Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core 7 253PE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data recorded for the Intel Core 3 304 and Intel Core 7 253PE shows a decisive sweep for the Core 7 253PE across all 17 head-to-head tests. The Core 3 304 does not secure a single win, which makes the comparison unusually one-sided. The largest deltas appear in heavily multithreaded workloads, where the Core 7 253PE’s advantage is most pronounced.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 7 253PE scores 24,880 against the Core 3 304’s 5,263, a 78.8% lead. A similarly large gap appears in PassMark integer math, where the Core 7 253PE posts 114,158 versus 24,640, also a 78.4% delta. These two results represent the widest margins in the entire test set, and they align with the Core 7 253PE’s higher core and thread counts.

The single-thread gap is far narrower. In PassMark single-thread, the Core 7 253PE scores 3,955 versus 3,614 for the Core 3 304, a modest 8.6% advantage. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a similar pattern: 354 versus 264, a 25.4% delta. The smaller single-thread difference indicates that the Core 3 304’s per-core efficiency is relatively competitive, even though its overall throughput lags substantially.

Intermediate multi-core tests show consistent scaling. Cinebench R20 multi-core gives the Core 7 253PE a 10,449 score against 4,160, a 60.2% lead. PassMark multithread shows 29,271 versus 11,625, a 60.3% delta. Cinebench R15 multi-core follows the same trend: 2,507 versus 849, a 66.1% gap. The consistency of these percentages across different rendering workloads suggests a stable architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

The Core 7 253PE also dominates in memory-sensitive and instruction-heavy tasks. PassMark data compression scores 339,133 versus 114,775, a 66.2% lead. Data encryption shows 18,385 versus 8,501, a 53.8% delta. Extended instructions deliver 21,806 versus 9,686, a 55.6% gap. Floating-point math goes to 80,870 versus 29,722, a 63.2% margin. Even the smallest multi-threaded gap, PassMark physics at 1,845 versus 868, still represents a 53% advantage for the Core 7 253PE.

The only test where the Core 7 253PE’s lead falls below double digits is PassMark single-thread, reinforcing that the Core 3 304’s single-core performance is its strongest relative showing. Random string sorting, which often reflects cache and memory latency behavior, shows a 58.3% advantage for the Core 7 253PE (32,777 versus 13,659). Prime number finding, a pure integer workload, shows a 50.7% gap (138 versus 68).

The overall average benchmark score for the Core 7 253PE is 40,557, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 3 304 averages 13,745, which sits in the 68th percentile. The delta between these averages is roughly 195%, a figure that underscores the Core 7 253PE’s position as a substantially higher-performing part in every recorded metric.

Where Each One Wins

Given that the Core 7 253PE wins all 17 head-to-head tests, the use-case split is heavily skewed. The Core 3 304 has no benchmark wins to claim. Its only comparative strength lies in the relative narrowness of its single-thread deficit. In PassMark single-thread, the Core 7 253PE leads by just 8.6%, which means the Core 3 304 is far closer in lightly threaded, latency-sensitive work than in sustained multi-core loads.

For workloads that depend on a single core or short bursts of activity, such as basic office tasks, light web browsing, or simple scripting, the Core 3 304’s performance is within a small margin of the Core 7 253PE. The 1.50 GHz base clock and 4.30 GHz boost clock on the Core 3 304, combined with its 5 cores and 5 threads, suggest it can handle single-threaded responsiveness adequately. However, the Core 7 253PE’s 2.50 GHz base and 5.50 GHz boost clocks give it a clear per-core frequency advantage in both sustained and burst scenarios.

For multi-threaded rendering, video encoding, scientific computation, or any workload that scales with core count, the Core 7 253PE is the only viable option in this pairing. Its 10 cores and 20 threads double the core count and quadruple the thread count of the Core 3 304. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 24,880 is roughly 4.7 times the Core 3 304’s 5,263, which is a scaling factor consistent with the thread advantage.

The Core 7 253PE also holds a decisive edge in memory bandwidth. Its dual-channel memory bus delivers 89.6 GB/s, while the Core 3 304’s single-channel bus manages 59.7 GB/s. For data compression, encryption, or any bandwidth-bound workload, the Core 7 253PE’s 66.2% and 53.8% leads in those respective tests reflect this memory advantage. The Core 3 304’s single-channel configuration is a structural limitation that no amount of core efficiency can fully offset.

In desktop-oriented tasks, such as physics simulation or extended instruction processing, the Core 7 253PE’s 53% and 55.6% leads are substantial. The Core 3 304’s integrated Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) may be sufficient for basic display output, but the Core 7 253PE’s UHD Graphics 730 is positioned for a desktop environment where integrated graphics are a secondary concern. The data does not support any scenario where the Core 3 304 outperforms the Core 7 253PE.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is built on a 3 nm process node. The Core 7 253PE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is fabricated on a 10 nm node. The process node difference is significant: the Core 3 304’s 3 nm node is a more advanced manufacturing technology, which likely contributes to its lower 15 W TDP despite having a smaller core count. The Core 7 253PE’s 10 nm node is older, and its 65 W TDP reflects both the larger core count and the less efficient process.

The core configurations are fundamentally different. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The Core 7 253PE has 10 cores and 20 threads, indicating full hyperthreading support. This 2x core and 4x thread advantage explains the multi-core benchmark deltas. The Core 3 304 is a single-thread-per-core design, which limits its ability to extract parallelism from multithreaded workloads.

Cache hierarchies also diverge sharply. The Core 3 304 has a 192 KB L1 cache, a 2.5 MB L2 cache, and a 6 MB shared L3 cache. The Core 7 253PE has an 80 KB per-core L1 cache, a 2 MB per-core L2 cache, and a 33 MB shared L3 cache. The Core 7 253PE’s larger total cache footprint, especially the 33 MB L3, provides a substantial advantage in workloads that reuse data across cores. The Core 3 304’s 6 MB L3 is small by comparison, and this likely contributes to its lower scores in data compression and random string sorting.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, but only on a single-channel bus. The Core 7 253PE supports DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus. The dual-channel configuration gives the Core 7 253PE a theoretical memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s for the Core 3 304. ECC memory support is present on the Core 7 253PE but absent on the Core 3 304, which is a meaningful distinction for reliability-focused desktop workloads.

PCIe capabilities are also asymmetric. The Core 3 304 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 7 253PE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Core 7 253PE’s newer PCIe generation and higher lane count offer greater expansion and I/O bandwidth for desktop peripherals and storage. The integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe), while the Core 7 253PE uses UHD Graphics 730. The Core 3 304’s Xe3 architecture is newer, but the Core 7 253PE’s UHD 730 is a more established desktop solution.

Sockets and market segments reinforce the architectural split. The Core 3 304 uses Intel BGA 1516, a mobile socket, and is classified as a Mobile segment part. The Core 7 253PE uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket, and is classified as a Desktop segment part. The Core 3 304’s release date is 2026-04-15, while the Core 7 253PE’s release date is 2026-03-08, roughly five weeks earlier.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences between the two processors are as follows. Core count: 5 cores for the Core 3 304 versus 10 cores for the Core 7 253PE. Thread count: 5 threads versus 20 threads. Base clock: 1.50 GHz versus 2.50 GHz. Boost clock: 4.30 GHz versus 5.50 GHz. TDP: 15 W versus 65 W. Socket: Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel Socket 1700. Process node: 3 nm versus 10 nm. Cache: L1 192 KB versus 80 KB per core; L2 2.5 MB versus 2 MB per core; L3 6 MB shared versus 33 MB shared. Memory support: DDR5/LPDDR5X versus DDR4/DDR5. Memory bus: single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. ECC memory: false versus true. PCIe: Gen 4, 6 lanes versus Gen 5, 16 lanes. Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) versus UHD Graphics 730. Market segment: Mobile versus Desktop. Part number: SAE3K versus SA4QE. Launch MSRP: $309 versus $384.

The Core 3 304’s lower TDP and smaller process node position it as a mobile-focused, efficiency-oriented part. The Core 7 253PE’s higher TDP and larger process node reflect its desktop orientation and performance priority. The memory bandwidth difference of roughly 50% (59.7 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s) is a direct consequence of the single-channel versus dual-channel bus design. The Core 7 253PE’s PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes versus Gen 4 with 6 lanes is a substantial I/O advantage for desktop workloads.

FAQ

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest delta is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Intel Core 7 253PE scores 24,880 versus the Intel Core 3 304’s 5,263, a 78.8% advantage. PassMark integer math shows a nearly identical gap at 78.4% (114,158 versus 24,640).

Q: Is the Intel Core 3 304 competitive in any workload?

A: The closest result is PassMark single-thread, where the Core 7 253PE leads by only 8.6% (3,955 versus 3,614). Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 25.4% gap. The Core 3 304 does not win any of the 17 head-to-head tests.

Q: How does the thread count difference affect multi-core performance?

A: The Core 7 253PE has 20 threads versus 5 threads for the Core 3 304. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 24,880 is roughly 4.7 times the Core 3 304’s 5,263, which correlates with the 4x thread advantage.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Core 7 253PE supports dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 3 304 supports single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 7 253PE also supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Q: Do the processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: No. The Core 3 304 is built on a 3 nm process node, while the Core 7 253PE uses a 10 nm node. The Core 3 304’s smaller node contributes to its 15 W TDP versus the Core 7 253PE’s 65 W TDP.

Q: What are the market segments for these CPUs?

A: The Core 3 304 is classified as a Mobile segment part with an Intel BGA 1516 socket. The Core 7 253PE is a Desktop segment part with an Intel Socket 1700. The Core 3 304 also has a single-channel memory bus, while the Core 7 253PE uses a dual-channel bus.