Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core 9 270H Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core 9 270H has an average benchmark score of 38335, placing it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 3 304 has an average score of 13745, placing it in the 68th percentile. The Core 9 270H wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark tests recorded in the database.

Q: What is the single-thread performance gap between the two?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core 9 270H scores 2040 versus 1765 for the Core 3 304, a delta of -13.5% from the Core 3's perspective. In PassMark single-thread tests, the Core 9 270H scores 3944 against 3614, a smaller gap of -8.4%.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Core 9 270H has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, meaning the Core 9 270H offers 9 additional cores and 15 additional threads.

Q: How do the integrated graphics differ between the two chips?

A: The Core 3 304 integrates Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Core 9 270H integrates Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, a substantially larger graphics configuration.

Q: What are the release dates and launch prices?

A: The Core 3 304 released on April 15, 2026 with a launch MSRP of $309. The Core 9 270H released on December 17, 2024 with a launch MSRP of $697.

Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core 9 270H boosts up to 5.80 GHz, while the Core 3 304 boosts up to 4.30 GHz. The Core 9 270H also has a higher base clock at 2.70 GHz versus 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 304.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages with distinct design priorities. The Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation, built on Intel's 3 nm process node. The Core 9 270H uses the Raptor Lake codename with Raptor Lake-H architecture, belonging to the Core 9 generation (Raptor Lake Refresh) on a 10 nm process node. This process difference directly contributes to the power characteristics: the Core 3 304 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Core 9 270H draws 45 watts.

Core configuration reveals a fundamental design split. The Core 3 304 offers 5 cores and 5 threads, indicating no hyperthreading capability. The Core 9 270H provides 14 cores and 20 threads, suggesting a hybrid arrangement with performance and efficiency cores. The thread count of 20 with 14 cores implies that 6 cores contribute 12 threads while 8 cores contribute 8 threads, a common hybrid configuration pattern in Intel mobile processors.

Cache hierarchy differs substantially. 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 9 270H lists L1 cache as 80 KB per core, L2 as 2 MB per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 9 270H's L3 cache is four times larger in total, which benefits workloads with large working sets and frequent data reuse.

Memory architecture also separates the two. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a single-channel memory bus and a measured memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core 9 270H supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus, providing twice the memory channels for higher theoretical bandwidth. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCI Express connectivity differs in both generation and lane count. The Core 3 304 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Core 9 270H provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes, offering both a newer PCIe generation and two additional lanes for attached devices.

The integrated graphics represent another architectural division. The Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with a single Xe core, while the Core 9 270H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. Both target mobile segments, but the graphics difference reflects the performance tier gap. Both processors are locked (multiplier unlocked: false) and remain in active production status.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clean sweep for the Core 9 270H across all 17 recorded tests. No test in the database favors the Core 3 304. However, the margin of victory varies significantly by workload type, which reveals where each chip has relative strengths.

The Core 9 270H dominates heavily in multi-threaded and parallel workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 18000 versus 5263, a -70.8% delta from the Core 3 304's perspective. This translates to approximately 3.4 times the multi-core rendering performance. The integer math test shows the largest overall gap at -74.8%, with the Core 9 270H scoring 97654 against 24640. Data compression follows closely at -65.6%, with scores of 333785 versus 114775. These workloads scale with core count and thread availability, areas where the Core 9 270H's 14 cores and 20 threads vastly outnumber the Core 3 304's 5 cores and 5 threads.

The Core 3 304 narrows the gap in single-threaded and lightly threaded tests. The PassMark single-thread score shows the smallest delta at -8.4%, with the Core 9 270H scoring 3944 versus 3614. Cinebench R23 single-core also shows a relatively modest -13.5% gap (2040 versus 1765). The find prime numbers test, which often depends on integer throughput and memory latency, shows a -39.3% delta, with the Core 9 270H scoring 112 versus 68. These results indicate that while the Core 3 304 still loses every single-thread test, its 4.30 GHz boost clock and 3 nm process allow it to remain competitive in latency-sensitive tasks.

The Core 3 304's efficiency profile suggests suitability for thermally constrained mobile designs. Its 15 watt TDP and single-channel memory bus point toward slim laptops and fanless or low-noise systems. The Core 9 270H's 45 watt TDP and dual-channel memory align with performance-oriented laptops that have more substantial cooling solutions. The Core 3 304's smaller L3 cache (6 MB versus 24 MB) also indicates a design optimized for power efficiency rather than sustained multi-threaded throughput.

Specification Differences

The following table summarizes the key specification differences between the two processors, based only on fields where the two differ:

| Specification | Intel Core 3 304 | Intel Core 9 270H |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 5 | 14 |

| Threads | 5 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 5.80 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 1744 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Raptor Lake-H |

| Architecture | Not specified | Raptor Lake |

| Generation | Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) | Core 9 (Raptor Lake Refresh) |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2.5 MB | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | Not specified |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | Iris Xe Graphics 96EU |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2024-12-17 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | $697 |

| Part Number | SAE3K | SRQ6V |

The socket difference (BGA 1516 versus BGA 1744) confirms that these processors are not interchangeable at the motherboard level. The Core 3 304's 3 nm process node versus the Core 9 270H's 10 nm node explains the TDP differential despite the Core 9 270H's much higher clock speeds. Memory support overlaps on DDR5, but the Core 3 304 adds LPDDR5X while the Core 9 270H adds DDR4 compatibility. Both processors lack ECC memory support and have locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the Core 9 270H wins all 17. The magnitude of victory varies from -8.4% to -74.8% deltas, providing a clear picture of workload-dependent performance scaling.

The largest single gap appears in PassMark integer math, where the Core 9 270H scores 97654 against the Core 3 304's 24640, a -74.8% delta. This test heavily leverages the Core 9 270H's additional cores and threads. The second-largest gap is in Cinebench R23 multi-core at -70.8% (18000 versus 5263), followed by data compression at -65.6% (333785 versus 114775) and Cinebench R15 multi-core at -65.5% (2464 versus 849). All of these tests reward parallel execution, and the Core 9 270H's 14 cores and 20 threads provide roughly three to four times the throughput of the Core 3 304's 5 cores and 5 threads.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a -59.5% delta with scores of 10268 versus 4160, matching the same -59.5% delta in R20 single-core (1449 versus 587). This unusual consistency suggests that the R20 single-core test also responds strongly to the Core 9 270H's higher boost clock (5.80 GHz versus 4.30 GHz) and larger cache hierarchy. PassMark multithread scores 28764 versus 11625, a -59.6% delta, nearly identical to the R20 results.

Floating point math shows a -57.9% delta (70640 versus 29722), while data encryption shows -56.1% (19369 versus 8501). Physics simulation results in a -55.8% delta (1966 versus 868). Extended instructions test yields -51.8% (20079 versus 9686). Random string sorting shows -63% (36867 versus 13659). Find prime numbers shows the smallest multi-threaded gap at -39.3% (112 versus 68), though this still represents a substantial performance deficit.

The single-threaded tests reveal the closest competition. PassMark single-thread shows the smallest delta at -8.4% (3944 versus 3614), and Cinebench R23 single-core is next at -13.5% (2040 versus 1765). Cinebench R15 single-core shows -23.9% (347 versus 264). These results indicate that the Core 3 304's 4.30 GHz boost clock and modern 3 nm process help it stay within striking distance in lightly threaded workloads, even though it still loses every test.

The Core 9 270H's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H with an average score of 38312 (delta 0.1%), the Intel Xeon w3-2525 at 38392 (-0.1%), the Intel Core i5-13600HX at 38261 (0.2%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 250 at 38221 (0.3%). The Core 3 304's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX at 13786 (-0.3%), the Intel Core i7-8750H at 13868 (-0.9%), the Intel Core 5 120UL at 13594 (1.1%), and the AMD EPYC 7443 at 13936 (-1.4%). These comparisons show that both processors sit in competitive positions within their respective performance tiers, with the Core 9 270H occupying the 86th percentile and the Core 3 304 resting at the 68th percentile of all CPUs.