Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core i5-8500 Comparison

The Intel Core 3 304 and Intel Core i5-8500 sit on opposite ends of Intel's product timeline. The Core 3 304 is a 3 nm mobile processor with a 15 W TDP, while the i5-8500 is a 14 nm desktop chip rated at 65 W. Their benchmark profiles diverge sharply, with the Core 3 304 winning 12 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The data shows a clear generational shift in single-thread efficiency, but the older i5-8500 still holds ground in specific multi-threaded and memory-heavy workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core 3 304's most dominant win comes in Passmark data encryption, where it scores 8501 against the i5-8500's 3027, a 180.8% advantage. That is the largest delta in the entire comparison. Cinebench R15 single-core also shows a massive gap: 264 versus 114, a 131.6% lead for the Core 3 304. Prime number finding follows a similar pattern, with the Core 3 304 scoring 68 against 36, an 88.9% improvement. These results point to a fundamental leap in per-core execution capability.

The single-thread advantage carries into Cinebench R23, where the Core 3 304 scores 1765 versus 1140, a 54.8% lead. Passmark single-thread confirms the trend: 3614 against 2441, a 48.1% margin. Physics simulation also favors the newer chip, 868 versus 628, a 38.2% gain. Floating point math is another strong area, with the Core 3 304 posting 29722 against 22489, a 32.2% advantage. Even in multi-core Cinebench R20, the Core 3 304 wins 4160 to 3393, a 22.6% margin, despite having fewer cores. Its R20 single-core score of 587 beats 478 by 22.8%. Passmark multithread also goes to the Core 3 304, 11625 versus 9532, a 22% lead. The narrowest win for the Core 3 304 is Cinebench R15 multi-core, 849 to 814, a 4.3% edge.

The i5-8500's wins are fewer but notable. Its largest victory is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 8079 against the Core 3 304's 5263, a 34.9% advantage. That is a substantial reversal, driven by its six physical cores and larger shared L3 cache. Passmark data compression also favors the i5-8500, 134673 versus 114775, a 14.8% lead. Extended instructions go to the i5-8500 as well, 11480 to 9686, a 15.6% margin. Random string sorting shows a 16.2% advantage for the i5-8500, 16294 to 13659. Integer math is closer, with the i5-8500 winning 26551 to 24640, a 7.2% edge. These results suggest the i5-8500 retains an advantage in workloads that scale with core count and cache capacity, even though its per-core performance is far behind.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on entirely different nodes. The Core 3 304 uses a 3 nm process, while the i5-8500 uses 14 nm. That node gap explains much of the performance and efficiency difference. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, while the i5-8500 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The newer chip compensates with a much higher boost clock: 4.30 GHz versus 4.10 GHz, and a lower base clock of 1.50 GHz versus 3.00 GHz. The TDP difference is stark: 15 W for the Core 3 304, 65 W for the i5-8500.

Cache layouts differ significantly. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The i5-8500 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 9 MB of shared L3. The i5-8500's larger L3 (9 MB versus 6 MB) helps in multi-threaded workloads, as seen in Cinebench R23. Memory support also diverges: the Core 3 304 uses DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the i5-8500 uses DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. The newer chip's higher bandwidth is a direct result of faster memory technology.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Core 3 304 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes, while the i5-8500 provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics are also different: the Core 3 304 has Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe), while the i5-8500 has UHD Graphics 630. The Core 3 304 is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1516, whereas the i5-8500 is a desktop part on Socket 1151. The i5-8500 has a die size of 154 mm²; the Core 3 304 does not list a die size. Production status also differs: the Core 3 304 is active, while the i5-8500 is end-of-life. Release dates are far apart: the Core 3 304 launched on 2026-04-15, the i5-8500 on 2018-02-13.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 wins every single-core test in the database. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 1765 versus 1140, a 54.8% lead. Passmark single-thread shows 3614 against 2441, a 48.1% margin.

Q: Why does the i5-8500 win in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The i5-8500 has 6 cores and 6 threads, one more core than the Core 3 304, and a larger 9 MB shared L3 cache. It scores 8079 versus 5263, a 34.9% advantage, indicating that its extra core and cache capacity matter in sustained multi-threaded rendering.

Q: Which chip has better memory bandwidth?

A: The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s. The i5-8500 uses DDR4 with a dual-channel bus, providing 42.7 GB/s. The newer chip's bandwidth is 39.7% higher.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Core 3 304 is rated at 15 W, while the i5-8500 is rated at 65 W. That is a 50 W difference, making the Core 3 304 far more power-efficient for mobile use.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. Both have a multiplier locked, so neither supports unlocked overclocking.

Q: Which processor is still in production?

A: The Core 3 304 is listed as active, while the i5-8500 is end-of-life. The i5-8500 was released in 2018, the Core 3 304 in 2026.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 304 | Intel Core i5-8500 |

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

| Cores | 5 | 6 |

| Threads | 5 | 6 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.10 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1151 |

| Architecture | Wildcat Lake | Coffee Lake |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 14 nm |

| Die Size | Not listed | 154 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2.5 MB | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 9 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR4 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 42.7 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes | Gen 3, 16 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | UHD Graphics 630 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2018-02-13 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | $192 |

| Part Number | SAE3K | SR3XE |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split in use cases. The Intel Core 3 304 is the better choice for anyone prioritizing single-thread performance, power efficiency, and modern memory support. It wins 12 of 17 head-to-head tests, including all single-core benchmarks and several multi-threaded workloads like Cinebench R20 and Passmark multithread. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light mobile devices, and its 3 nm process delivers a generational leap in per-core capability.

The Intel Core i5-8500, despite being older and end-of-life, still holds an edge in specific multi-threaded scenarios. Its six cores and 9 MB L3 cache give it a 34.9% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core, and it also wins in data compression, extended instructions, integer math, and random string sorting. For desktop users running legacy software that scales with core count, the i5-8500 remains a functional option, but its 65 W TDP and 14 nm process put it at a significant efficiency disadvantage.

The database shows that the Core 3 304 is the more future-proof part, with active production, a 2026 release, and support for DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The i5-8500, launched in 2018, is a relic of the Coffee Lake era. For new builds, the Core 3 304 is the logical pick. For those already on a Socket 1151 platform, the i5-8500 can still handle multi-threaded tasks, but it cannot match the Core 3 304's single-thread speed or power profile. The verdict is straightforward: the Core 3 304 is the superior processor for modern workloads, while the i5-8500 remains a niche choice for legacy desktop systems.