Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core 7 160UL Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The Core 7 160UL also features a higher base clock of 1.80 GHz versus 1.50 GHz and a higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz versus 4.30 GHz.

Q: How do these processors compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL records an average benchmark score of 14232, placing it in the 69th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 3 304 records an average score of 13745, placing it in the 68th percentile. The Core 7 160UL sits just 0.3% below the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C, while the Core 3 304 sits 1.1% above the Intel Core 5 120UL.

Q: Which processor has the newer manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 uses a 3 nm process node, while the Intel Core 7 160UL uses a 10 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration. The Intel Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory in single-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

Q: What are the socket requirements for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket. The Intel Core 3 304 uses Intel BGA 1516, a mobile socket. This means the Core 7 160UL is designed for desktop use, while the Core 3 304 is designed for mobile platforms.

Q: Which processor has the better single-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 wins in Cinebench R23 single-core with a score of 1765, which is 24.9% ahead of the Intel Core 7 160UL's score of 1325. This pattern repeats across most single-threaded workloads.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 7 160UL and Intel Core 3 304 come from fundamentally different design generations. The Core 7 160UL is built on the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, using a 10 nm process node from Intel. It features 10 cores and 12 threads, indicating a hybrid configuration with performance and efficiency cores. The cache hierarchy consists of 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

The Intel Core 3 304, in contrast, uses the Wildcat Lake codename on a 3 nm process node, also from Intel. It has 5 cores and 5 threads, suggesting a simpler configuration without hyper-threading. The cache layout is notably different: 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 3 304 uses a much denser process, which typically allows for better power efficiency per transistor.

Memory architecture differs significantly between the two. The Core 7 160UL supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode, giving system builders flexibility in memory selection. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but in single-channel mode only, with a measured memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The single-channel limitation may affect memory-intensive workloads despite the faster memory types.

The integrated graphics also differ. The Core 7 160UL includes Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the Core 3 304 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe unit. PCIe connectivity shows the Core 7 160UL with Gen 4 and 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 3 304 has Gen 4 and 6 lanes (CPU only).

The Core 7 160UL targets the desktop market segment with a release date in April 2024. The Core 3 304 targets the mobile segment with a later release date in April 2026. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both are listed as Active in production status.

The Verdict

The benchmark data paints a clear split between these two processors. The Intel Core 7 160UL is the choice for heavily parallel integer workloads and multi-core rendering tasks. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 9386 is 78.3% higher than the Core 3 304's 5263, and its PassMark integer math score of 47515 is 92.8% higher. The Core 7 160UL also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 11.4%, recording 946 versus 849.

The Intel Core 3 304 is the better option for single-threaded performance and general productivity. It wins 14 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Core 3 304 takes Cinebench R15 single-core by 49.6% (264 versus 133), Cinebench R23 single-core by 24.9% (1765 versus 1325), and PassMark single-thread by 6.2% (3614 versus 3391). It also leads in data compression, encryption, extended instructions, floating-point math, physics, and random string sorting.

For users building a desktop system where multi-core rendering and integer-heavy tasks matter, the Core 7 160UL is the stronger pick. For mobile users who need better single-core responsiveness and efficiency on a 3 nm node, the Core 3 304 is the better fit, with its launch MSRP of $309. The Core 3 304's overall average score of 13745 sits close to the Core 7 160UL's 14232, but the distribution of wins matters more than the aggregate.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Core 7 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. Base clock speeds are 1.80 GHz for the Core 7 160UL and 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 304. Boost clocks are 5.20 GHz and 4.30 GHz respectively.

The process node difference is substantial: 10 nm for the Core 7 160UL versus 3 nm for the Core 3 304. Cache configurations differ entirely. The Core 7 160UL uses per-core L1 and L2 caches (80 KB and 1.25 MB per core) with 12 MB shared L3. The Core 3 304 uses aggregate L1 of 192 KB, L2 of 2.5 MB, and 6 MB shared L3.

Memory support diverges: the Core 7 160UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel, while the Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in single-channel. The Core 3 304 lists a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. PCIe lanes differ as well: Gen 4 with 8 lanes for the Core 7 160UL versus Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the Core 3 304.

Integrated graphics are different: Iris Xe Graphics with 96EU on the Core 7 160UL versus Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe on the Core 3 304. Sockets differ: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 7 160UL and Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 3 304. Market segments are Desktop for the Core 7 160UL and Mobile for the Core 3 304. Release dates are April 2024 for the Core 7 160UL and April 2026 for the Core 3 304. The Core 3 304 has a launch MSRP of $309, while the Core 7 160UL has no listed launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the Intel Core 7 160UL comes in PassMark integer math, where it scores 47515 against 24640, a 92.8% advantage. This is followed by Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core 7 160UL scores 9386 versus 5263, a 78.3% lead. The Core 7 160UL also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core with 946 versus 849, an 11.4% margin.

The Intel Core 3 304 dominates the remaining benchmarks. Its biggest win is in Cinebench R15 single-core, scoring 264 against 133, a 49.6% advantage. PassMark extended instructions show a 39.8% lead for the Core 3 304 with 9686 versus 5832. PassMark find prime numbers shows a 26.5% lead (68 versus 50), and Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 24.9% lead (1765 versus 1325).

The Core 3 304 also wins several benchmarks by single-digit margins. PassMark data encryption shows a 15.9% lead (8501 versus 7146). PassMark floating-point math shows a 13.6% lead (29722 versus 25670). PassMark random string sorting shows a 13.3% lead (13659 versus 11843). PassMark single-thread shows a 6.2% lead (3614 versus 3391).

Cinebench R20 results split differently. The Core 3 304 wins multi-core with 4160 versus 3942, a 5.2% margin. The Core 3 304 also wins Cinebench R20 single-core with 587 versus 556, a 5.3% margin. PassMark multithread goes to the Core 3 304 with 11625 versus 11043, a 5% margin. PassMark physics goes to the Core 3 304 with 868 versus 819, a 5.6% margin.

PassMark data compression goes to the Core 3 304 with 114775 versus 108953, a 5.1% margin. Overall, the Core 3 304 wins 14 benchmarks, while the Core 7 160UL wins 3 benchmarks.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 160UL wins in scenarios that demand high multi-core throughput and heavy integer processing. Its 78.3% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core makes it the clear choice for CPU rendering workloads that scale with core count. Its 92.8% lead in PassMark integer math indicates strength in calculation-heavy tasks like scientific computing, financial modeling, and video encoding that rely on integer arithmetic. The 11.4% win in Cinebench R15 multi-core reinforces this pattern.

The Intel Core 3 304 wins in nearly every other category. Single-core performance is consistently stronger, with a 49.6% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core and a 24.9% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core. This translates to better responsiveness in everyday desktop applications, web browsing, and lightly threaded software. The 39.8% lead in PassMark extended instructions suggests better support for SIMD and vectorized workloads. The 26.5% lead in prime number finding indicates stronger algorithmic efficiency per core.

The Core 3 304 also wins in data-related tasks. PassMark data compression shows a 5.1% lead, and data encryption shows a 15.9% lead. Floating-point math goes to the Core 3 304 by 13.6%, and physics simulation by 5.6%. Random string sorting shows a 13.3% advantage for the Core 3 304, and multithread performance, despite fewer cores, shows a 5% lead.

For a desktop workstation focused on multi-core rendering, the Core 7 160UL is the only choice between these two. For a mobile device where single-core speed, encryption, compression, and floating-point work matter more than raw core count, the Core 3 304 is the better fit. The Core 3 304's 3 nm process and mobile socket reinforce its intended use case as a laptop processor, while the Core 7 160UL's desktop socket and 10-core configuration point to a compact desktop role.