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

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900HX records an average benchmark score of 56004, while the Intel Core 3 304 averages 13745. The i9-14900HX sits in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Core 3 304 lands in the 68th percentile.

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

A: The biggest delta appears in PassMark integer math, where the Core i9-14900HX scores 157375 versus 24640 for the Core 3 304, a difference of 84.3 percent. The second largest gap is in Cinebench R23 multicore at 82.5 percent.

Q: Is the Core i9-14900HX faster in single-threaded workloads?

A: Yes. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i9-14900HX scores 2181.5 versus 1765 for the Core 3 304. PassMark single-thread shows 4175 against 3614, a 13.4 percent advantage.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core i9-14900HX boosts to 5.80 GHz, while the Core 3 304 reaches 4.30 GHz. The base clocks differ as well: 2.20 GHz for the i9 versus 1.50 GHz for the Core 3.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus. The Core i9-14900HX supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus. ECC memory is supported only on the i9-14900HX.

Q: What do the nearest rivals suggest about each chip's competitive position?

A: The Core 3 304's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX, with a delta of only 0.3 percent. The Core i9-14900HX's closest competitor is the Intel Core 7 253PQE at 0.2 percent delta. Both chips are tightly matched to their immediate peers.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different Intel design approaches. The Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is built on a 3 nm process node, while the Core i9-14900HX uses Raptor Lake-HX architecture on a 10 nm node. This process difference explains the Core 3 304's much lower power footprint.

Core counts diverge sharply. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, all presumably performance-oriented with no hyper-threading. The Core i9-14900HX packs 24 cores and 32 threads, a hybrid arrangement typical of Raptor Lake with both performance and efficiency cores. The thread count difference (32 versus 5) directly drives the multicore benchmark gaps.

Cache hierarchies are entirely different. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core i9-14900HX provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The i9's L3 cache is six times larger, which helps with data-heavy workloads.

Memory interfaces also differ. The Core 3 304 runs single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core i9-14900HX runs dual-channel with no recorded bandwidth figure, but the dual-channel configuration alone suggests substantially higher throughput. The i9 also supports DDR4 in addition to DDR5, while the Core 3 304 only supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

PCIe capabilities separate the two as well. The Core 3 304 offers Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Core i9-14900HX provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, enabling faster expansion devices and more parallel connectivity.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Core i9-14900HX ships with UHD Graphics 770. No direct graphics benchmarks exist in the data, but the architectural generation gap suggests the Xe3 is newer.

The i9-14900HX has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the Core 3 304 is locked. The i9 also has a larger die size at 257 mm², consistent with its higher core count, while the Core 3 304's die size is not recorded.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows a decisive overall winner: the Intel Core i9-14900HX wins all 17 head-to-head tests. The Core 3 304 wins none. For any workload represented in these measurements, the i9-14900HX delivers higher scores.

The Core 3 304 targets a different niche. Its 3 nm process and 15 W TDP indicate a power-efficient design, while the i9-14900HX consumes 55 W. The Core 3 304's 68th percentile ranking places it in the mid-range of all CPUs, while the i9-14900HX at the 91st percentile sits firmly in high-performance territory.

Buyers needing maximum multithreaded throughput should clearly select the Core i9-14900HX. The data shows it leading by 81.4 percent in Cinebench R15 multicore, 73.4 percent in R20 multicore, and 82.5 percent in R23 multicore. The PassMark multithread score shows a 73.4 percent gap as well.

The Core 3 304's advantages are not visible in performance numbers but in efficiency characteristics. Its 3 nm node, lower TDP, and single-channel memory suggest a platform for thin-and-light machines where battery life and thermals matter more than raw throughput. The data cannot quantify these efficiency benefits, but the power envelope difference (15 W versus 55 W) is recorded.

For users with workloads that scale across many threads, such as video encoding, 3D rendering, or large data compression tasks, the i9-14900HX wins by wide margins. For users prioritizing portability and modest performance, the Core 3 304 remains a functional option, though its benchmark scores lag across every measured category.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 304 | Intel Core i9-14900HX |

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

| Cores | 5 | 24 |

| Threads | 5 | 32 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.30 GHz | 5.80 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 55 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 1964 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Raptor Lake-HX |

| Process node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| Die size | Not recorded | 257 mm² |

| 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 |

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | Not recorded |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 lanes | Gen 5, 16 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | UHD Graphics 770 |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | Not recorded |

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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core i9-14900HX dominates every recorded benchmark, but the margin varies considerably by workload type. The smallest gaps appear in single-threaded tests. PassMark single-thread shows 4175 against 3614, a 13.4 percent delta. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 310.5 versus 264, a 15 percent gap. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2181.5 versus 1765, a 19.1 percent gap.

Multithreaded benchmarks reveal the largest separations. Cinebench R23 multicore delivers the second biggest delta at 82.5 percent, with scores of 30055 versus 5263. PassMark integer math shows the largest gap at 84.3 percent, with 157375 against 24640. Cinebench R15 multicore shows an 81.4 percent delta, with 4574 against 849. Cinebench R20 multicore shows a 73.4 percent delta, with 15616 against 4160.

Data-intensive PassMark tests also show large gaps. Data compression scores 539965 for the i9 versus 114775 for the Core 3, a 78.7 percent delta. Random string sorting shows 60861 against 13659, a 77.6 percent delta. Data encryption shows 32619 against 8501, a 73.9 percent gap.

Math-oriented PassMark tests follow the same pattern. Floating point math scores 112273 against 29722, a 73.5 percent delta. Extended instructions score 31247 against 9686, a 69 percent gap. Find prime numbers scores 193 against 68, a 64.8 percent delta. Physics scores 2638 against 868, a 67.1 percent gap.

The Core 3 304's best relative performance appears in single-threaded tests, where the i9's advantage shrinks to around 13 to 19 percent. This suggests that for lightly threaded applications, the Core 3 304's modern 3 nm process partially compensates for its lower clock speed and simpler architecture.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i9-14900HX wins in every measured category, so the discussion of "wins" here refers to the magnitude of advantage and workload suitability.

The i9-14900HX is decisively stronger in heavily parallel workloads. Its 24 cores and 32 threads crush the Core 3 304's 5 cores and 5 threads in all multicore Cinebench tests. R23 multicore shows the i9 delivering 30055 points, which is 5.7 times the Core 3 304's 5263. This makes the i9 the clear choice for rendering, compiling, or any workload that scales with core count.

The i9-14900HX also dominates data processing tasks. Data compression, integer math, and random string sorting all show deltas above 77 percent. The i9's 36 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory bus support these data-heavy workloads far better than the Core 3 304's 6 MB L3 and single-channel memory.

The Core 3 304 shows relative strength only in single-threaded tasks, where its performance deficit shrinks to 13.4 percent in PassMark single-thread. This means for everyday productivity applications that rely on single-core speed, the Core 3 304 is less disadvantaged, though still slower. Its 3 nm process node and 15 W TDP suggest it could be a fit for fanless or low-power designs, where the i9's 55 W TDP would be impractical.

The i9-14900HX also supports ECC memory and an unlocked multiplier, features absent on the Core 3 304. These make the i9 suitable for workstation-class mobile systems where data integrity and overclocking matter. The Core 3 304's PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes is more limited than the i9's Gen 5 with 16 lanes, further reinforcing the i9 as the choice for high-end mobile computing.

For the Core 3 304, the recorded data shows no benchmark category where it leads. Its advantages lie in the unmeasured territory of power consumption, thermal output, and manufacturing efficiency, all inferred from its 3 nm process and 15 W TDP. Users choosing the Core 3 304 would do so for platform characteristics, not performance. Users choosing the i9-14900HX would do so for every performance metric recorded in the database.