CPU Comparison

The Intel Core 3 304 and Intel Xeon 6756E represent two opposite poles of Intel’s current lineup: a 5-core mobile part built on a 3 nm process versus a 128-core server behemoth on 5 nm. Benchmark results show a clear split, with the Core 3 304 dominating single-threaded and latency-sensitive workloads, while the Xeon 6756E takes the lead in raw parallel throughput and memory-bandwidth-heavy tasks. The data reveals 10 benchmark wins for the Core 3 304 and 7 for the Xeon 6756E, but the magnitude of those wins tells a more nuanced story than the simple win count suggests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic disparity appears in single-threaded performance. In PassMark single-thread, the Core 3 304 scores 3614 against the Xeon's 1646, a 119.6% advantage. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a similar trend: 264 versus 138, a 91.3% lead for the Core 3 304. Even in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the gap narrows, the Core 3 304 still wins by 28.6% (1765 vs 1373). These results indicate that the Wildcat Lake architecture’s high boost clock of 4.30 GHz provides a massive per-thread advantage over the Xeon’s 2.60 GHz ceiling.

The Xeon 6756E fights back in multi-threaded workloads, but not always decisively. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Xeon wins big: 9728 versus 5263, a 45.9% margin. That is the largest multi-core victory for the server chip. However, in Cinebench R20 multicore, the Core 3 304 actually edges ahead by 1.8% (4160 vs 4085), and in Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon wins by 13.4% (980 vs 849). The inconsistency suggests that the Xeon’s 128 cores are not always fully utilized in these tests, likely due to scaling limits in the benchmark itself.

PassMark results further illustrate the split. The Xeon wins integer math by 20% (30806 vs 24640), prime number finding by 48.9% (133 vs 68), and physics by 40.7% (1463 vs 868). It also leads in data compression by 7% (123443 vs 114775) and random string sorting by 13.8% (15847 vs 13659). Conversely, the Core 3 304 wins floating-point math by 32.4% (29722 vs 22451), extended instructions by 46.8% (9686 vs 6596), and data encryption by 1.1% (8501 vs 8409). The Core 3 304 also narrowly takes PassMark multithread by 1.6% (11625 vs 11445), despite having 123 fewer cores.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context helps position both chips. The Core 3 304’s average benchmark score of 13745 sits just 0.3% below the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and 0.9% below the Intel Core i7-8750H. The Xeon 6756E, with an average score of 14163, is 0.2% below the Intel Core i5-10400F and 0.3% above the AMD EPYC 7552. Both chips land in the 68th percentile of all CPUs, meaning their overall averages are similar, but the distribution of scores is wildly different.

Architecture Differences

The Core 3 304 is built on Intel’s 3 nm process and uses the Wildcat Lake codename, while the Xeon 6756E uses the older 5 nm node with the Sierra Forest architecture. The Core 3 304 packs 5 cores and 5 threads, with a base clock of 1.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Xeon 6756E offers 128 cores and 128 threads, running at a 1.80 GHz base and 2.60 GHz boost. This is a fundamental design divergence: the mobile chip prioritizes high frequency and low latency, while the server chip prioritizes sheer core count and parallel throughput.

Cache hierarchies differ dramatically. The Core 3 304 has a 192 KB L1 cache, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Xeon 6756E has a per-core L1 of 96 KB, a per-module L2 of 4 MB, and a massive 96 MB of shared L3. The Xeon’s die size is 578 mm², while the Core 3 304’s die size is not listed. The Xeon’s 96 MB L3 cache is 16 times larger than the Core 3’s 6 MB, which explains its advantage in data-heavy workloads like compression and sorting.

Memory support is another major divergence. The Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus, yielding 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Xeon 6756E supports only DDR5, but across an eight-channel bus, delivering 409.6 GB/s, nearly 7 times the bandwidth. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, while the Core 3 304 does not. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core 3 304 has Gen 4 with 6 lanes, while the Xeon 6756E offers Gen 5 with 88 lanes.

Integrated graphics are present only on the Core 3 304, featuring Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. The Xeon 6756E has no integrated graphics at all. Power envelopes are equally contrasting: the Core 3 304 has a 15 W TDP, while the Xeon 6756E draws 225 W. The Core 3 304 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket, whereas the Xeon 6756E uses Intel Socket 4710.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core 3 304 is decisively faster in single-threaded tests. It leads by 91.3% in Cinebench R15 single-core (264 vs 138), by 28.6% in Cinebench R23 single-core (1765 vs 1373), and by 119.6% in PassMark single-thread (3614 vs 1646).

Q: Does the Xeon 6756E always win multi-threaded benchmarks?

A: No. While the Xeon wins Cinebench R15 multicore by 13.4% (980 vs 849) and Cinebench R23 multicore by 45.9% (9728 vs 5263), the Core 3 304 actually wins Cinebench R20 multicore by 1.8% (4160 vs 4085) and PassMark multithread by 1.6% (11625 vs 11445).

Q: Which chip has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Xeon 6756E has far superior memory bandwidth at 409.6 GB/s, thanks to its eight-channel memory bus. The Core 3 304 offers only 59.7 GB/s via a single-channel bus.

Q: What is the core count difference?

A: The Xeon 6756E has 128 cores and 128 threads, while the Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The Xeon also has a much larger shared L3 cache at 96 MB versus the Core 3’s 6 MB.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Xeon 6756E supports ECC memory, while the Core 3 304 does not. The Core 3 304 instead includes integrated graphics (Intel Xe3), which the Xeon lacks.

Q: How do their overall benchmark averages compare?

A: The Xeon 6756E has a higher average benchmark score of 14163, compared to 13745 for the Core 3 304. Both chips fall in the 68th percentile of all CPUs, with the Xeon’s nearest rival being the Intel Core i5-10400F at a 0.2% delta.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, while the Xeon 6756E has 128 cores and 128 threads. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz versus 1.80 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.30 GHz versus 2.60 GHz. TDP is 15 W for the Core 3 304 and 225 W for the Xeon 6756E.

Process node distinguishes them: the Core 3 304 uses 3 nm, while the Xeon 6756E uses 5 nm. The Xeon’s die size is 578 mm², which is listed only for that chip. Cache configurations differ: the Core 3 304 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB L3; the Xeon 6756E has 96 KB L1 per core, 4 MB L2 per module, and 96 MB L3.

Memory support separates them further: the Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon 6756E supports only DDR5 but with eight channels and 409.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the Xeon. PCIe lanes differ: Gen 4 with 6 lanes on the Core 3 304 versus Gen 5 with 88 lanes on the Xeon. Integrated graphics exist only on the Core 3 304 (Intel Xe3 Graphics). Sockets are BGA 1516 for the Core 3 304 and Socket 4710 for the Xeon 6756E.

The release dates are far apart: the Xeon 6756E launched on 2024-06-02, while the Core 3 304 launched on 2026-04-15. The Core 3 304 has a launch MSRP of $309, while the Xeon 6756E has a launch MSRP of $8428. Both processors have locked multipliers and are marked as Active in production.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 3 304 wins in scenarios that demand high single-threaded performance and low latency. Its 119.6% lead in PassMark single-thread and 91.3% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core make it the clear choice for lightly-threaded applications, such as interactive workloads, front-end web serving, or any task where a single core’s speed is the bottleneck. The 32.4% advantage in floating-point math also points to strength in scientific computing that is not heavily parallelized. Its integrated graphics and low 15 W TDP make it suitable for mobile or embedded systems where power efficiency and visual output matter. The 46.8% win in extended instructions suggests it handles SIMD-heavy code efficiently, likely benefiting from the newer 3 nm process and higher boost clock.

The Intel Xeon 6756E wins where core count and memory bandwidth dominate. Its 45.9% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore, 48.9% lead in prime number finding, and 40.7% lead in physics benchmarks highlight its strength in heavily parallel, compute-intensive workloads like rendering, simulation, and data analysis. The 7% lead in data compression and 13.8% lead in random string sorting indicate strong performance in database and archival tasks, aided by the 96 MB L3 cache and 409.6 GB/s memory bandwidth. The 20% lead in integer math further supports its use in general server workloads, where ECC memory and 88 PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide enterprise-grade reliability and expandability.

The choice between them is straightforward: the Core 3 304 excels at speed per thread and power efficiency, while the Xeon 6756E excels at scale and parallel throughput. For a database server handling many concurrent queries, the Xeon’s compression and sorting wins matter. For a client device running a single demanding application, the Core 3’s single-thread dominance is decisive. The data shows that neither processor is universally superior; their strengths are complementary, defined entirely by the workload’s parallelism and memory demands.