Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Processor N150 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along performance tiers. The Intel Core 3 304 wins every recorded head-to-head comparison, with all four shared tests favoring it by substantial margins. The Intel Processor N150 does not win a single benchmark in the comparison set, so the use-case split is defined by the magnitude of the deficit rather than by any category where the N150 takes the lead.

The Core 3 304 sits in the 68th percentile of all CPUs in the database, placing it near the midpoint of the upper half of recorded processors. Its average benchmark score is 13,745. The nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX at 13,786, a 0.3% gap, and the Intel Core i7-8750H at 13,868, a 0.9% gap. The Core 5 120UL trails by 1.1% at 13,594, and the AMD EPYC 7443 leads by 1.4% at 13,936. These deltas are all within a narrow band, meaning the Core 3 304 slots into a competitive cluster of desktop-class and workstation-class parts despite its mobile market segment.

The N150 lands in the 28th percentile, a position that places it below the majority of recorded CPUs. Its average benchmark score is 1,025. Its nearest rivals are all older or lower-tier parts: the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T at 1,024 (0.1% ahead), the Intel Core i3-4340 at 1,026 (0.1% behind), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U at 1,024 (0.1% ahead), and the Intel Core i7-5650U at 1,027 (0.2% behind). The N150 is therefore grouped with parts from a much earlier era, and its performance class is defined by efficiency-focused mobile computing rather than sustained throughput.

For single-threaded work, the Core 3 304 holds a decisive edge. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 1,765 against 935 for the N150, a 88.8% lead. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the margin is 264 versus 153.15, a 72.4% lead. The PassMark single-thread score for the Core 3 304 is 3,614, which aligns with its strong boost clock behavior. The N150 has no PassMark single-thread record in the database, so its single-core standing must be inferred from the Cinebench results alone.

For multi-threaded workloads, the Core 3 304 extends its advantage further. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 5,263 versus 2,590.5, a 103.2% lead. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 849 versus 422.5, a 100.9% lead. The doubling of performance in both multi-core tests indicates that the Core 3 304 is not just faster per thread; it also scales better across its five cores compared to the N150's four cores. The PassMark multi-thread score of 11,625 for the Core 3 304 reinforces this, though no comparable N150 figure exists in the data.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. The Core 3 304 is the part for workloads that need responsiveness, compile times, rendering, or any task where single-core and multi-core throughput both matter. The N150 is the part for minimal-power operation where the workload is light and the performance ceiling is acceptable.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design generations and use different manufacturing approaches. The Core 3 304 is built on a 3 nm process at Intel, with the codename Wildcat Lake and the generation label "Core 3 (Wildcat Lake)". The N150 uses a 10 nm process, also at Intel, with the codename Twin Lake and the generation label "Intel Processor (Alder Lake-N)". The process node difference is substantial and explains much of the performance and efficiency gap.

Core counts differ by one. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, so it does not use simultaneous multithreading. The N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads, also without SMT. The Core 3 304 gains its multi-core advantage from a combination of one extra core and a much higher clock ceiling.

Clock speeds are far apart. The Core 3 304 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The N150 has a base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The base clock difference is extreme, though the N150's low base figure is typical for a part designed to idle aggressively and boost briefly. The boost clocks show a 0.70 GHz gap in favor of the Core 3 304.

Cache hierarchies differ in structure. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The N150 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. Both share the same L3 capacity, but the L1 and L2 arrangements are organized differently. The Core 3 304 presents its L1 as a single aggregate figure, while the N150 lists per-core L1 and shared L2.

Memory support differs. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The N150 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, also on a single-channel bus, with 38.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Core 3 304 offers roughly 55% more memory bandwidth on paper. Neither part supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs. The Core 3 304 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The N150 uses Gen 3 with 9 CPU lanes. The Core 3 304 has a newer PCIe generation but fewer lanes; the N150 has more lanes but an older generation.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The N150 uses UHD Graphics 730. No graphics benchmarks are recorded in the database, so the comparison must stop at the architectural naming.

The sockets are incompatible. The Core 3 304 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the N150 uses Intel BGA 1264. Thermal design power differs sharply: the Core 3 304 is rated at 15 W, and the N150 is rated at 6 W. The N150's lower TDP aligns with its role in fanless or low-power designs.

Release dates are separated by roughly a year and a half. The N150 launched on 2024-11-19, and the Core 3 304 launched on 2026-04-15. The Core 3 304 carries a launch MSRP of $309; the N150 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The shared benchmark set between the two parts contains four Cinebench tests. Every one goes to the Core 3 304, and the margins are consistent enough to describe a clear performance hierarchy.

Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the largest percentage gap. The Core 3 304 scores 5,263, and the N150 scores 2,590.5, a 103.2% advantage. This is the single biggest win in the comparison. The Core 3 304 more than doubles the N150's multi-threaded rendering score, which indicates that the combination of the 5th core, the higher boost clock, and the newer process node all contribute meaningfully.

Cinebench R15 multi-core follows the same pattern. The Core 3 304 scores 849, and the N150 scores 422.5, a 100.9% lead. The near-identical percentage across two different Cinebench versions strengthens the conclusion that the multi-core gap is stable and not an artifact of a single test version.

Cinebench R23 single-core shows an 88.8% lead. The Core 3 304 scores 1,765, and the N150 scores 935. This is a slightly smaller margin than the multi-core tests, but it is still a near-doubling of single-threaded performance. The higher boost clock of 4.30 GHz against 3.60 GHz, combined with the architectural improvements of the newer core design, explains the gap.

Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 72.4% lead. The Core 3 304 scores 264, and the N150 scores 153.15. This is the smallest percentage gap in the set, but it still represents a dominant win. The single-core margin is smaller in the older Cinebench version, which may reflect the different workload characteristics of the R15 renderer.

The Core 3 304 also has a large set of PassMark scores that the N150 lacks entirely. The data compression score is 114,775, data encryption is 8,501, extended instructions is 9,686, find prime numbers is 68, floating point math is 29,722, integer math is 24,640, multi-thread is 11,625, physics is 868, random string sorting is 13,659, and single-thread is 3,614. These figures cannot be compared directly to the N150 because no corresponding N150 records exist, but they place the Core 3 304 well above the performance class where the N150's nearest rivals sit.

The delta pattern is monotonic: the Core 3 304 wins every shared test, and the smallest win is 72.4%. No test in the database shows the N150 ahead. The performance hierarchy is unambiguous.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core 3 304 wins both single-core Cinebench tests. It scores 1,765 in R23 single-core versus 935 for the N150, an 88.8% lead, and 264 in R15 single-core versus 153.15, a 72.4% lead.

Q: How much faster is the Core 3 304 in multi-core workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 3 304 scores 5,263 against 2,590.5 for the N150, a 103.2% advantage. In R15 multi-core, it scores 849 against 422.5, a 100.9% advantage.

Q: Do the two processors use the same socket?

A: No. The Core 3 304 uses Intel BGA 1516, and the N150 uses Intel BGA 1264. They are not interchangeable.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each part?

A: The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Neither part supports simultaneous multithreading.

Q: How do their memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s on a single-channel bus. The N150 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 with 38.4 GB/s on a single-channel bus.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Core 3 304 is rated at 15 W. The N150 is rated at 6 W, making it the lower-power part by a 9 W margin.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every specification field in the database.

| Specification | Intel Core 3 304 | Intel Processor N150 |

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

| Cores | 5 | 4 |

| Threads | 5 | 4 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 0.10 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.30 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 6 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 1264 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Twin Lake |

| Generation | Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) | Intel Processor (Alder Lake-N) |

| Process node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| L1 cache | 192 KB | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 2.5 MB | 2 MB (shared) |

| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 lanes | Gen 3, 9 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Release date | 2026-04-15 | 2024-11-19 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | None recorded |

| Part number | SAE3K | SRPNR |

Fields not listed above are identical or absent in both records: both have no series designation, both are manufactured by Intel, both use Intel as the foundry, neither has recorded transistor counts or die sizes, neither supports ECC memory, neither has an unlocked multiplier, and both target the mobile market segment with active production status.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear separation in purpose. The Intel Core 3 304 is the higher-performing part by every measured metric. It wins all four shared Cinebench tests with margins from 72.4% to 103.2%, sits in the 68th percentile of all CPUs, and carries an average benchmark score of 13,745. Its nearest rivals in the database are workstation-class and desktop-class parts like the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and the Intel Core i7-8750H, with deltas under 1.5%. Buyers choosing this part are selecting for throughput, responsiveness, and modern platform features: Gen 4 PCIe, DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, and a 3 nm process.

The Intel Processor N150 occupies a different position. Its 28th percentile ranking and average score of 1,025 place it alongside much older parts such as the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T and Intel Core i3-4340. Its 6 W TDP is the defining characteristic, not its performance. It supports an older PCIe generation, a wider range of memory types including DDR4, and a much lower boost clock. The data shows that the N150 is not competitive with the Core 3 304 in any benchmark category, but it also shows that the N150 was never designed to be. The 9 W TDP gap and the 0.10 GHz base clock indicate a part built for minimal power draw and light workloads.

The choice between the two comes down to which constraint matters more. For workloads where performance is the priority, the Core 3 304 is the only option supported by the data. For workloads where power draw is the priority and the performance ceiling is acceptable, the N150 is the lower-power part. The Core 3 304 does not win on efficiency, and the N150 does not win on speed. The benchmark results confirm that split without exception.