Intel Core 3 304 vs Intel Xeon 6756E Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 6756E and Intel Core 3 304 split their 17 recorded benchmark head-to-heads, with the Core 3 304 taking 10 wins and the Xeon taking 7. That split is deceptive, because the two chips are built for entirely different workloads and the wins are not distributed evenly.

The Xeon 6756E is the decisive winner in heavy parallel workloads. Its largest margins come in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it beats the Core 3 304 by 84.8%, and in PassMark find prime numbers, where it leads by 95.6%. It also wins by 68.5% in PassMark physics, by 25% in integer math, by 16% in random string sorting, and by 15.4% in Cinebench R15 multi-core. The data compression test goes to the Xeon as well, with a 7.6% edge. These are the workloads that scale with core count and shared cache, and the Xeon has both in abundance.

The Core 3 304, by contrast, dominates single-threaded and latency-sensitive tests. Its biggest win is PassMark single-thread, where it beats the Xeon by 54.5%. It also leads by 47.7% in Cinebench R15 single-core, by 31.9% in extended instructions, by 24.5% in floating point math, and by 22.2% in Cinebench R23 single-core. The smaller margins are still wins: 1.9% in Cinebench R20 single-core, 1.8% in Cinebench R20 multi-core, 1.5% in PassMark multithread, and 1.1% in data encryption.

The interpretation is clear. If the workload is heavily parallel, scales with many cores, or involves integer math and physics simulation, the Xeon 6756E is the stronger part. If the workload is single-threaded, branchy, or dependent on floating point and extended instruction throughput, the Core 3 304 wins. The average benchmark scores are close, 14163 for the Xeon versus 13745 for the Core 3 304, but that average hides the polar opposite strengths of each processor.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are separated by more than just performance class; they are fundamentally different designs from Intel.

The Xeon 6756E is built on Sierra Forest architecture, Intel's efficiency-core server design, on a 5 nm process. It has 128 cores and 128 threads, with a base clock of 1.80 GHz and a boost clock of 2.60 GHz. The thermal design power is 225 W. The die is 578 mm², and the cache hierarchy is unusual: 96 KB of L1 per core, 4 MB of L2 per module, and a shared 96 MB of L3 cache. The memory subsystem is eight-channel DDR5 with a bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s, and ECC memory is supported. It uses Intel Socket 4710 and provides PCIe Gen 5 with 88 lanes from the CPU. There is no integrated graphics. The launch MSRP is $8428.

The Core 3 304 is a Wildcat Lake mobile part, built on a 3 nm process. It has 5 cores and 5 threads, with a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The thermal design power is just 15 W. The cache is much smaller: 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. Memory support is single-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X, with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, and ECC is not supported. It uses Intel BGA 1516 and provides PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU. It includes integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The launch MSRP is $309.

The core count difference is the headline. The Xeon has 128 cores versus 5 for the Core 3 304, a 25.6x difference in core count. But the Core 3 304 has a 65% higher boost clock, 4.30 GHz versus 2.60 GHz. The process node difference is significant as well, 3 nm for the mobile chip versus 5 nm for the server chip. The Xeon's shared L3 is 16x larger, 96 MB versus 6 MB, which explains its strong performance in parallel workloads that reuse data.

The memory bandwidth gap is enormous: 409.6 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s, a 6.9x difference. That feeds the Xeon's many cores. The Core 3 304 compensates with a much higher boost clock and a newer process, which explains its single-thread advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single margin in the entire comparison is the PassMark find prime numbers test. The Xeon 6756E scores 133 against 68 for the Core 3 304, a 95.6% advantage. This is a workload that stresses integer throughput and scales with core count, and the Xeon's 128 cores overwhelm the Core 3 304's 5.

The second-largest margin is Cinebench R23 multi-core. The Xeon scores 9728 against 5263, a 84.8% lead. This is the modern standard for multi-threaded rendering performance, and the result is decisive. The Xeon also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 15.4%, scoring 980 against 849.

The PassMark physics test goes to the Xeon by 68.5%, 1463 against 868. This test simulates physics interactions and benefits from many cores. Integer math also favors the Xeon, 30806 against 24640, a 25% lead. Random string sorting goes to the Xeon by 16%, 15847 against 13659.

The Core 3 304's biggest win is PassMark single-thread, where it scores 3614 against 1646, a 54.5% advantage. That is the same margin in both the single_thread and singlethread entries, confirming the result is consistent. Cinebench R15 single-core goes to the Core 3 304 by 47.7%, 264 against 138. Extended instructions favor the Core 3 304 by 31.9%, 9686 against 6596. Floating point math favors the Core 3 304 by 24.5%, 29722 against 22451.

The closer results show where the Core 3 304's high clock speed compensates for its low core count. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Core 3 304 wins by a narrow 1.8%, 4160 against 4085. In PassMark multithread, it wins by 1.5%, 11625 against 11445. In data encryption, it wins by 1.1%, 8501 against 8409. The Core 3 304 also wins Cinebench R20 single-core by 1.9%, 587 against 576, and Cinebench R23 single-core by 22.2%, 1765 against 1373.

The Xeon wins data compression by 7.6%, 123443 against 114775. That is a notable result because data compression is often considered a memory-bandwidth and cache-sensitive workload, and the Xeon's 96 MB L3 and eight-channel memory provide the needed resources.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon 6756E has 128 cores and 128 threads. The Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads.

Q: Why does the Core 3 304 win single-threaded benchmarks despite having far fewer cores?

A: The Core 3 304 has a boost clock of 4.30 GHz versus 2.60 GHz for the Xeon, and it is built on a 3 nm process versus 5 nm for the Xeon. That higher clock speed and newer process give it a 54.5% lead in PassMark single-thread and a 47.7% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon 6756E supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 3 304 does not support ECC.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Intel Xeon 6756E has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Xeon 6756E has eight-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s. The Core 3 304 has single-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. That is a 6.9x difference in favor of the Xeon.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Xeon 6756E has 96 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 3 304 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon's L3 is 16x larger.

The Verdict

The data points to two distinct buying decisions, and neither is a compromise.

The Intel Xeon 6756E is for server and workstation deployments where parallel throughput is the priority. It wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 84.8%, PassMark physics by 68.5%, and integer math by 25%. Its 128 cores, 96 MB of shared L3, and 409.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth are the reasons. The benchmark results show it is 95.6% ahead in prime number finding, which is a classic many-core workload. If the workload is rendering, physics simulation, data compression, or any task that can use dozens of threads, the Xeon is the correct choice. Its average benchmark score of 14163 places it in the 68th percentile of all CPUs, with nearest rivals including the Intel Core i5-10400F at 14185 and the AMD EPYC 7552 at 14115.

The Intel Core 3 304 is for mobile systems where single-thread responsiveness and power efficiency matter. It wins PassMark single-thread by 54.5%, extended instructions by 31.9%, and floating point math by 24.5%. Its 4.30 GHz boost clock and 3 nm process deliver those results at a 15 W TDP. It also includes integrated graphics, which the Xeon lacks. The Core 3 304's average benchmark score of 13745 also places it in the 68th percentile, with nearest rivals including the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX at 13786 and the Intel Core i7-8750H at 13868.

The close average scores, 14163 versus 13745, might suggest these chips are comparable. They are not. They are polar opposites optimized for different ends of the computing spectrum. The Xeon wins 7 benchmarks, mostly multi-core and integer-heavy. The Core 3 304 wins 10 benchmarks, mostly single-thread and floating-point-heavy. Choose based on the workload, not the average. The Xeon for the server room, the Core 3 304 for the laptop.