Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core 5 211E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core 5 211E, which wins 15 of the 17 benchmark comparisons. The Intel Core 3 304 takes only two wins, but those are instructive for understanding the architectural trade-offs between these two processors.

The most lopsided result appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core 5 211E scores 20389 against 5263 for the Core 3 304, a delta of 74.2%. This massive gap reflects the fundamental difference in core and thread counts. The Core 5 211E fields 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core 3 304 offers 5 cores and 5 threads. The R23 multi-core test scales aggressively with thread count, and the data confirms this: the Core 5 211E delivers roughly four times the multi-threaded rendering throughput.

Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a similar pattern, with the Core 5 211E at 2055 versus 849, a 58.7% advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core follows suit: 8563 to 4160, a 51.4% gap. These consistent multi-core deficits place the Core 3 304 firmly in the lower tier for heavily threaded workloads.

Single-core performance tells a more nuanced story. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core 5 211E leads by only 8.7% (289 vs 264). In R20 single-core, the gap widens to 51.4% (1208 vs 587), which is surprising given the smaller core count difference. The R23 single-core result shows a 38.7% lead for the Core 5 211E (2878 vs 1765). PassMark single-thread scores show a more modest 9.8% advantage (4006 vs 3614). The variation across single-core tests suggests the Core 5 211E's higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz versus 4.30 GHz plays a role, but the R20 anomaly indicates other factors such as cache hierarchy also matter.

Integer math is another area of extreme divergence. PassMark integer math shows the Core 5 211E at 88117 versus 24640, a 72% deficit for the Core 3 304. Floating-point math follows the same trend: 66402 vs 29722, a 55.2% gap. Data compression shows a 66.9% advantage for the Core 5 211E (346757 vs 114775). Random string sorting, a test that stresses memory access patterns, shows a 60.2% lead for the Core 5 211E (34308 vs 13659). Extended instructions, which measures SIMD and specialized instruction throughput, shows a 55.1% gap (21592 vs 9686). Data encryption shows a 52.6% deficit for the Core 3 304 (17938 vs 8501).

The Core 3 304's two wins are narrow in one case and substantial in another. In PassMark find prime numbers, the Core 3 304 scores 68 against 43, a 58.1% advantage. This test is known to be sensitive to single-thread efficiency and clock behavior under short bursts, and the Core 3 304's Wildcat Lake architecture apparently handles it better. In PassMark physics, the Core 3 304 leads 868 to 702, a 23.6% margin. Physics simulations often benefit from lower latency memory access and specific instruction scheduling, where the Core 3 304's smaller core count with dedicated resources appears to gain an edge.

The average benchmark score confirms the overall picture: the Core 5 211E sits at 37829, while the Core 3 304 reaches only 13745. The Core 5 211E ranks in the 86th percentile among all CPUs in the database, whereas the Core 3 304 sits at the 68th percentile. Nearest rival comparisons further contextualize these figures. The Core 3 304's average score of 13745 places it within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (13786) and 0.9% of the Intel Core i7-8750H (13868). The Core 5 211E's average of 37829 is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 (37904, delta 0.2%) and the Intel Core i9-14901E (37911, delta 0.2%).

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark distribution splits cleanly along workload characteristics. The Intel Core 5 211E dominates every multi-threaded, memory-bandwidth, and math-intensive test. Its 10 cores and 16 threads, combined with a 20 MB shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory at 76.8 GB/s, provide the resources needed for rendering, compilation, encryption, and large-scale data manipulation. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20389 is nearly four times the Core 3 304's 5263, putting the Core 5 211E in a different performance class for content creation and scientific computing.

The Core 5 211E also wins all single-threaded comparisons, though the margin varies. The R15 single-core gap of 8.7% is modest, while R20 shows a much larger 51.4% lead. PassMark single-thread shows a 9.8% advantage. These results suggest the Core 5 211E's higher boost clock (4.90 GHz vs 4.30 GHz) and larger L2 cache (2 MB per core vs 2.5 MB total across all cores) contribute to faster per-thread execution.

The Intel Core 3 304 wins in two specific tests: find prime numbers and physics. The prime number test, with a 58.1% advantage, likely benefits from the Core 3 304's Wildcat Lake architecture and its single-channel memory layout, which may reduce latency for this particular workload. The physics test, with a 23.6% lead, similarly suggests that the Core 3 304's core topology and cache structure handle physics simulation better, despite having fewer cores. These wins are isolated and do not indicate general superiority; they highlight that certain integer-iteration or physics-specific workloads can favor the smaller processor.

For general productivity, web browsing, and office applications, the single-thread scores indicate the Core 5 211E is faster, but the gap of 9.8% in PassMark single-thread is not transformative. The Core 5 211E's dual-channel memory and higher memory bandwidth (76.8 GB/s vs 59.7 GB/s) will also improve responsiveness in memory-bound tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel lineages and target different market segments. The Intel Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, built on a 3 nm process node, and is classified as a mobile processor. It has 5 cores and 5 threads, with no hyperthreading. The base clock is 1.50 GHz and boost clock reaches 4.30 GHz. Thermal design power is 15 W, suitable for thin-and-light laptops. The socket is Intel BGA 1516, meaning it is soldered and not upgradeable.

Cache allocation differs significantly. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 5 211E has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. With 10 cores, the Core 5 211E's total L2 cache reaches 20 MB, eight times the Core 3 304's aggregate L2. The larger L3 cache (20 MB vs 6 MB) also provides a substantial advantage for data reuse across cores.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but only in a single-channel configuration, yielding 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode, reaching 76.8 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the Core 5 211E but not on the Core 3 304, a meaningful feature for reliability-sensitive embedded workloads.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 3 304 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 5 211E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Core 5 211E's wider and newer PCIe interface allows faster data transfer to GPUs, NVMe storage, and other peripherals.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, a modern architecture from the Wildcat Lake generation. The Core 5 211E uses UHD Graphics 730, which is based on an older Xe design. For light graphics tasks, the Core 3 304's newer GPU architecture may offer better efficiency, though the Core 5 211E has a higher TDP of 65 W versus 15 W, so sustained GPU performance could differ.

The Core 5 211E is built on a 10 nm process node and has a die size of 257 mm². The Core 3 304's die size is not recorded, but its 3 nm process suggests a denser, more power-efficient layout. The Core 5 211E uses Socket 1700, a desktop platform, while the Core 3 304 uses mobile BGA 1516. The Core 5 211E's release date is January 2025, while the Core 3 304 arrived in April 2026.

The Core 5 211E has a launch MSRP of $221. The Core 3 304 has a launch MSRP of $309. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

The Intel Core 5 211E is substantially faster. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 20389 versus 5263, a 74.2% advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 51.4% lead (8563 vs 4160), and R15 multi-core shows a 58.7% lead (2055 vs 849). The Core 5 211E's 10 cores and 16 threads provide the primary explanation.

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

Yes, it wins two tests. In PassMark find prime numbers, it scores 68 against 43, a 58.1% advantage. In PassMark physics, it scores 868 against 702, a 23.6% lead. These are the only two wins out of 17 recorded comparisons.

Q: How does single-thread performance compare?

The Core 5 211E leads in all single-thread tests. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 289 vs 264 (8.7% lead), R20 shows 1208 vs 587 (51.4% lead), R23 shows 2878 vs 1765 (38.7% lead), and PassMark single-thread shows 4006 vs 3614 (9.8% lead). The Core 5 211E's higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz versus 4.30 GHz contributes to this advantage.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

The Core 5 211E supports dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the Core 3 304 uses single-channel memory at 59.7 GB/s. The Core 5 211E also supports ECC memory, which the Core 3 304 does not.

Q: Which processor supports more PCIe lanes?

The Core 5 211E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 3 304 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). This gives the Core 5 211E both higher bandwidth per lane and more total lanes.

Q: How do the two processors rank globally?

The Intel Core 5 211E sits at the 86th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 37829. The Intel Core 3 304 sits at the 68th percentile, with an average score of 13745. The Core 5 211E's average score is within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 and the Intel Core i9-14901E.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core 5 211E is the superior processor in nearly every measurable category. It wins 15 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, including all Cinebench multi-core tests, all single-core tests, and all PassMark math, compression, encryption, and sorting tests. Its multi-core advantage ranges from 51.2% (PassMark multithread) to 74.2% (Cinebench R23), making it the clear choice for any workload that scales across cores.

The Core 3 304's wins in prime number finding and physics are real but narrow in scope. A 58.1% lead in find prime numbers and a 23.6% lead in physics suggest that specific instruction sequences or cache behaviors favor the Wildcat Lake architecture, but these isolated victories do not offset the Core 5 211E's broad dominance. The Core 3 304's 15 W TDP and mobile form factor make it suitable for power-constrained laptops, while the Core 5 211E's 65 W TDP and Socket 1700 platform target desktop and embedded systems where performance takes priority.

The data shows that users requiring heavy multi-threaded throughput, high memory bandwidth, ECC support, or extensive PCIe connectivity should select the Core 5 211E. Users constrained by power budgets and mobile chassis may find the Core 3 304 adequate for light workloads, but they should expect significantly lower performance in rendering, encryption, and mathematical operations. The Core 5 211E's 86th percentile ranking versus the Core 3 304's 68th percentile confirms the performance hierarchy. There is no benchmark category in the recorded data where the Core 3 304 demonstrates a consistent advantage beyond the two isolated tests, making the Core 5 211E the recommended choice for all but the most specific power-sensitive applications.