchmark data shows a clear split: the Core 3 304 wins 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the Core 5 120UL takes only 3. The Core 3 304 is the superior choice for single-threaded and most mixed workloads, while the Core 5 120UL dominates specific multi-threaded and integer-heavy tasks. The data shows the Core 3 304 delivers a 73.8% lead in PassMark single-thread performance and a 107.9% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core, but the Core 5 120UL counters with a 41.4% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core and a 35.3% lead in PassMark integer math.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 3 304 is the clear winner for responsiveness and lightly-threaded applications. Its PassMark single-thread score of 3614 versus 2080 for the Core 5 120UL represents a 73.8% margin, which translates directly to snappier everyday use, faster application launches, and better performance in software that relies on a few fast cores. The single-core Cinebench results reinforce this: the Core 3 304 scores 1765 in R23 single-core versus 1266 for the Core 5 120UL, a 39.4% advantage. This part is also superior in encryption, compression, and floating-point work, winning PassMark data encryption by 10.6%, data compression by 5.2%, and floating-point math by 13%.

The Core 5 120UL wins where raw core count and thread count matter. It has 10 cores and 12 threads versus 5 cores and 5 threads for the Core 3 304, and this shows in Cinebench R23 multi-core where it scores 8974 versus 5263, a 41.4% lead. It also wins PassMark integer math decisively, scoring 38060 versus 24640, a 35.3% margin. Curiously, the Core 5 120UL wins Cinebench R15 multi-core (904 vs 849, a 6.1% lead), but loses Cinebench R20 multi-core (3769 vs 4160, a 10.4% deficit), indicating that the older R15 test favors its core layout while the newer R20 test does not.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different manufacturing nodes and microarchitectures. The Core 3 304 is built on a 3 nm process using the Wildcat Lake codename, while the Core 5 120UL uses a 10 nm process with the Raptor Lake architecture and Raptor Lake-PS codename. This node difference helps explain the Core 3 304's superior single-thread performance despite its lower boost clock of 4.30 GHz versus 4.60 GHz for the Core 5 120UL.

Core configuration differs sharply. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The Core 5 120UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, indicating a hybrid or hyperthreaded arrangement. 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, while the Core 5 120UL has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Core 5 120UL's larger L3 cache (12 MB vs 6 MB) helps in multi-threaded workloads, while the Core 3 304's smaller but more efficient cache layout supports its single-thread dominance.

Memory support and platform connectivity differ as well. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory on a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core 5 120UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with no listed bandwidth figure. The Core 3 304 uses an Intel BGA 1516 socket, whereas the Core 5 120UL uses Intel Socket 1700. PCIe capability also differs: the Core 3 304 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core 5 120UL provides Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ, with the Core 3 304 featuring Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) and the Core 5 120UL featuring Iris Xe Graphics 80EU.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 wins all single-thread tests decisively. It scores 1765 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 1266 for the Core 5 120UL, a 39.4% advantage, and 3614 in PassMark single-thread versus 2080, a 73.8% lead.

Q: Which processor is better for multi-threaded workloads?

A: It depends on the test. The Core 5 120UL wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 41.4% (8974 vs 5263) and PassMark integer math by 35.3% (38060 vs 24640), but the Core 3 304 wins Cinebench R20 multi-core by 10.4% (4160 vs 3769) and PassMark multithread by 10.1% (11625 vs 10558).

Q: How do their core counts compare?

A: The Core 5 120UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The Core 5 120UL has double the cores and more than double the threads.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Core 3 304 is manufactured on a 3 nm process, while the Core 5 120UL uses a 10 nm process. Both are fabricated by Intel.

Q: Do they support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X on a single-channel bus, while the Core 5 120UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus.

Q: Which has higher boost clock?

A: The Core 5 120UL has a higher boost clock of 4.60 GHz, compared to 4.30 GHz for the Core 3 304. Despite this, the Core 3 304 wins all single-thread benchmarks.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Cores | 5 | 10 |

| Threads | 5 | 12 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 1.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Raptor Lake-PS |

| Architecture | Not listed | Raptor Lake |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |

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

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

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

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | Iris Xe Graphics 80EU |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2024-04-07 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | Not listed |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the Core 3 304 comes in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it scores 264 versus 127 for the Core 5 120UL, a 107.9% advantage. This is the most lopsided result in the entire comparison. PassMark single-thread shows a similar story with a 73.8% lead (3614 vs 2080). The Core 3 304 also dominates PassMark extended instructions, scoring 9686 versus 5203, an 86.2% margin, and PassMark find prime numbers, winning 68 to 47, a 44.7% lead.

In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core 3 304 wins 1765 to 1266, a 39.4% margin, and in Cinebench R20 single-core it wins 587 to 531, a 10.5% lead. The Core 3 304 also takes PassMark data encryption (8501 vs 7685, 10.6%), PassMark multithread (11625 vs 10558, 10.1%), PassMark floating-point math (29722 vs 26311, 13%), PassMark physics (868 vs 807, 7.6%), and PassMark data compression (114775 vs 109090, 5.2%). Its narrowest win is PassMark random string sorting, where it edges out the Core 5 120UL 13659 to 13610, just 0.4%.

The Core 5 120UL's biggest win is Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 8974 versus 5263, a 41.4% margin. It also wins PassMark integer math by 35.3% (38060 vs 24640) and Cinebench R15 multi-core by 6.1% (904 vs 849). These three wins highlight its strength in workloads that scale with core count and raw integer throughput. However, the Core 5 120UL loses Cinebench R20 multi-core to the Core 3 304 (3769 vs 4160, a 10.4% deficit), which is notable given its core advantage.

The Verdict

The Intel Core 3 304 is the better all-around processor based on the benchmark data. It wins 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, including every single-thread test, every PassMark test except integer math, and even some multi-threaded tests like Cinebench R20 multi-core and PassMark multithread. Its 73.8% single-thread lead and 39.4% Cinebench R23 single-core advantage make it the clear choice for users who prioritize responsiveness, everyday computing, and software that is not perfectly multi-threaded. The Core 3 304's 68th percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 13745 place it slightly above the Core 5 120UL's 13594 average, confirming its overall superiority.

The Intel Core 5 120UL is the right choice specifically for workloads that use many cores and threads. Its 10 cores and 12 threads give it a 41.4% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and a 35.3% lead in PassMark integer math, making it suitable for rendering, compilation, or other parallel integer-heavy tasks. However, its single-thread performance is dramatically weaker, with a 107.9% deficit in Cinebench R15 single-core and 73.8% in PassMark single-thread, which will hurt in general-purpose use. The Core 5 120UL also has newer memory support options with DDR4 compatibility, but its dual-channel bus and larger L3 cache do not overcome the Core 3 304's architectural efficiency in most tests.

Data indicates that the Core 3 304 is the superior choice for the vast majority of users, given its overwhelming win count and dominance in single-thread and mixed workloads. The Core 5 120UL should only be selected when the specific multi-threaded or integer-heavy workload profile matches its strengths, and even then, the Core 3 304 wins Cinebench R20 multi-core and PassMark multithread, leaving the Core 5 120UL with a narrow niche. The Core 3 304's 3 nm process and Wildcat Lake architecture deliver a more balanced and faster experience overall, despite the Core 5 120UL's higher core count and boost clock.