Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Processor N250 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core 3 304 and Intel Processor N250 occupy different tiers of Intel's mobile lineup, and the recorded data shows a decisive performance gap. The Core 3 304 delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 5263, while the N250 has no benchmark entries in the database for any Cinebench test, PassMark test, or other workload. This absence of recorded scores means the comparison is one-sided: every measurable result belongs to the Core 3 304.

In single-threaded workloads, the Core 3 304 posts a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1765, a Cinebench R20 single-core score of 587, and a Cinebench R15 single-core score of 264. The PassMark single-thread score is 3614. These results indicate strong per-core performance for a 5-core, 5-thread processor with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The N250, with its 4 cores and 4 threads, reaches a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, but no benchmark data exists to confirm how that translates into actual workload performance.

Multi-threaded results for the Core 3 304 are equally comprehensive. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 5263, R20 multi-core score of 4160, and R15 multi-core score of 849 all point to a processor capable of sustained all-core workloads. PassMark multi-thread score of 11625, integer math score of 24640, floating point math score of 29722, and data compression score of 114775 further reinforce this. The N250 has no such scores recorded, making any direct numerical comparison impossible.

The Core 3 304 also shows strength in specialized PassMark tests: extended instructions score of 9686, random string sorting score of 13659, data encryption score of 8501, physics score of 868, and find prime numbers score of 68. Each of these represents a specific workload type, and all favor the Core 3 304 by default since the N250 has no recorded results.

The database places the Core 3 304 at the 68th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13745. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX with an average score of 13786 (0.3% higher), the Intel Core i7-8750H at 13868 (0.9% higher), and the AMD EPYC 7443 at 13936 (1.4% higher). The Intel Core 5 120UL scores 13594, which is 1.1% lower than the Core 3 304. These margins are narrow, suggesting the Core 3 304 sits in a competitive performance band. The N250, by contrast, sits at the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of zero, indicating no measured data points.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The Intel Processor N250 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds?

A: The Core 3 304 boosts to 4.30 GHz. The N250 boosts to 3.80 GHz.

Q: Which processor has a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The Core 3 304 uses a 3 nm process node. The N250 uses a 10 nm process node.

Q: How do the processors compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The N250 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s.

Q: What integrated graphics do they use?

A: The Core 3 304 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe. The N250 uses UHD Graphics 730.

Q: Are there any benchmark scores for the N250?

A: No. The database contains no benchmark entries for the Intel Processor N250 in any test, including Cinebench and PassMark suites.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from distinct Intel design families. The Core 3 304 is built on the Wildcat Lake codename with a 3 nm process node, manufactured by Intel. The N250 uses the Twin Lake architecture, which the database lists as a 10 nm process node, also manufactured by Intel. The generation field for the Core 3 304 reads "Core 3 (Wildcat Lake)", while the N250 is listed as "Intel Processor (Alder Lake-N)". This places the N250 in an older design lineage despite its 2025 release date, while the Core 3 304 belongs to a newer family with a later 2026 release date.

Cache layouts differ significantly. The Core 3 304 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The N250 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L1 allocation on the N250 matches a typical small-core design, while the Core 3 304's larger L1 and L2 capacities suggest a more robust memory hierarchy for single-thread performance.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The N250 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 with a single-channel bus and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 3 304 offers higher bandwidth but drops DDR4 compatibility. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core 3 304 uses Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the N250 uses Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). Neither supports ECC memory.

Socket configurations are incompatible. The Core 3 304 uses Intel BGA 1516, and the N250 uses Intel BGA 1264. Both are mobile-market parts. The Core 3 304 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the N250 has a TDP of 6 watts. The N250's lower TDP points to a more power-constrained design, suitable for fanless or ultra-low-power systems, whereas the Core 3 304 has more thermal headroom for sustained workloads.

The Core 3 304 has a launch MSRP of $309. The N250 has no launch MSRP recorded in the database. Both processors are marked as active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these two processors into different performance classes. The Core 3 304 delivers measurable results across every benchmark in the database, with a 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs and an average benchmark score of 13745. Its nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and Intel Core i7-8750H, are within roughly 1% of its average score, indicating that the Core 3 304 performs at a level comparable to older high-end desktop and mobile parts. The N250, with no benchmark scores and a 50th percentile ranking, has no recorded evidence of competitive performance.

For workloads that depend on single-thread speed, the Core 3 304's boost clock of 4.30 GHz and PassMark single-thread score of 3614 provide a strong foundation. For multi-threaded tasks, its 5 cores and 5 threads, combined with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 5263, show capable scaling. The N250's 4 cores and 4 threads at a 3.80 GHz boost clock lack any recorded performance validation.

The N250's advantages are limited to power efficiency and platform simplicity. Its 6-watt TDP is notably lower than the Core 3 304's 15-watt TDP, and it supports older DDR4 memory alongside DDR5 and LPDDR5. The Core 3 304 requires newer DDR5 or LPDDR5X memory and has a higher power envelope. For systems where absolute performance is the priority, the Core 3 304 is the only choice with data to support it. For ultra-low-power designs where minimal heat and power draw matter more than raw throughput, the N250 has a clear specification-level appeal, though its actual performance remains unmeasured.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 304 | Intel Processor N250 |

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

| Cores | 5 | 4 |

| Threads | 5 | 4 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 0.10 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.30 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 6 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 1264 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Twin Lake |

| 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 | 2025-01-06 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | None recorded |

| Part number | SAE3K | SRPNS |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 3 304 wins in every measured performance category. Cinebench R23 multi-core at 5263, R20 multi-core at 4160, and R15 multi-core at 849 show consistent strength in rendering and CPU-bound tasks. PassMark integer math at 24640 and floating point math at 29722 indicate solid computational throughput for scientific or financial workloads. Data compression at 114775 and data encryption at 8501 suggest the Core 3 304 handles file archiving and security tasks effectively. Single-thread results, including Cinebench R23 single-core at 1765 and PassMark single-thread at 3614, make it suitable for applications that rely on per-core responsiveness, such as web browsing, office productivity, and light coding.

The Intel Processor N250 wins in power efficiency. Its 6-watt TDP is less than half of the Core 3 304's 15-watt TDP, making it the better fit for passively cooled systems, battery-sensitive portable devices, or embedded applications where heat dissipation is a challenge. Its support for DDR4 memory also provides compatibility with older, more common memory modules. The N250's Gen 3 PCIe with 9 lanes offers more lane count than the Core 3 304's Gen 4 with 6 lanes, which could matter for systems needing additional low-speed expansion options despite the older standard.

The Core 3 304 also wins on memory bandwidth, delivering 59.7 GB/s versus the N250's 38.4 GB/s. This benefits memory-intensive workloads such as virtual machines, large database queries, or high-resolution photo editing. The N250's lower bandwidth and older architecture place it in a more modest role. For users building a small, quiet, low-power system, the N250's specification profile is attractive, but the absence of any benchmark scores means its actual performance cannot be verified from the database. The Core 3 304, by contrast, has a full suite of results that place it near established mid-range processors from both Intel and AMD.