Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core i5-10400F Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-10400F dominates in heavily threaded productivity workloads, winning 9 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. Its advantage is largest in multi-core rendering, integer math, and data compression, where its 6 cores and 12 threads provide a decisive edge. The Intel Core 3 304, despite having fewer cores and threads, wins 8 benchmarks, almost all of which involve single-thread responsiveness, cryptographic operations, or physics simulations. The two chips are exceptionally close in overall standing, both sitting at the 68th percentile among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores differ by only 440 points (14185 versus 13745).

The Core i5-10400F is the clear choice for multi-threaded rendering and content creation. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 10283 versus 5263, a 95.4% advantage. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it leads 1036 to 849, a 22% gap. Data compression tells a similar story: the i5-10400F scores 185944 versus 114775, a 62% lead. Integer math also favors the older chip heavily, 41471 to 24640, a 68.3% difference. These results point to a processor that can handle video encoding, 3D rendering, and database-style workloads with substantially more throughput.

The Core 3 304 wins where single-core efficiency or specialized instruction throughput matters. Its single-thread PassMark score of 3614 crushes the i5-10400F's 2541, a 29.7% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 17.8% lead (1765 versus 1451), and Cinebench R15 single-core shows a massive 44.7% lead (264 versus 146). The Core 3 304 also excels in data encryption (8501 versus 4100, a 51.8% lead), prime number finding (68 versus 35, a 48.5% lead), and floating-point math (29722 versus 25956, a 12.7% lead). Physics simulation also favors the newer chip, 868 versus 696, a 19.8% difference.

In mixed workloads, the picture is more nuanced. PassMark multi-thread favors the i5-10400F by just 4.2% (12115 versus 11625), while Cinebench R20 multi-core shows only a 3.8% lead (4318 versus 4160). The Core 3 304 actually wins Cinebench R20 single-core by 3.7% (609 versus 587), a rare single-core victory for the newer chip. These narrow margins suggest that for lightly threaded tasks, the Core 3 304 is competitive, but for any sustained all-core load, the i5-10400F pulls ahead dramatically.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core i5-10400F is significantly ahead, scoring 10283 versus 5263, a 95.4% advantage. This is the largest single benchmark gap between the two processors.

Q: Is the Intel Core 3 304 faster in single-threaded tests?

A: Yes, the Core 3 304 wins most single-thread benchmarks. PassMark single-thread shows 3614 versus 2541 (29.7% ahead), Cinebench R23 single-core shows 1765 versus 1451 (17.8% ahead), and Cinebench R15 single-core shows 264 versus 146 (44.7% ahead).

Q: How do the two chips compare in data encryption performance?

A: The Core 3 304 leads heavily in PassMark data encryption, scoring 8501 versus 4100, a 51.8% advantage. This is one of the newer chip's most decisive wins.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i5-10400F has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, meaning it does not support simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Do the two processors use the same memory type?

A: No. The i5-10400F supports DDR4 memory in dual-channel mode with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in single-channel mode with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The i5-10400F has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Core 3 304 has a TDP of 15 watts. The Core 3 304 is designed for mobile platforms with much lower power draw.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the dataset is Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the i5-10400F scores 10283 against the Core 3 304's 5263. That 95.4% difference means the older chip delivers nearly double the multi-threaded rendering performance. Cinebench R15 multi-core reinforces this, with the i5-10400F at 1036 versus 849, a 22% lead. The gap narrows in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the i5-10400F wins 4318 to 4160, just 3.8% ahead, suggesting that the newer architecture closes some of the gap in more modern workloads but still cannot overcome the core and thread deficit.

The i5-10400F also wins decisively in PassMark integer math, 41471 to 24640, a 68.3% advantage. Random string sorting goes to the i5-10400F by 69.7% (23185 versus 13659), and extended instructions favor the i5-10400F by 29.1% (12500 versus 9686). Data compression shows a 62% lead for the i5-10400F, 185944 versus 114775. These are all throughput-oriented tests where the extra cores and threads translate directly into higher scores.

The Core 3 304 answers with a series of single-core and specialized wins. PassMark single-thread is the clearest: 3614 versus 2541, a 29.7% margin. Cinebench R15 single-core shows an even larger relative gap, 264 versus 146, a 44.7% difference. Cinebench R23 single-core gives the Core 3 304 a 17.8% win, 1765 versus 1451. The data encryption result is particularly one-sided: 8501 versus 4100, a 51.8% lead for the Core 3 304. Prime number finding also favors the newer chip, 68 versus 35, a 48.5% advantage.

Floating-point math is interesting because it is one of the few tests where the Core 3 304 wins despite the i5-10400F having more cores. The Core 3 304 scores 29722 versus 25956, a 12.7% edge. Physics simulation follows the same pattern, with the Core 3 304 at 868 versus 696, a 19.8% win. PassMark multi-thread is the closest overall test, with the i5-10400F winning by just 4.2% (12115 versus 11625). Cinebench R20 single-core is the only single-thread test the i5-10400F wins, and it does so narrowly, 609 versus 587, a 3.7% margin.

The overall win count is nearly even: 9 wins for the i5-10400F, 8 for the Core 3 304. But the magnitude of the i5-10400F's wins in multi-core tests is far larger, often exceeding 50%, while the Core 3 304's wins are mostly in the 12% to 45% range. The average benchmark scores reflect this: the i5-10400F sits at 14185, the Core 3 304 at 13745, a 3.2% difference in the database's aggregate metric.

Specification Differences

The two processors occupy entirely different market segments. The i5-10400F is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1200, while the Core 3 304 is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1516. Core count differs: 6 cores and 12 threads for the i5-10400F, versus 5 cores and 5 threads for the Core 3 304. The base clock is dramatically different, 2.90 GHz for the i5-10400F and 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 304, though both boost to 4.30 GHz.

TDP is a major differentiator. The i5-10400F draws 65 watts, while the Core 3 304 draws only 15 watts, reflecting its mobile design. Memory support differs entirely: the i5-10400F uses DDR4 in dual-channel mode with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core 3 304 uses DDR5 and LPDDR5X in single-channel mode with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe support also differs, with the i5-10400F offering Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only) and the Core 3 304 offering Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only).

The Core 3 304 includes integrated graphics (Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe), while the i5-10400F has no integrated graphics. The process node is generations apart: 14 nm for the i5-10400F, 3 nm for the Core 3 304. Cache configurations differ as well. The i5-10400F has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB L1 total, 2.5 MB L2 total, and 6 MB shared L3. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The release dates are six years apart: the i5-10400F arrived in April 2020, the Core 3 304 in April 2026. The Core 3 304 has a launch MSRP of $309. Both parts are listed as Active in production status. The part numbers are SRH3DSRH79 for the i5-10400F and SAE3K for the Core 3 304.

Architecture Differences

The i5-10400F is built on the Comet Lake architecture, a 14 nm design from Intel's 10th generation Core lineup. It is a desktop-oriented design with a traditional monolithic layout, six physical cores with Hyper-Threading, and a shared 12 MB L3 cache. The memory controller is dual-channel DDR4, and the PCIe controller provides Gen 3 lanes. This architecture prioritizes multi-threaded throughput within a 65-watt envelope, and the benchmark data shows its strength in all-core workloads.

The Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node, a mobile-first design from Intel's Core 3 generation. It has five physical cores with no multithreading, a smaller 6 MB shared L3 cache, and a larger L1 cache (192 KB total versus 64 KB per core on the i5-10400F). The memory controller supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in single-channel mode, which delivers higher bandwidth (59.7 GB/s) despite the narrower bus. The PCIe controller is Gen 4 with 6 lanes, and the integrated Xe3 graphics add a GPU capability that the i5-10400F lacks entirely.

The process node difference is the most consequential architectural divergence. The 3 nm node allows the Core 3 304 to achieve higher single-thread performance and much lower power consumption (15 watts versus 65 watts) while operating at a much lower base clock (1.50 GHz versus 2.90 GHz). The boost clock is identical at 4.30 GHz, which explains why the Core 3 304 wins single-thread benchmarks: it reaches the same peak frequency with a more efficient architecture and larger L1 cache. The i5-10400F compensates with double the threads and double the L3 cache, which drives its multi-core dominance.

The cache hierarchy differs in structure, not just size. The i5-10400F allocates L1 and L2 per core (64 KB and 256 KB respectively), while the Core 3 304 reports total L1 at 192 KB and total L2 at 2.5 MB. The Core 3 304's L3 is 6 MB shared, exactly half the i5-10400F's 12 MB shared. These differences matter for data-dependent workloads: the Core 3 304's larger per-thread L1 likely contributes to its encryption and prime number wins, while the i5-10400F's larger L3 and thread count drive its compression and integer math advantages.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split: choose the Intel Core i5-10400F for multi-threaded desktop workloads, and choose the Intel Core 3 304 for single-thread responsiveness, cryptographic tasks, and mobile efficiency. The i5-10400F wins 9 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, and its wins are often by large margins. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 95.4% advantage, data compression shows 62%, integer math shows 68.3%, and random string sorting shows 69.7%. These are not marginal differences; they represent a fundamentally stronger multi-core processor.

The Core 3 304's 8 wins are concentrated in areas where its modern 3 nm architecture and higher single-thread efficiency shine. PassMark single-thread at 3614 versus 2541 is a 29.7% lead, data encryption at 8501 versus 4100 is a 51.8% lead, and prime number finding at 68 versus 35 is a 48.5% lead. Its 15-watt TDP versus the i5-10400F's 65 watts makes it the obvious choice for battery-powered or thermally constrained systems. The 3 nm process, DDR5 support, and integrated Xe3 graphics further cement its role as a modern mobile processor.

The average benchmark scores are close, 14185 for the i5-10400F and 13745 for the Core 3 304, and both sit at the 68th percentile among all CPUs. But this aggregate masks the workload-dependent nature of the comparison. A user running Cinebench R23 multi-core will see nearly double the performance from the i5-10400F. A user running PassMark single-thread will see a 42% improvement from the Core 3 304. Neither chip is universally superior; each is optimized for a distinct use case.

The i5-10400F is the pick for desktop builders who prioritize rendering, compilation, or any workload that scales with threads. The Core 3 304 is the pick for mobile users who need fast single-thread response, strong encryption performance, and low power draw. The identical 4.30 GHz boost clock means both reach the same peak frequency, but the i5-10400F's 6 cores and 12 threads provide sustained all-core throughput, while the Core 3 304's 5 cores and modern architecture provide superior per-thread efficiency. The data does not declare an overall winner; it declares two winners in different arenas.