Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core 7 250H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive comparison: the Intel Core 7 250H wins every single recorded test against the Intel Core 3 304. Across 17 head-to-head measurements, the Core 7 250H records a victory in each one, leaving the Core 3 304 with zero wins. The margins, however, vary significantly depending on the workload.

The largest gap appears in PassMark integer math, where the Core 7 250H scores 99,100 against the Core 3 304's 24,640, a delta of -75.1%. This is the steepest single deficit in the entire comparison. Cinebench R15 multicore shows a similar pattern, with the Core 7 250H at 3,147 versus 849, a -73% difference. These two results highlight the extreme disparity in raw computational throughput.

Multi-threaded rendering follows the same trajectory. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core 7 250H posts 16,561 while the Core 3 304 manages 5,263, a -68.2% delta. The R20 multicore test shows 9,697 against 4,160, a -57.1% gap. Data compression, a heavily parallel workload, sees the Core 7 250H at 303,269 versus 114,775, a -62.2% difference. Random string sorting shows a -60% delta (34,136 vs 13,659).

The single-core story is far closer, though the Core 7 250H still leads. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core 7 250H scores 1,931 against 1,765, a modest -8.6% delta. PassMark single-thread shows 4,148 versus 3,614, a -12.9% gap. Cinebench R15 single-core is the tightest race of all: 298 versus 264, only -11.4% apart. This suggests the Core 3 304's single-thread performance is comparatively strong, but it cannot compensate for the multi-core deficit.

Intermediate workloads show consistent but smaller margins. PassMark extended instructions: 17,318 versus 9,686, a -44.1% delta. Floating point math: 65,094 versus 29,722, a -54.3% gap. Data encryption: 18,206 versus 8,501, a -53.3% difference. Physics simulation: 1,824 versus 868, a -52.4% delta. Prime number finding: 106 versus 68, a -35.8% gap. The Core 7 250H leads everywhere, but the magnitude of the lead correlates directly with how well the workload scales across cores and threads.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core 7 250H. There is no benchmark category in which the Intel Core 3 304 emerges ahead. The Core 7 250H wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons, including both Cinebench and PassMark suites. Its percentile ranking of 85 versus the Core 3 304's 68 further supports this positioning.

The Core 3 304's closest performance comes in single-threaded tests. The -8.6% delta in Cinebench R23 single-core and the -11.4% delta in R15 single-core indicate that for lightly threaded tasks, the two processors are not far apart. The Core 3 304 also holds its ground in PassMark single-thread, trailing by only -12.9%. These results suggest that the Core 3 304 can handle everyday responsiveness, basic office work, and lightly threaded applications without a dramatic penalty.

The Core 7 250H dominates wherever parallelism matters. Its 14 cores and 20 threads provide a substantial advantage in rendering, compression, encryption, and mathematical workloads. The -75.1% delta in integer math and the -68.2% delta in Cinebench R23 multicore illustrate that heavily threaded applications will see a massive performance uplift on the Core 7 250H. The Core 3 304, with 5 cores and 5 threads, simply cannot compete in these scenarios.

For users running multi-threaded compilation, video encoding, 3D rendering, or scientific simulations, the Core 7 250H is the clear choice based on the benchmark data. For general desktop use, web browsing, and productivity suites, the Core 3 304's single-thread performance keeps it viable, though still behind.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design lineages. The Intel Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is built on a 3 nm process node. The Intel Core 7 250H uses the Raptor Lake-H codename, part of the Raptor Lake Refresh generation, and is built on a 10 nm process node. The foundry for both is Intel.

Core counts differ sharply. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, indicating no hyper-threading. The Core 7 250H has 14 cores and 20 threads, a hybrid configuration that accounts for the thread count exceeding the core count. This is the primary driver of the multi-core benchmark gap.

Clock speeds also favor the Core 7 250H. Its base clock is 2.50 GHz with a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The Core 3 304 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Core 7 250H thus has a higher ceiling for both sustained and peak performance.

Cache configurations differ in structure. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 250H lists 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The total cache hierarchy on the Core 7 250H is substantially larger, supporting its higher core count and memory throughput.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core 7 250H supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus; no memory bandwidth figure is recorded in the database. The dual-channel configuration on the Core 7 250H provides a wider path for memory-intensive workloads.

PCIe capabilities differ. The Core 3 304 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The Core 7 250H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Core 7 250H offers both a newer PCIe generation and more lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Core 7 250H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The Core 7 250H's iGPU is positioned for more demanding visual tasks, though the database does not include graphics benchmarks for either.

Thermal design power differs significantly: 15 watts for the Core 3 304 against 45 watts for the Core 7 250H. This reflects the Core 7 250H's higher performance envelope and explains its higher boost clock and core count.

The sockets are not interchangeable. The Core 3 304 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core 7 250H uses Intel BGA 1744. Release dates also differ: the Core 3 304 was released on 2026-04-15, while the Core 7 250H was released on 2024-12-17. Both are marked as active in production. The launch MSRP for the Core 3 304 is $309, and the launch MSRP for the Core 7 250H is $502.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 250H has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads.

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core 7 250H in multi-threaded Cinebench R23?

A: The Core 7 250H scores 16,561 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the Core 3 304 scores 5,263. This is a -68.2% delta in favor of the Core 7 250H.

Q: Are the single-thread scores close between the two?

A: Yes. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core 7 250H scores 298 versus 264 for the Core 3 304, a -11.4% delta. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap narrows to -8.6% (1,931 vs 1,765).

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 is built on a 3 nm process node. The Intel Core 7 250H is built on a 10 nm process node.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Core 3 304 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. No memory bandwidth figure is recorded for the Core 7 250H, though it uses a dual-channel memory bus versus the Core 3 304's single-channel bus.

Q: How do the two processors compare in PassMark integer math?

A: The Core 7 250H scores 99,100, while the Core 3 304 scores 24,640, a -75.1% delta. This is the largest performance gap in the recorded benchmarks.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core 7 250H outperforms the Intel Core 3 304 in every recorded benchmark, winning all 17 head-to-head comparisons. Its 14 cores, 20 threads, higher clock speeds, larger cache, and dual-channel memory support give it a decisive advantage in multi-threaded workloads, where the deltas range from -35.8% in prime number finding to -75.1% in integer math.

The Intel Core 3 304, meanwhile, shows competitive single-thread performance. Its -8.6% deficit in Cinebench R23 single-core is the smallest margin recorded. It also uses a newer 3 nm process node, which likely contributes to its lower 15-watt TDP. The Core 3 304 is positioned for efficiency and light workloads, while the Core 7 250H is positioned for performance.

Users whose workloads are dominated by rendering, compression, encryption, or heavy mathematical computation should choose the Core 7 250H based on the recorded deltas. Users with primarily single-threaded tasks will still see better results on the Core 7 250H, but the margin is smaller. The Core 3 304's niche, according to the data, is in scenarios where its lower TDP and newer process node matter more than raw performance. The benchmark record, however, leaves no ambiguity: the Core 7 250H is the faster processor in every measured category.