Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core 5 220H Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data splits this comparison cleanly between single-threaded responsiveness and multi-threaded throughput. The Intel Core 5 220H wins 14 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with the Intel Core 3 304 taking the remaining 3. The Core 5 220H posts an average benchmark score of 28574, which places it in the 80th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 3 304 averages 13745 and sits in the 68th percentile.

The Core 3 304 is the choice for workloads that favor light, fast single-core execution. It wins PassMark single-thread with a score of 3614 against 3405, a 6.1% advantage, and edges out the Core 5 220H in Cinebench R15 single-core, 264 to 262, a 0.8% margin. That pattern suggests the Wildcat Lake design delivers strong per-thread performance despite its modest core count.

The Core 5 220H is the clear pick for rendering, encoding, compression, and any parallel workload. Its multi-core margins are decisive across every Cinebench version: R15 multi-core scores 1835 versus 849 (53.7% ahead), R20 multi-core scores 7812 versus 4160 (46.7% ahead), and R23 multi-core scores 11198 versus 5263 (53% ahead). The PassMark integer math test shows the largest gap at 66.5%, with the Core 5 220H scoring 73555 against 24640.

The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward: the Core 3 304 serves single-thread-sensitive tasks and light mobile use, while the Core 5 220H dominates any multi-threaded workload. The 80th percentile ranking for the Core 5 220H versus the 68th percentile for the Core 3 304 reinforces that positioning.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design generations. The Intel Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is built on a 3 nm process node. The Intel Core 5 220H uses the Raptor Lake-H codename with Raptor Lake architecture and a 10 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Core topology differs substantially. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, no hyper-threading. The Core 5 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads, meaning 4 of its cores support simultaneous multithreading. That thread advantage explains much of the multi-core benchmark gap.

Cache layouts also diverge. The Core 3 304 carries 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core 5 220H lists 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The larger shared L3 on the Core 5 220H benefits workloads with repeated data access patterns.

Memory support differs. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core 5 220H supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus; no bandwidth figure is recorded for it. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Core 3 304 offers Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core 5 220H offers Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics represent another generational split. The Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Core 5 220H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units. The socket changes as well: the Core 3 304 uses Intel BGA 1516, the Core 5 220H uses Intel BGA 1744.

Production status for both is listed as Active. The Core 3 304 has a launch MSRP of $309, and the Core 5 220H has a launch MSRP of $342.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 220H boosts to 4.90 GHz, while the Intel Core 3 304 boosts to 4.30 GHz. The Core 5 220H also has a higher base clock at 2.70 GHz versus 1.50 GHz.

Q: How many more cores does the Core 5 220H have?

A: The Core 5 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads, compared to 5 cores and 5 threads on the Core 3 304. That is 7 more cores and 11 more threads.

Q: Which chip wins single-thread benchmarks?

A: The Core 3 304 wins PassMark single-thread by 6.1% (3614 versus 3405) and Cinebench R15 single-core by 0.8% (264 versus 262). The Core 5 220H wins Cinebench R20 single-core and Cinebench R23 single-core, with margins of 46.7% and 4.7% respectively.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in either direction?

A: The largest gap is PassMark integer math, where the Core 5 220H leads by 66.5%, scoring 73555 against 24640. The largest lead for the Core 3 304 is 6.1% in PassMark single-thread.

Q: Do both processors support DDR5 memory?

A: Yes, both support DDR5. The Core 3 304 also supports LPDDR5X, while the Core 5 220H also supports DDR4. The Core 3 304 uses single-channel memory; the Core 5 220H uses dual-channel.

Q: How do the processors compare in overall database percentile?

A: The Core 5 220H ranks in the 80th percentile of all CPUs with an average score of 28574. The Core 3 304 ranks in the 68th percentile with an average score of 13745.

Specification Differences

The recorded data shows these differences between the Intel Core 3 304 and Intel Core 5 220H:

• Cores: 5 versus 12
• Threads: 5 versus 16
• Base clock: 1.50 GHz versus 2.70 GHz
• Boost clock: 4.30 GHz versus 4.90 GHz
• TDP: 15 W versus 45 W
• Socket: Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel BGA 1744
• Codename: Wildcat Lake versus Raptor Lake-H
• Generation: Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) versus Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh)
• Process node: 3 nm versus 10 nm
• L1 cache: 192 KB versus 80 KB per core
• L2 cache: 2.5 MB versus 2 MB per core
• L3 cache: 6 MB shared versus 18 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR5, LPDDR5X versus DDR4, DDR5
• Memory bus: Single-channel versus Dual-channel
• Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s versus not recorded
• PCIe: Gen 4, 6 lanes versus Gen 5, 8 lanes
• Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) versus Iris Xe Graphics 80EU
• Launch MSRP: $309 versus $342
• Release date: 2026-04-15 versus 2024-12-17
• Part number: SAE3K versus SRQ6SQ5MM

Both processors share the same manufacturer, mobile market segment, active production status, and lack of unlocked multiplier. Neither supports ECC memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core 5 220H dominates the multi-threaded suite. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 1835 versus 849, a 53.7% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core delivers 7812 versus 4160, a 46.7% lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core records 11198 versus 5263, a 53% lead. The consistency across all three Cinebench versions confirms the Core 5 220H scales with its extra cores and threads.

PassMark tests reinforce that pattern. Data compression scores 247921 versus 114775, a 53.7% lead. Integer math shows the steepest gap: 73555 versus 24640, a 66.5% lead. Floating-point math gives the Core 5 220H a 42.5% edge, 51671 versus 29722. Multithread scores 21884 versus 11625, a 46.9% lead. Random string sorting, data encryption, extended instructions, find prime numbers, and physics all favor the Core 5 220H with margins ranging from 17.1% to 52%.

The Core 3 304 counters in single-thread tests. PassMark single-thread shows 3614 versus 3405, a 6.1% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core is close, 264 versus 262, a 0.8% margin. Those two wins indicate the Wildcat Lake core design has high per-thread efficiency despite its lower core count.

Cinebench R20 single-core breaks that pattern, with the Core 5 220H winning 1102 versus 587, a 46.7% margin. Cinebench R23 single-core also goes to the Core 5 220H, 1853 versus 1765, a 4.7% lead. The single-core results are mixed across test versions, but the multi-core results are unambiguous.

The nearest rival data places both chips in distinct performance tiers. The Core 3 304 sits within 1.4% of the AMD EPYC 7443, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX, the Intel Core i7-8750H, and the Intel Core 5 120UL. The Core 5 220H sits within 0.3% of the AMD EPYC 7203P, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850HS, the Intel Xeon E-2436, and the Intel Core i5-12600. Those clusters confirm the Core 5 220H operates in a significantly higher performance class.

Overall, the head-to-head record stands at 14 wins for the Core 5 220H and 3 for the Core 3 304. The average benchmark scores, 28574 versus 13745, put the Core 5 220H at roughly double the aggregate performance of the Core 3 304. The percentile gap, 80 versus 68, reflects that separation in the broader CPU landscape.