Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core 5 210H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data divides these two mobile processors into distinct performance classes. The Intel Core 5 210H wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core 3 304 takes 4 wins, mostly in single-threaded or specialized workloads.

The largest margin belongs to the Core 5 210H in PassMark integer math, where it scores 61503 against 24640 for the Core 3 304, a 59.9% advantage. Cinebench R23 multicore shows a similar gap: the Core 5 210H posts 11830 versus 5263, a 55.5% lead. Data compression also favors the Core 5 210H heavily, with 217805 against 114775, a 47.3% difference. Random string sorting goes 23451 to 13659, a 41.8% gap, and Cinebench R20 multicore shows 6504 versus 4160, a 36% difference.

The Core 5 210H also leads in Cinebench R15 multicore (1757 vs 849, 51.7% ahead), PassMark multithread (18252 vs 11625, 36.3% ahead), floating-point math (45057 vs 29722, 34% ahead), data encryption (12187 vs 8501, 30.2% ahead), extended instructions (13370 vs 9686, 27.6% ahead), physics (1040 vs 868, 16.5% ahead), and Cinebench R20 singlecore (918 vs 587, 36.1% ahead). Even Cinebench R23 singlecore goes to the Core 5 210H, though by a razor-thin 0.3% margin (1771 vs 1765).

The Core 3 304 claims its wins in PassMark find prime numbers (68 vs 53, 28.3% ahead), Cinebench R15 singlecore (264 vs 247, 6.9% ahead), and PassMark single-thread (3614 vs 3539, 2.1% ahead). The single-thread advantage appears in both PassMark single-thread entries, which record identical scores of 3614 and 3539 respectively.

When placed against the broader database, the Core 5 210H sits at the 77th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 304 sits at the 68th percentile. Their average benchmark scores reinforce this separation: 24872 for the Core 5 210H versus 13745 for the Core 3 304. The Core 5 210H lands within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F and 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX, while the Core 3 304 sits within 1.1% of the Intel Core 5 120UL and 0.9% of the Intel Core i7-8750H.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and sits in the Core 3 generation, built on a 3 nm process node. The Core 5 210H uses the Raptor Lake-H codename with Raptor Lake architecture, part of the Core 5 generation based on Raptor Lake Refresh, manufactured on a 10 nm node.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, with no hyperthreading. The Core 5 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads, meaning four cores support additional threads. Clock speeds also favor the Core 5 210H: its base clock is 2.20 GHz against 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 304, and its boost clock reaches 4.80 GHz versus 4.30 GHz.

Cache hierarchies diverge in structure. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core 5 210H lists its L1 as 80 KB per core, L2 as 2 MB per core, and L3 as 12 MB shared. The total cache capacity clearly favors the Core 5 210H, particularly in L3 where it doubles the Core 3 304.

Memory support differs. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core 5 210H supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, though no bandwidth figure is recorded in the database. The dual-channel configuration gives the Core 5 210H a structural memory advantage for multi-core workloads, while the single-channel Core 3 304 depends on higher-bandwidth memory types to compensate.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 3 304 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core 5 210H provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes. The newer PCIe generation on the Core 5 210H offers higher interface bandwidth for compatible devices.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe execution unit. The Core 5 210H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 48 execution units. The Core 5 210H carries a significantly larger graphics configuration.

Socket compatibility separates the two. The Core 3 304 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core 5 210H uses Intel BGA 1744. These are different physical sockets, so the two processors are not drop-in interchangeable in the same motherboard design.

Power targets also diverge. The Core 3 304 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Core 5 210H has a TDP of 45 watts. The Core 5 210H consumes substantially more power, which aligns with its higher core count, higher clocks, and larger cache.

Release timing differs. The Core 5 210H launched in December 2024, while the Core 3 304 launched in April 2026. Both are currently listed as active production parts. The launch MSRP for the Core 3 304 is $309, and for the Core 5 210H it is $342.

Where Each One Wins

The data points to a clear division of strengths. The Core 5 210H dominates multi-threaded and throughput-oriented workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 11830 versus 5263 indicates a 2.25x advantage in heavily threaded rendering tasks. PassMark multithread confirms this pattern with 18252 against 11625. Integer math, floating-point math, data compression, encryption, extended instructions, random string sorting, and physics all fall to the Core 5 210H by margins ranging from 16.5% to 59.9%.

The Core 3 304 wins exclusively in single-threaded or narrow computational tasks. Its PassMark single-thread score of 3614 beats the Core 5 210H's 3539 by 2.1%. Cinebench R15 singlecore shows a 6.9% advantage. The most unusual result is PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core 3 304 scores 68 versus 53, a 28.3% lead. This suggests the Core 3 304's Wildcat Lake architecture handles this specific integer workload significantly better, despite losing integer math overall by 59.9%.

The Core 5 210H also wins Cinebench R20 singlecore by 36.1%, which contrasts with the Core 3 304's wins in R15 singlecore and PassMark single-thread. The R23 singlecore result is nearly identical between the two, with the Core 5 210H ahead by only 0.3%. This mixed single-core picture indicates that the Core 3 304's advantage is workload-specific rather than universal.

For power-sensitive designs, the 15-watt TDP of the Core 3 304 versus 45 watts for the Core 5 210H implies the Core 3 304 fits in thermally constrained chassis where the Core 5 210H cannot operate. The Core 3 304 also supports LPDDR5X memory, which is commonly used in thin-and-light systems, while the Core 5 210H's dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 support suits larger notebooks.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows the Intel Core 5 210H is the stronger processor in almost every measurable category. Its 77th percentile ranking versus 68th for the Core 3 304, combined with an average benchmark score of 24872 against 13745, places it clearly ahead in overall performance. The Core 5 210H doubles the Core 3 304's Cinebench R23 multicore result, nearly doubles its integer math throughput, and leads by 47.3% in data compression. For any workload that scales across cores, the Core 5 210H is the correct choice.

The Core 3 304's wins are narrow and specific. Its 2.1% PassMark single-thread lead and 6.9% Cinebench R15 singlecore lead do not compensate for the Core 5 210H's 36.1% lead in Cinebench R20 singlecore. The prime number finding is an anomaly: a 28.3% win in one specialized PassMark test while losing the broader integer math category by 59.9%.

The deciding factor should be the platform. The Core 3 304's 15-watt TDP, single-channel LPDDR5X support, and Gen 4 PCIe target lightweight mobile designs where battery life and thermals matter more than peak throughput. The Core 5 210H's 45-watt TDP, dual-channel memory, Gen 5 PCIe, and 12 threads target performance notebooks where multi-threaded rendering, compilation, or data processing is the primary workload. The launch MSRP difference of $309 versus $342 reflects this positioning, with the Core 5 210H costing more but delivering substantially more multi-threaded performance.

For users whose software uses many threads, the Core 5 210H is the data-backed pick. For users constrained by a 15-watt thermal envelope who still need competitive single-thread performance, the Core 3 304 is the appropriate part. The socket difference (BGA 1516 versus BGA 1744) means the choice is typically made at the system design level, not by end users.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core 5 210H. It leads in Cinebench R23 multicore with 11830 versus 5263 (55.5% ahead), Cinebench R20 multicore with 6504 versus 4160 (36% ahead), and PassMark multithread with 18252 versus 11625 (36.3% ahead).

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 304 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins 4 of 17 head-to-head tests. These are PassMark find prime numbers (68 vs 53, 28.3% ahead), Cinebench R15 singlecore (264 vs 247, 6.9% ahead), and PassMark single-thread (3614 vs 3539, 2.1% ahead, recorded twice).

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The Intel Core 5 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 5 210H supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, with no bandwidth figure recorded.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 has a TDP of 15 watts. The Intel Core 5 210H has a TDP of 45 watts. The Core 5 210H requires three times the thermal budget.

Q: How do they rank against all CPUs in the database?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 ranks at the 68th percentile with an average benchmark score of 13745. The Intel Core 5 210H ranks at the 77th percentile with an average benchmark score of 24872.