Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Core i9-14900F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a one-sided comparison. The Intel Core i9-14900F wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core 3 304. The largest margin appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the i9-14900F scores 39551 against 5263, a delta of -86.7% for the Core 3 304. This indicates the desktop part delivers roughly 7.5 times the multi-threaded rendering performance in that specific workload.

Single-threaded results are closer but still favor the i9-14900F decisively. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i9-14900F scores 5583 versus 1765, a -68.4% delta. The PassMark single-thread test shows the smallest gap of the entire set: the i9-14900F scores 4506 against 3614, a -19.8% delta. That 892-point difference suggests the Core 3 304's Wildcat Lake architecture has competitive per-core integer performance, but falls short in the Cinebench workloads.

The Cinebench R15 and R20 runs reinforce the pattern. In R15 multi-core, the i9-14900F posts 3986 versus 849 (-78.7%). In R15 single-core, it posts 562 versus 264 (-53%). The R20 multi-core result shows 16611 versus 4160 (-75%), and R20 single-core shows 2344 versus 587 (-75%). The consistency of these deltas across Cinebench versions indicates the i9-14900F holds its advantage across different rendering engine iterations.

PassMark integer math shows the second-largest delta. The i9-14900F scores 177066 against 24640, a -86.1% difference. Data compression follows with 564207 versus 114775 (-79.7%). Random string sorting shows 63728 versus 13659 (-78.6%). These three workloads all involve heavy data manipulation, and the i9-14900F's larger core count and higher cache capacity drive the results.

Data encryption shows 34644 versus 8501 (-75.5%). Floating point math shows 119550 versus 29722 (-75.1%). Extended instructions show 31084 versus 9686 (-68.8%). Physics simulation shows 2899 versus 868 (-70.1%). Prime number finding shows 209 versus 68 (-67.5%). Multi-threaded PassMark shows 46532 versus 11625 (-75%). Across all 17 comparisons, the Core 3 304 records zero wins.

The average benchmark score for the i9-14900F is 60008, placing it at the 92nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 3 304 averages 13745, placing it at the 68th percentile. That percentile gap of 24 points reflects a substantial performance tier difference, not just a marginal edge.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the Intel Core i9-14900F is the clear choice for any workload that benefits from multi-core parallelism. Its 24 cores and 32 threads, combined with 36 MB of shared L3 cache, deliver scores that are multiples of the Core 3 304's output. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 39551 versus 5263 is the most striking example, with the i9-14900F delivering over seven times the performance in that render test.

The Core 3 304, with 5 cores and 5 threads, targets a different segment entirely. Its 68th percentile ranking places it near the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (-0.3% delta) and the Intel Core i7-8750H (-0.9% delta). These are older or lower-tier parts. The i9-14900F sits near the AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (-0.2% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 7 8745HX (-0.2% delta), a much higher performance class.

For a user whose priority is maximum throughput in rendering, compression, encryption, or physics simulation, the i9-14900F is the only rational pick from this data. The Core 3 304 offers no workload where it wins. However, the Core 3 304's single-thread PassMark score of 3614 versus 4506 shows it is not obsolete for lightly threaded tasks; it simply trails by a smaller margin.

The i9-14900F's 92nd percentile ranking versus the Core 3 304's 68th percentile indicates the database places them in different performance strata. The data does not support any scenario where the Core 3 304 outperforms the i9-14900F.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel manufacturing nodes and process technologies. The Core 3 304 uses a 3 nm process node, while the i9-14900F uses a 10 nm node. The Core 3 304 is built on the Wildcat Lake codename, with its generation listed as "Core 3 (Wildcat Lake)". The i9-14900F uses the Raptor Lake-R codename and belongs to the Core 14th Gen series with Raptor Lake architecture.

Core counts differ sharply. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. The i9-14900F has 24 cores and 32 threads, indicating a hybrid design with performance and efficiency cores. The i9-14900F's base clock is 2.00 GHz and boost clock is 5.80 GHz, versus the Core 3 304's 1.50 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost.

Cache configurations are also distinct. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The i9-14900F has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The i9-14900F's die size is 257 mm², while the Core 3 304's die size is not recorded in the database.

Socket and platform differ fundamentally. The Core 3 304 uses Intel BGA 1516, a mobile socket, and its market segment is listed as Mobile. The i9-14900F uses Intel Socket 1700 and is a Desktop part. Memory support also differs: the Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The i9-14900F supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus, and its memory bandwidth is not recorded.

PCIe capabilities differ. The Core 3 304 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The i9-14900F offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are present on the Core 3 304 as Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe), while the i9-14900F has no integrated graphics. ECC memory support is false on the Core 3 304 and true on the i9-14900F.

The i9-14900F is a desktop chip with a 65 TDP and a launch MSRP of $524. The Core 3 304 has a 15 TDP and a launch MSRP of $309. The Core 3 304 released on 2026-04-15, while the i9-14900F released on 2024-01-07. Both parts are currently Active in production.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core i9-14900F wins all single-thread tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core it scores 5583 versus 1765, and in PassMark single-thread it scores 4506 versus 3614.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the i9-14900F scores 39551 and the Core 3 304 scores 5263, a delta of -86.7%. PassMark integer math shows a similar -86.1% delta.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus. The i9-14900F supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Core 3 304 has Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe). The i9-14900F has no integrated graphics.

Q: How do their database percentile rankings compare?

A: The Core 3 304 is at the 68th percentile of all CPUs, while the i9-14900F is at the 92nd percentile.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: Yes, both are listed as Active in production status.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows no benchmark wins for the Core 3 304. Every recorded test, from Cinebench R15 to PassMark data encryption, favors the i9-14900F. This means the Core 3 304 has no demonstrated strength in any measured workload.

The i9-14900F wins across all categories. For multi-threaded rendering, the Cinebench R23 result of 39551 establishes it as a high-end desktop part. For data compression and encryption, the PassMark scores of 564207 and 34644 respectively show strong throughput. For integer and floating point math, the i9-14900F scores 177066 and 119550, both far above the Core 3 304's 24640 and 29722.

The only area where the Core 3 304 comes close is PassMark single-thread, where the delta narrows to -19.8%. This suggests that for a single lightly threaded task, the Core 3 304 is within roughly 20% of the i9-14900F. However, that is still a loss, not a win.

The i9-14900F's dual-channel memory bus, 36 MB of shared L3 cache, and 32 threads give it advantages in any workload that scales with memory bandwidth or thread count. The Core 3 304's single-channel bus and 5 threads limit its potential in those same areas.

For a mobile platform, the Core 3 304's 15 TDP and BGA 1516 socket make it suitable for compact systems. The i9-14900F's 65 TDP and Socket 1700 target desktop builds. The data does not show any performance scenario where the Core 3 304 is preferable.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core 3 304 | Intel Core i9-14900F |

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

| Cores | 5 | 24 |

| Threads | 5 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 5.80 GHz |

| TDP | 15 | 65 |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Raptor Lake-R |

| 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) | 36 MB (shared) |

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

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

| ECC Memory | false | true |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | N/A |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 257 mm² |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2024-01-07 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | $524 |