Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core i5-9400F Comparison

The Intel Core 3 304 and the Intel Core i5-9400F are two processors from different eras, and the benchmark data reflects a clear generational shift in strengths. The Core 3 304, a mobile chip on a 3 nm process, dominates in single-threaded and encryption workloads, while the older desktop Core i5-9400F holds advantages in certain multi-threaded and data-heavy tasks. The Core 3 304 wins 12 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, but the Core i5-9400F takes the most important multi-core rendering test. The choice between them depends entirely on whether the priority is modern single-core efficiency or sustained multi-core throughput in legacy workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 3 304 is the clear winner for single-threaded performance and modern instruction efficiency. Its wins span Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests, with the R23 single-core score of 1765 versus 1135 for the i5-9400F, a 55.5% advantage. This carries over to PassMark single-thread testing, where the Core 3 304 scores 3614 against 2428, a 48.8% lead. The data also shows a massive advantage in data encryption, scoring 8501 against 2902, a 192.9% delta. The Core 3 304 also wins in floating-point math (29722 vs 22465, up 32.3%), physics (868 vs 653, up 32.9%), and prime number finding (68 vs 38, up 78.9%). For users running lightly threaded applications, compilers, or encryption workloads, the Core 3 304 is clearly the stronger part.

The Intel Core i5-9400F takes the crown in sustained multi-core rendering and data manipulation. Its most significant victory is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 8040 against 5263, a 34.5% advantage. It also wins PassMark data compression (132877 vs 114775, up 13.6%), extended instructions (11684 vs 9686, up 17.1%), integer math (26155 vs 24640, up 5.8%), and random string sorting (16298 vs 13659, up 16.2%). These wins point to workloads that can utilize all six physical cores over a longer period, such as video encoding or database operations, where the i5-9400F's extra core and larger shared cache make a difference.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 has an average benchmark score of 13745, while the Intel Core i5-9400F has an average of 13041. The Core 3 304 sits slightly above its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX, by 0.3%, while the i5-9400F is 0.1% above the Intel Core i7-10750H.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core i5-9400F wins decisively, scoring 8040 against 5263 for the Core 3 304, a 34.5% difference. This is the largest win for the i5-9400F in any recorded benchmark.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap in the entire comparison?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark data encryption, where the Intel Core 3 304 scores 8501 versus 2902 for the i5-9400F, a 192.9% advantage. This is the single biggest win for either processor.

Q: Which chip has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 has a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-9400F boosts to 4.10 GHz. The Core 3 304 also has a much lower base clock of 1.50 GHz compared to 2.90 GHz.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 is rated at 15 W TDP, while the Intel Core i5-9400F is rated at 65 W TDP. This reflects the mobile versus desktop positioning of the two parts.

Q: Which processor supports faster memory?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, while the Intel Core i5-9400F supports DDR4 with a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The Core 3 304 uses a single-channel memory bus, while the i5-9400F uses dual-channel.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data reveals a split personality between these two CPUs. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core 3 304 edges out the i5-9400F with a score of 849 versus 810, a modest 4.8% lead. The gap widens significantly in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Core 3 304 scores 4160 against 3376, a 23.2% advantage. However, the trend reverses abruptly in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the i5-9400F delivers 8040 against 5263, a 34.5% swing in the opposite direction. This inconsistency suggests that the Core 3 304 benefits from newer instruction scheduling in some tests but loses ground in longer, more sustained workloads.

Single-core results are one-sided. The Core 3 304 wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 131.6% (264 vs 114), Cinebench R20 single-core by 23.3% (587 vs 476), and Cinebench R23 single-core by 55.5% (1765 vs 1135). The PassMark single-thread test confirms the trend, with the Core 3 304 scoring 3614 versus 2428, a 48.8% lead. These numbers reinforce the conclusion that the Core 3 304 has a vastly superior per-core architecture, likely due to its newer process node and higher boost clock.

In PassMark workloads, the i5-9400F fights back. It wins data compression with 132877 versus 114775, a 13.6% lead, and extended instructions with 11684 versus 9686, a 17.1% advantage. It also takes integer math (26155 vs 24640, up 5.8%) and random string sorting (16298 vs 13659, up 16.2%). The Core 3 304 counters with a 32.3% win in floating-point math (29722 vs 22465), a 32.9% win in physics (868 vs 653), and a 78.9% win in prime number finding (68 vs 38). The multithread PassMark score favors the Core 3 304, 11625 versus 9455, a 23% lead, showing that its efficiency can overcome the i5-9400F's extra core in mixed workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in platform and design targets. The Intel Core 3 304 is a mobile processor using the Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the Intel Core i5-9400F is a desktop processor using Intel Socket 1151. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, while the i5-9400F has 6 cores and 6 threads, giving the older chip one additional physical core. The Core 3 304 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, while the i5-9400F operates at 2.90 GHz base and 4.10 GHz boost. The thermal design power differs substantially, with the Core 3 304 rated at 15 W and the i5-9400F at 65 W.

Memory support is another major divergence. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the i5-9400F supports DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 3 304 offers PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes, while the i5-9400F offers PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The Core 3 304 includes integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the i5-9400F has no integrated graphics. The Core 3 304 is currently active in production, while the i5-9400F is end-of-life. The Core 3 304 has a launch MSRP of $309, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the i5-9400F.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips is substantial. The Intel Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node, while the Intel Core i5-9400F uses the Coffee Lake architecture on a 14 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the process node difference is significant, with the Core 3 304 being built on a much newer technology.

Cache configurations differ as well. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The i5-9400F has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 9 MB of shared L3 cache. While the i5-9400F has more total L3 cache, the Core 3 304 benefits from a more modern cache hierarchy designed for its lower power envelope.

The Core 3 304 also features a newer memory controller supporting DDR5 and LPDDR5X, which explains its higher memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s despite the single-channel bus. The i5-9400F is limited to DDR4 with dual-channel operation at 42.7 GB/s. The Core 3 304 includes integrated graphics, a feature entirely absent from the i5-9400F, which requires a discrete GPU for any display output.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split recommendation. The Intel Core 3 304 is the better choice for single-threaded performance, encryption, and modern efficiency. Its 55.5% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 192.9% lead in PassMark data encryption make it ideal for workloads that depend on per-core speed, such as web browsing, office productivity, and light development tasks. Its 15 W TDP and integrated graphics also make it suitable for compact mobile systems where power draw and space are constrained.

The Intel Core i5-9400F is the better choice for sustained multi-core rendering and data-heavy operations. Its 34.5% win in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 13.6% lead in data compression indicate that applications which can fully utilize all six cores will benefit from this older chip. The 65 W TDP and desktop socket suggest it is meant for systems with adequate cooling and a discrete GPU, where its lack of integrated graphics is not a limitation.

For users who prioritize responsiveness in everyday tasks and modern instruction sets, the Core 3 304 is the stronger option. For those running long-duration rendering jobs or server-style data processing, the i5-9400F's extra core and larger L3 cache make it the winner. The average benchmark scores reflect this balance, with the Core 3 304 at 13745 and the i5-9400F at 13041, both sitting at the 68th percentile among all CPUs. The Core 3 304 edges ahead in overall average, but the i5-9400F remains competitive in specific multi-threaded scenarios.