Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core 5 315 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a strikingly one-sided contest, with the Intel Core 5 315 winning 16 of the 17 recorded comparisons. The single exception is a curious anomaly in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Core 3 304 posts a 264 score against the Core 5 315's 184, a 43.5% advantage. That isolated result stands in sharp contrast to every other single-threaded measurement, including Cinebench R20 single-core where the Core 5 315 leads by 23.7% (769 versus 587) and Cinebench R23 single-core where it leads by 3.7% (1832 versus 1765). The R15 single-core outlier suggests either a workload-specific quirk or a measurement irregularity, as no other test in the database shows the Core 3 304 ahead.

The multi-core results tell a far more consistent story. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 5 315 delivers 12981 points versus the Core 3 304's 5263, a commanding 59.5% lead. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 35.1% gap (1308 versus 849), while Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 23.7% gap (5452 versus 4160). The PassMark suite reinforces this pattern across nearly every workload category. The Core 5 315 leads by 30% in floating point math (42441 versus 29722), by 22.2% in integer math (31690 versus 24640), and by 39.3% in find prime numbers (112 versus 68). Data compression favors the Core 5 315 by 21.5% (146143 versus 114775), and data encryption by 23.5% (11119 versus 8501). Extended instructions show a 26.3% gap (13143 versus 9686), physics simulation a 25.4% gap (1163 versus 868), and random string sorting a 22.2% gap (17551 versus 13659).

The overall PassMark multi-thread score places the Core 5 315 at 15272 against the Core 3 304's 11625, a 23.9% difference. Even the single-thread PassMark test, which one might expect to be closer given the similar boost clocks, shows the Core 5 315 ahead by 10.1% (4021 versus 3614). The average benchmark score across all tests confirms the hierarchy: the Core 5 315 averages 18188, while the Core 3 304 averages 13745. That places the Core 5 315 in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, against the 68th percentile for the Core 3 304. The Core 5 315's average score sits at parity with the AMD EPYC 9274F (18189, 0% delta) and the Intel Core i7-9700 (18180, 0% delta), while the Core 3 304 lands within 1.1% of the Intel Core 5 120UL (13594) and 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (13786). The Core 3 304 trails the Intel Core i7-8750H by 0.9% (13868) and the AMD EPYC 7443 by 1.4% (13936).

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same Wildcat Lake codename, the same 3 nm process node from Intel, and the same BGA 1516 socket. They are built on the same Intel foundry process, and both are active production mobile parts released on the same date. The core configuration differs, however: the Core 3 304 uses 5 cores and 5 threads, while the Core 5 315 uses 6 cores and 6 threads. Neither part supports simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts equal core counts in both cases. The base clock is identical at 1.50 GHz for both, but the boost clock differs slightly: 4.30 GHz for the Core 3 304 and 4.40 GHz for the Core 5 315. That 0.10 GHz advantage, combined with the extra core, likely explains much of the Core 5 315's superior multi-threaded performance.

Cache allocations are identical on paper. Both parts carry 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is also identical: DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus, with the same 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth. PCI Express connectivity matches at Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes, and neither processor supports ECC memory. Both are locked parts with no unlocked multiplier.

The integrated graphics differ in execution unit count. The Core 3 304 pairs its CPU cores with Intel Xe3 Graphics featuring 1 Xe unit, while the Core 5 315 doubles that to 2 Xe units. This is the only graphics-related differentiation in the recorded data. The part numbers differ as well: SAE3K for the Core 3 304 and SAEFC for the Core 5 315. The launch MSRP is $309 for the Core 3 304 and $340 for the Core 5 315.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 boosts to 4.40 GHz, while the Intel Core 3 304 reaches 4.30 GHz. Both share a 1.50 GHz base clock.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the Intel Core 3 304 and the Intel Core 5 315 list ECC memory support as false.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: Both processors have 6 MB of shared L3 cache, along with identical L1 (192 KB) and L2 (2.5 MB) cache allocations.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for these parts?

A: Both processors support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory on a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has more integrated graphics execution units?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe units, whereas the Intel Core 3 304 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe unit.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 averages 18188 across all recorded benchmarks, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 3 304 averages 13745, placing it in the 68th percentile.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates a clear performance hierarchy between these two Wildcat Lake parts. The Intel Core 5 315 wins 16 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, with margins ranging from 3.7% in Cinebench R23 single-core to 59.5% in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The Core 3 304's sole victory in Cinebench R15 single-core (43.5% ahead) is contradicted by every other single-threaded test, making it difficult to treat as a reliable indicator of general capability. The Core 5 315's extra core, combined with its 0.10 GHz higher boost clock, produces consistent and substantial advantages across rendering, math, encryption, compression, and physics workloads. The Core 5 315 also carries twice the integrated graphics execution units, though the database does not include graphics benchmarks to quantify that difference. The Core 3 304 remains a viable option for workloads that align with its single-core R15 result, but the broader dataset does not support that as a typical outcome. For any multi-threaded workload, the Core 5 315 is the stronger part by a wide margin. The Core 3 304's only recorded advantage beyond the R15 anomaly is its lower launch MSRP of $309 versus $340.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in the following recorded specifications:

• Cores: Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores; Intel Core 5 315 has 6 cores.
• Threads: Intel Core 3 304 has 5 threads; Intel Core 5 315 has 6 threads.
• Boost Clock: Intel Core 3 304 boosts to 4.30 GHz; Intel Core 5 315 boosts to 4.40 GHz.
• Integrated Graphics: Intel Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe unit; Intel Core 5 315 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe units.
• Part Number: Intel Core 3 304 is SAE3K; Intel Core 5 315 is SAEFC.
• Launch MSRP: Intel Core 3 304 is $309; Intel Core 5 315 is $340.

Identical specifications include the 1.50 GHz base clock, 15 W TDP, BGA 1516 socket, Wildcat Lake codename, 3 nm process node, Intel foundry, 192 KB L1 cache, 2.5 MB L2 cache, 6 MB shared L3 cache, DDR5/LPDDR5X memory support, single-channel memory bus, 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth, no ECC support, Gen 4 PCIe with 6 CPU-only lanes, locked multiplier, mobile market segment, active production status, and 2026-04-15 release date.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 315 wins decisively in multi-threaded rendering workloads. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 59.5% advantage, Cinebench R20 multi-core a 23.7% advantage, and Cinebench R15 multi-core a 35.1% advantage. PassMark multi-thread performance favors the Core 5 315 by 23.9%, with physics simulation 25.4% ahead. These results make the Core 5 315 the clear choice for CPU-bound rendering, simulation, and parallel compute tasks.

The Core 5 315 also dominates every PassMark workload category in the database. Floating point math runs 30% faster, integer math 22.2% faster, and extended instructions 26.3% faster. Data compression completes 21.5% quicker, data encryption 23.5% quicker, and random string sorting 22.2% quicker. Prime number finding shows the largest PassMark gap at 39.3%. Even single-threaded PassMark performance favors the Core 5 315 by 10.1%, indicating that its advantage is not limited to multi-core scaling.

The Intel Core 3 304's only recorded win is Cinebench R15 single-core, where it scores 264 against the Core 5 315's 184. That 43.5% margin is substantial, but no other single-threaded benchmark corroborates it. Cinebench R20 single-core favors the Core 5 315 by 23.7%, Cinebench R23 single-core favors it by 3.7%, and PassMark single-thread favors it by 10.1%. The R15 result appears isolated, and the database offers no additional evidence that the Core 3 304 consistently outperforms the Core 5 315 in any workload class. The Core 3 304's lower launch MSRP of $309 distinguishes it from the Core 5 315's $340, but the recorded performance data does not show a compensating advantage. For buyers prioritizing the integrated graphics execution units, the Core 5 315 doubles the Core 3 304's count from 1 Xe to 2 Xe, though no graphics benchmarks are recorded to quantify the impact.