Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core i5-14400F Comparison

Intel Core 3 304 and Intel Core i5-14400F occupy very different positions in the database, and the benchmark data reflects that clearly. The Core i5-14400F wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with an average benchmark score of 32279 against 13745 for the Core 3 304. The percentile ranking confirms the gap: the i5-14400F sits at the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 304 sits at the 68th. This is not a close contest in raw performance, but the two processors are built for entirely different purposes, one for mobile efficiency and one for desktop throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-14400F is the outright performance winner in every measured category. Its largest advantages appear in multi-threaded workloads, particularly Cinebench R23 multicore where it scores 21645 versus 5263 for the Core 3 304, a 75.7% lead. The i5-14400F also dominates integer math, scoring 81524 against 24640, a 69.8% gap. These results indicate the i5-14400F is the clear choice for rendering, compilation, data processing, and any workload that scales across cores and threads.

The Core 3 304 has no benchmark victories, but its strengths lie in its platform characteristics rather than performance numbers. It uses a 3 nm process node versus 10 nm for the i5-14400F, and its TDP is 15 watts against 65 watts. The Core 3 304 also integrates Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the i5-14400F has no integrated graphics. For workloads that require a compact, power-conscious mobile platform with built-in display output, the Core 3 304 is the practical option, even though its raw scores are lower.

Single-threaded performance is the closest category. The i5-14400F leads by only 2.4% in PassMark single thread, scoring 3701 versus 3614, and by 14% in Cinebench R15 single core, 307 versus 264. This suggests the Core 3 304's Wildcat Lake architecture delivers competitive per-core efficiency despite its far lower core count.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400F has an average benchmark score of 32279, compared to 13745 for the Intel Core 3 304. The i5-14400F also ranks higher at the 83rd percentile of all CPUs versus the 68th percentile for the Core 3 304.

Q: How do the core and thread counts differ?

A: The Core i5-14400F has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The i5-14400F supports hyper-threading, effectively doubling its thread count, whereas the Core 3 304 has a one-to-one core-to-thread ratio.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The Core 3 304 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Core i5-14400F has a TDP of 65 watts. The Core 3 304 is designed for mobile platforms with much lower power draw.

Q: Do both processors include integrated graphics?

A: No. The Core 3 304 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Core i5-14400F has no integrated graphics, as indicated by the "F" suffix, requiring a discrete GPU.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Core i5-14400F supports ECC memory. The Core 3 304 does not support ECC memory.

Q: What memory types are supported?

A: The Core i5-14400F supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel memory bus. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a single-channel memory bus.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive result in the database is Cinebench R23 multicore, where the i5-14400F scores 21645 against 5263 for the Core 3 304, a 75.7% advantage. This gap reflects the fundamental difference in parallelism: 16 threads versus 5 threads. The Cinebench R20 multicore test shows a similar pattern, with the i5-14400F at 9090 and the Core 3 304 at 4160, a 54.2% lead.

PassMark integer math delivers the second-largest delta. The i5-14400F scores 81524, while the Core 3 304 scores 24640, a 69.8% difference. Data compression also heavily favors the i5-14400F, which scores 315521 versus 114775, a 63.6% gap. These results indicate that the i5-14400F is substantially better at structured computational tasks and data manipulation.

The i5-14400F leads by more than 50% in several other tests: Cinebench R20 single core (1283 versus 587, 54.2% ahead), PassMark extended instructions (19937 versus 9686, 51.4% ahead), PassMark floating point math (61319 versus 29722, 51.5% ahead), and PassMark multithread (25470 versus 11625, 54.4% ahead). Data encryption shows a 49.8% gap, with the i5-14400F scoring 16949 against 8501.

The closest results appear in single-threaded tests. PassMark single thread has the i5-14400F at 3701 and the Core 3 304 at 3614, a margin of only 2.4%. Cinebench R15 single core shows a slightly larger gap, with the i5-14400F at 307 and the Core 3 304 at 264, a 14% difference. PassMark find prime numbers also has a relatively small gap, with the i5-14400F at 86 and the Core 3 304 at 68, a 20.9% difference.

PassMark physics favors the i5-14400F at 1523 versus 868, a 43% lead, while random string sorting shows a 58.2% gap with scores of 32680 and 13659. Across all 17 head-to-head tests, the i5-14400F wins every single one, with deltas ranging from 2.4% to 75.7%.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, while the Core i5-14400F has 10 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ at 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 304 and 2.50 GHz for the i5-14400F, while boost clocks reach 4.30 GHz and 4.70 GHz respectively.

TDP is a major differentiator: 15 watts for the Core 3 304 versus 65 watts for the i5-14400F. The socket types are incompatible, with the Core 3 304 using Intel BGA 1516 and the i5-14400F using Intel Socket 1700. The Core 3 304 is a mobile processor, while the i5-14400F is a desktop processor.

Cache configurations are also substantially different. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The i5-14400F has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, with 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The i5-14400F also has a larger die size at 215 mm², while the Core 3 304 does not list a die size.

Memory support differs in both type and channel configuration. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The i5-14400F supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus, and no bandwidth figure is recorded. ECC memory is supported only on the i5-14400F.

PCIe connectivity differs significantly. The Core 3 304 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU, while the i5-14400F provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The integrated graphics situation is opposite: the Core 3 304 has Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the i5-14400F has no integrated graphics.

Release dates are nearly two years apart, with the Core 3 304 released on 2026-04-15 and the i5-14400F released on 2024-01-07. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The Core i5-14400F uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, on a 10 nm process node. Its codename is Raptor Lake-R, and it belongs to the Core 14th Gen series. The Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename on a 3 nm process node, with no specific architecture name listed beyond the Core 3 generation. Both are manufactured by Intel.

The process node difference is the most significant architectural distinction: 3 nm for the Core 3 304 versus 10 nm for the i5-14400F. This explains how the Core 3 304 achieves a much lower TDP of 15 watts while still delivering competitive single-threaded performance. The Core 3 304's single-core scores are only 2.4% behind in PassMark and 14% behind in Cinebench R15, despite running on a fraction of the power.

Core organization differs as well. The i5-14400F uses a hybrid structure with 10 cores and 16 threads, implying a mix of performance and efficiency cores. The Core 3 304 uses 5 cores and 5 threads, with no hyper-threading support. The i5-14400F also enables ECC memory, which is absent on the Core 3 304.

Memory access architecture differs in channel count: dual-channel on the i5-14400F versus single-channel on the Core 3 304. This affects memory bandwidth, with the Core 3 304 recording 59.7 GB/s while no bandwidth figure exists for the i5-14400F. The i5-14400F compensates with support for both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core 3 304 only supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

PCIe generation is another architectural gap, with the i5-14400F offering Gen 5 connectivity across 16 lanes versus Gen 4 across 6 lanes for the Core 3 304. This gives the desktop processor substantially more I/O bandwidth for expansion cards and storage.

The Verdict

The data indicates the Intel Core i5-14400F is the overwhelming performance choice. It wins all 17 recorded benchmarks, with an average score of 32279 that places it at the 83rd percentile. Its advantages range from 2.4% in single-threaded PassMark to 75.7% in Cinebench R23 multicore. For any workload that benefits from multiple cores, the i5-14400F delivers between 43% and 76% more performance, making it suitable for rendering, data processing, and heavy multitasking.

The Core 3 304, with its average score of 13745 at the 68th percentile, is not competitive in raw performance. Its role is defined by platform attributes: a 15 watt TDP, a 3 nm process node, integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics, and mobile BGA 1516 packaging. The single-threaded results, which show only a 2.4% gap in PassMark, indicate that its Wildcat Lake cores are efficient, but the lack of threads limits its throughput.

The choice between these processors is determined by use case. The i5-14400F is for desktop systems where performance per watt is secondary to absolute output. The Core 3 304 is for mobile designs where the 15 watt TDP, integrated graphics, and compact BGA socket are essential, and where the performance deficit is an acceptable trade-off. The benchmark record shows no scenario where the Core 3 304 outperforms the i5-14400F, but the platform differences make them appropriate for different segments.