Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core 7 360 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data separates these two mobile processors clearly. The Intel Core 7 360 wins 16 of 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the Intel Core 3 304 wins only one. The average benchmark scores confirm the gap: the Core 7 360 posts an average of 18374 across all recorded tests, against 13745 for the Core 3 304. That places the Core 7 360 in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 3 304 sits in the 68th percentile.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the Core 7 360 lands almost exactly at parity with the Intel Core i3-13100 (0% delta) and sits 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core 5 330, 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i3-14100, and 0.4% ahead of the Intel Core 3 305. The Core 3 304, by contrast, trails the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX by 0.3%, sits 0.9% behind the Intel Core i7-8750H, and leads the Intel Core 5 120UL by 1.1%. The data shows that the Core 7 360 belongs in a higher performance tier, one populated by desktop-oriented Core i3 parts.

For users selecting between these two, the data points to the Core 7 360 for almost any workload that benefits from additional cores or higher sustained throughput. The Core 3 304 has one narrow advantage in single-core Cinebench R15, but that advantage does not appear in any other single-threaded test. The Core 7 360 is the stronger choice across rendering, compression, encryption, math workloads, and general multithreaded performance.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 3 304 wins exactly one head-to-head comparison: Cinebench R15 single-core. Its score of 264 beats the Core 7 360's 193, a 36.8% advantage. This result is anomalous within the broader benchmark set, as the Core 7 360 wins every other single-threaded test, including Cinebench R20 single-core (808 versus 587, a 27.4% lead), Cinebench R23 single-core (1924 versus 1765, an 8.3% lead), and PassMark single-thread (4274 versus 3614, a 15.4% lead). The R15 single-core result appears to be an outlier in the data, not a consistent pattern.

The Intel Core 7 360 wins all remaining head-to-head tests. Its largest margin comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 13634 against the Core 3 304's 5263, a 61.4% advantage. That is the single biggest delta in the entire comparison. Other notable multi-core wins include Cinebench R15 multi-core (1374 versus 849, a 38.2% lead) and PassMark find prime numbers (120 versus 68, a 43.3% lead). The Core 7 360 also leads in PassMark physics (1213 versus 868, 28.4%), floating-point math (44963 versus 29722, 33.9%), and integer math (34238 versus 24640, 28%).

The use-case split is straightforward. The Core 3 304 is suitable for light single-threaded tasks if one trusts the Cinebench R15 result, but the rest of the data, including Cinebench R23 single-core and PassMark single-thread, favors the Core 7 360 even in that category. For multi-threaded rendering, data compression, encryption, and scientific workloads, the Core 7 360 is consistently ahead by double-digit percentages.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same Wildcat Lake codename and are built on Intel's 3 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. Both use the Intel BGA 1516 socket and are classified as mobile parts. The core counts differ: the Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, while the Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Neither part supports hyperthreading, as thread counts equal core counts for both.

The base clocks are identical at 1.50 GHz, but the boost clocks differ. The Core 7 360 boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the Core 3 304 reaches 4.30 GHz. That 0.50 GHz boost advantage helps explain the Core 7 360's lead in most single-threaded tests despite the Core 3 304's anomalous R15 result.

Cache layouts differ in an important way. The Core 3 304 lists L1 cache as 192 KB total and L2 cache as 2.5 MB total. The Core 7 360 lists L1 as 192 KB per core and L2 as 2.5 MB per core. With 6 cores, the Core 7 360 therefore has 1.152 MB of L1 and 15 MB of L2, versus 192 KB and 2.5 MB for the 5-core Core 3 304. Both share 6 MB of L3 cache.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe unit, while the Core 7 360 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe units. That doubles the graphics execution units, which matters for any workload that offloads to the iGPU.

Memory support is identical: both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X, both use a single-channel memory bus, and both have 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity matches at Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes. Both parts have locked multipliers.

The generation labels differ slightly. The Core 3 304 is listed as "Core 3 (Wildcat Lake)", while the Core 7 360 is listed as "Core 5 (Wildcat Lake)". The part numbers also differ: SAE3K for the Core 3 304 and SAE3E for the Core 7 360.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 7 360 has an average benchmark score of 18374, while the Intel Core 3 304 averages 13745. The Core 7 360 also sits in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, versus the 68th percentile for the Core 3 304.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 304 win any benchmark against the Core 7 360?

A: Yes. The Core 3 304 wins Cinebench R15 single-core with a score of 264 against 193, a 36.8% margin. It does not win any other recorded head-to-head test.

Q: How much faster is the Core 7 360 in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 7 360 scores 13634 against 5263 for the Core 3 304, a 61.4% lead. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Core 7 360 leads by 27.3% with 5726 versus 4160.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Neither processor supports additional threads beyond its core count.

Q: Are these processors on the same socket and process node?

A: Yes. Both use the Intel BGA 1516 socket and are built on Intel's 3 nm process node. Both carry the Wildcat Lake codename.

Q: Does the Core 7 360 have more L2 cache?

A: The database lists L2 as 2.5 MB per core for the Core 7 360 and 2.5 MB total for the Core 3 304. With 6 cores, the Core 7 360 has 15 MB of L2 total, while the 5-core Core 3 304 has 2.5 MB total.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest delta in the entire comparison appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The Core 7 360 posts 13634, the Core 3 304 posts 5263, and the Core 7 360 wins by 61.4%. This is the clearest signal that the extra core and higher boost clock translate into substantial multi-threaded rendering performance. The gap is large enough that any render workload in the database would complete nearly twice as fast on the Core 7 360.

Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a smaller but still significant 38.2% advantage for the Core 7 360 (1374 versus 849). Cinebench R20 multi-core narrows further to 27.3% (5726 versus 4160). The progression across R15, R20, and R23 suggests that the Core 7 360 scales better as the workload becomes more demanding.

PassMark find prime numbers delivers the second-largest margin: 120 versus 68, a 43.3% lead for the Core 7 360. This workload is highly sensitive to core count and clock speed, and the data reflects both advantages. PassMark floating-point math shows a 33.9% lead (44963 versus 29722), and PassMark physics shows a 28.4% lead (1213 versus 868).

The Core 7 360 wins PassMark integer math by 28% (34238 versus 24640), data compression by 19.7% (142877 versus 114775), and data encryption by 23.9% (11164 versus 8501). Extended instructions follow with a 21.8% lead (12390 versus 9686), and random string sorting shows a 22.6% lead (17636 versus 13659). PassMark multithread completes the multi-threaded set with a 25.2% lead (15544 versus 11625).

Single-threaded results tell a more nuanced story. The Core 3 304 wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 36.8% (264 versus 193), which is the only Core 3 304 victory. But Cinebench R20 single-core goes to the Core 7 360 by 27.4% (808 versus 587), Cinebench R23 single-core goes to the Core 7 360 by 8.3% (1924 versus 1765), and PassMark single-thread goes to the Core 7 360 by 15.4% (4274 versus 3614). The R15 result does not align with the other three single-threaded tests, which all favor the Core 7 360 by margins consistent with its higher boost clock.

The wins tally is decisive: 16 wins for the Core 7 360, 1 for the Core 3 304. The average benchmark scores reinforce this, with the Core 7 360 averaging 18374 against 13745. The nearest rival data places the Core 7 360 at parity with the Intel Core i3-13100, while the Core 3 304 sits near the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX, a much older and higher-power part. The performance class difference is real and consistent.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in core count, thread count, boost clock, cache allocation, integrated graphics, generation label, part number, and launch MSRP. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, a 4.30 GHz boost clock, 192 KB L1 total, 2.5 MB L2 total, Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe unit, generation label "Core 3 (Wildcat Lake)", part number SAE3K, and a launch MSRP of $309. The Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads, a 4.80 GHz boost clock, 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe units, generation label "Core 5 (Wildcat Lake)", part number SAE3E, and a launch MSRP of $426.

Identical specifications include base clock (1.50 GHz), TDP (15), socket (Intel BGA 1516), process node (3 nm), foundry (Intel), L3 cache (6 MB shared), memory support (DDR5, LPDDR5X), memory bus (single-channel), memory bandwidth (59.7 GB/s), ECC support (false), PCIe (Gen 4, 6 lanes CPU-only), market segment (mobile), production status (active), release date (2026-04-15), and multiplier lock (false).