Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core 5 213PE Comparison

Intel Core 3 304 and Intel Core 5 213PE occupy different ends of the performance spectrum, and the benchmark data confirms a dominant showing for the Core 5 part across every single test recorded. The Core 3 304 is a mobile-focused processor built on a newer process node, while the Core 5 213PE is a desktop processor with more cores and higher clock speeds. The results are unambiguous: the Core 5 213PE wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest performance gap appears in multi-threaded workloads, where the Core 5 213PE’s 8 cores and 16 threads overwhelm the Core 3 304’s 5 cores and 5 threads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 5 213PE scores 22468 against 5263 for the Core 3 304, a delta of -76.6 percent, meaning the Core 3 304 trails by more than three-quarters. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a similar pattern: 9436 versus 4160, a -55.9 percent delta. The PassMark integer math test delivers one of the most lopsided results, with the Core 5 213PE scoring 92089 against 24640, a -73.2 percent delta. Floating point math also favors the Core 5 213PE heavily, 68587 versus 29722, a -56.7 percent gap.

The single-threaded results are closer, though the Core 5 213PE still leads in every case. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core 5 213PE scores 3172 against 1765, a -44.4 percent delta. PassMark single-thread shows 4060 versus 3614, a -11 percent delta, the smallest margin across all tests. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 319 versus 264, a -17.2 percent delta. The single-thread advantage is consistent with the Core 5 213PE’s higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz versus 4.30 GHz, though the Core 3 304’s newer architecture narrows the gap in these lighter workloads.

Memory-sensitive tasks also show a clear separation. PassMark data compression scores 298804 for the Core 5 213PE against 114775 for the Core 3 304, a -61.6 percent delta. Data encryption follows at 15916 versus 8501, a -46.6 percent delta. Extended instructions show 19565 versus 9686, a -50.5 percent delta. The Core 5 213PE’s dual-channel memory bus and higher memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s contribute to these results, compared to the Core 3 304’s single-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s. Random string sorting, another memory-heavy workload, shows 32027 versus 13659, a -57.4 percent delta. Physics simulation in PassMark shows 1624 versus 868, a -46.6 percent gap. Prime number finding shows 114 versus 68, a -40.4 percent delta, the second smallest margin after single-thread tests. Multi-thread overall in PassMark shows 26434 versus 11625, a -56 percent delta.

The average benchmark score reinforces the hierarchy. The Core 5 213PE averages 35428 across all recorded benchmarks, placing it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 304 averages 13745, placing it in the 68th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 5 213PE include the Intel Core i7-13700T with an average score of 35403 and a delta of 0.1 percent, the Intel Core i7-12700KF at 35365 with a 0.2 percent delta, and the Intel Core i5-13600T at 35305 with a 0.3 percent delta. The Core 3 304’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX at 13786 with a -0.3 percent delta, the Intel Core i7-8750H at 13868 with a -0.9 percent delta, and the Intel Core 5 120UL at 13594 with a 1.1 percent delta. These figures show the Core 3 304 is competitive within its own performance class, but that class sits far below the Core 5 213PE.

The Verdict

The data indicates two processors aimed at fundamentally different use cases. The Core 5 213PE is the clear choice for workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth. Its 8 cores and 16 threads deliver more than double the multi-core performance in Cinebench R23 and nearly quadruple the integer math throughput. The 85th percentile ranking versus the 68th percentile ranking tells the same story in aggregate. For desktop tasks such as content creation, compilation, or data processing, the Core 5 213PE’s benchmark results are decisively ahead.

The Core 3 304, by contrast, belongs in low-power mobile systems. Its 15 watt TDP and 3 nm process node indicate an efficiency-focused design, and its single-thread results, while trailing, are proportionally less distant than its multi-thread results. The -11 percent delta on PassMark single-thread shows that the Core 3 304 can hold its own on lightly threaded tasks, but the -76.6 percent delta on Cinebench R23 multi-core shows it cannot compete when all cores are active.

The launch MSRP for the Core 3 304 is $309, while the Core 5 213PE has a launch MSRP of $221. The Core 5 213PE also supports ECC memory, adds more PCIe lanes, and uses a dual-channel memory bus, all of which are meaningful for workstation or server-adjacent desktop builds. The Core 3 304 offers a newer 3 nm process and a more compact mobile socket, Intel BGA 1516, which suits thin-and-light designs. Anyone selecting between these two should base the decision on the target platform and workload. The benchmark data does not support the Core 3 304 in any performance comparison, but its mobile socket and power profile define its purpose.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE wins all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core it scores 22468 versus 5263, a -76.6 percent delta. PassMark multi-thread shows 26434 versus 11625, a -56 percent delta.

Q: How close are the single-thread scores?

A: The Core 5 213PE leads every single-thread test, but the margins are smaller. PassMark single-thread shows 4060 versus 3614, a -11 percent delta. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 3172 versus 1765, a -44.4 percent delta.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The Core 5 213PE has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 3 304 does not.

Q: How do the memory buses compare?

A: The Core 3 304 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 5 213PE uses a dual-channel bus with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The Core 3 304 is built on a 3 nm process. The Core 5 213PE is built on a 10 nm process.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification category. The Core 3 304 uses 5 cores and 5 threads, while the Core 5 213PE uses 8 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 304 and 2.70 GHz for the Core 5 213PE. Boost clocks are 4.30 GHz and 5.20 GHz respectively. Thermal design power differs substantially: 15 watts for the Core 3 304 versus 65 watts for the Core 5 213PE. The socket types are different, with the Core 3 304 using Intel BGA 1516 and the Core 5 213PE using Intel Socket 1700. Cache structures diverge: the Core 3 304 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3, while the Core 5 213PE has 80 KB per core L1, 2 MB per core L2, and 24 MB shared L3. Memory support differs: the Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Core 5 213PE supports DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bus width is single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth is 59.7 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s. ECC memory support is absent on the Core 3 304 and present on the Core 5 213PE. PCIe support differs: Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the Core 3 304 versus Gen 5 with 16 lanes for the Core 5 213PE. Integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core on the Core 3 304 versus UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 5 213PE. Market segment is Mobile for the Core 3 304 and Desktop for the Core 5 213PE. Release dates are 2026-04-15 for the Core 3 304 and 2026-03-08 for the Core 5 213PE. Launch MSRP is $309 for the Core 3 304 and $221 for the Core 5 213PE. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation, while the Core 5 213PE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation. The process nodes reflect different manufacturing targets: 3 nm for the Core 3 304 and 10 nm for the Core 5 213PE. Both are fabricated by Intel, but the 3 nm node indicates a newer process generation. The cache hierarchy shows a fundamental design split. The Core 3 304 uses a unified L2 of 2.5 MB and a 6 MB shared L3, while the Core 5 213PE allocates 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core, with a 24 MB shared L3. The per-core L2 on the Core 5 213PE scales with its 8 cores, yielding a total L2 of 16 MB, but the database records these as per-core figures. The Core 3 304’s thread count equals its core count, meaning no hyper-threading, while the Core 5 213PE doubles its threads to 16, indicating simultaneous multithreading support. The integrated graphics differ in generation and configuration: Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core on the Core 3 304 versus UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 5 213PE. The PCIe implementation also differs by generation and lane count, with Gen 4 and 6 lanes on the mobile part versus Gen 5 and 16 lanes on the desktop part. The memory controller is single-channel on the Core 3 304 and dual-channel on the Core 5 213PE, which directly affects the recorded bandwidth figures. The Core 5 213PE adds ECC support, a feature absent from the Core 3 304. The Core 3 304’s 15 watt TDP and BGA socket align with mobile integration, while the Core 5 213PE’s 65 watt TDP and Socket 1700 align with desktop boards.