Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

Intel Core 3 304 and Intel Core 5 320 are two mobile processors from Intel's Wildcat Lake family, built on the same 3 nm node and sharing the same 15 W TDP. They target the same socket and market segment, yet benchmark data shows a consistent performance gap favoring the Core 5 320 across the entire test suite. The Core 3 304 does not win a single recorded benchmark contest, while the Core 5 320 wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons. The average benchmark score for the Core 3 304 is 13745, placing it at the 68th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 320 averages 18023, placing it at the 72nd percentile. This page breaks down where each processor wins, the architectural differences between them, and the exact magnitude of the performance deltas.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark results show a clean sweep for the Intel Core 5 320 in every test category. The Core 3 304 registers zero wins across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. This includes both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads, as well as specialized tasks like data compression, encryption, and prime number calculation. The Core 5 320 holds the advantage in every single recorded test, from Cinebench rendering scores to PassMark math and sorting workloads.

The Core 3 304 is not without its strengths, but those strengths are relative to other processors in its own performance class. Its average benchmark score of 13745 sits within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX, which scores 13786, and it trails the Intel Core i7-8750H by 0.9%, which scores 13868. The Core 3 304 actually leads the Intel Core 5 120UL by 1.1%, as that processor averages 13594. In contrast, the Core 5 320 with an average score of 18023 lands between the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 at 17994 and the Intel Core i5-1334U at 18154, with deltas of 0.2% and -0.7% respectively.

For workloads that depend on heavy parallel execution, such as Cinebench multi-core rendering or PassMark multithread tests, the Core 5 320 is the clear choice. For tasks that rely on single-core responsiveness, the Core 5 320 also leads, though by a smaller margin. The Core 3 304 remains competitive only when compared to lower-tier processors in its own average-score neighborhood, not when measured directly against the Core 5 320.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same Wildcat Lake codename and are fabricated on Intel's 3 nm process node. They use the same Intel BGA 1516 socket and belong to the mobile market segment. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, and both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is not supported on either part.

The core configuration differs. The Core 3 304 provides 5 cores and 5 threads, while the Core 5 320 provides 6 cores and 6 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts equal core counts. The base clock is identical at 1.50 GHz for both, but the boost clock differs: the Core 3 304 boosts to 4.30 GHz, while the Core 5 320 boosts to 4.60 GHz.

Cache layouts are identical in capacity. Both chips carry 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The integrated graphics differ in execution unit count. The Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe unit, while the Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe units. Both processors provide PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes. The part numbers are SAE3K for the Core 3 304 and SAE3H for the Core 5 320. The launch MSRP for the Core 3 304 is $309, and the launch MSRP for the Core 5 320 is $340.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single-core advantage for the Core 5 320 appears in Cinebench R20 single-core, where it scores 771 against the Core 3 304's 587, a delta of 23.9%. The same pattern shows in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Core 5 320 scores 5462 versus 4160, also a 23.8% delta. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core 5 320 scores 1054 against 849, a 19.4% gap, while in Cinebench R15 single-core the margin narrows to 4.3%, with scores of 276 and 264.

Cinebench R23 results follow the same direction. The Core 5 320 scores 6197 in multi-core versus 5263 for the Core 3 304, a 15.1% delta, and 1926 in single-core versus 1765, an 8.4% delta. These Cinebench numbers show that the Core 5 320 gains its largest advantages in multi-core rendering and in the R20 single-core test, while the smallest single-core gap appears in the older R15 test.

PassMark results amplify the gap in several workloads. The largest delta across the entire benchmark set is in find prime numbers, where the Core 5 320 scores 110 against 68 for the Core 3 304, a 38.2% advantage. Floating point math shows a 30% delta, with scores of 42440 and 29722. Extended instructions produce a 27% delta, with 13262 versus 9686. Physics tests show a 28.9% gap, with 1221 versus 868. Multithread performance gives the Core 5 320 a 24.8% lead, scoring 15450 versus 11625. Random string sorting shows a 24.3% delta, with 18038 versus 13659. Integer math delivers a 23.8% delta, with 32323 versus 24640. Data compression is 22.9% faster on the Core 5 320, with 148779 versus 114775, and data encryption is 22.6% faster, with 10984 versus 8501. In the single-thread PassMark test, the Core 5 320 scores 4045 versus 3614, a 10.7% delta.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads.

Q: Are the boost clocks different between the two?

A: Yes, the Core 5 320 boosts to 4.60 GHz, while the Core 3 304 boosts to 4.30 GHz. The base clock is 1.50 GHz for both.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Core 5 320 scores 6197 versus 5263 for the Core 3 304, a 15.1% delta in favor of the Core 5 320.

Q: Do both processors use the same integrated graphics?

A: Both use Intel Xe3 Graphics, but the Core 3 304 has 1 Xe unit and the Core 5 320 has 2 Xe units.

Q: What memory support do these processors share?

A: Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth, and neither supports ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 has an average benchmark score of 18023, compared to 13745 for the Intel Core 3 304.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in core count, thread count, boost clock, integrated graphics execution unit count, part number, and launch MSRP. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads with a 4.30 GHz boost clock and 1 Xe graphics unit. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads with a 4.60 GHz boost clock and 2 Xe graphics units. The part numbers are SAE3K and SAE3H respectively. The launch MSRP is $309 for the Core 3 304 and $340 for the Core 5 320. All other recorded specifications match: 1.50 GHz base clock, 15 W TDP, Intel BGA 1516 socket, 3 nm process node, Wildcat Lake codename, 192 KB L1 cache, 2.5 MB L2 cache, 6 MB shared L3 cache, DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory support, single-channel memory bus, 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth, no ECC support, PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes, locked multiplier, and active production status with the same release date.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core 5 320 is the stronger processor in every recorded benchmark. It wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons, with deltas ranging from 4.3% in Cinebench R15 single-core to 38.2% in PassMark find prime numbers. The extra core, higher boost clock, and doubled graphics execution units give it a clear edge across rendering, math, compression, encryption, and single-threaded tasks. Its average benchmark score of 18023 places it at the 72nd percentile, while the Core 3 304 sits at the 68th percentile with an average of 13745.

The Intel Core 3 304 remains a functional mobile processor in its own right. Its average score sits close to the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and the Intel Core i7-8750H, and it leads the Intel Core 5 120UL by 1.1%. For users selecting between these two specific Wildcat Lake parts, the recorded benchmarks consistently favor the Core 5 320, with the largest differences appearing in multi-core and math-heavy workloads. The Core 3 304 offers lower launch MSRP and reduced graphics execution units, but the performance gap in the database is uniform and substantial.