AMD EPYC 7402P vs Intel Core 3 N350 Comparison

The Intel Core 3 N350 and AMD EPYC 7402P occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, and benchmark data confirms a complete mismatch in performance. The EPYC 7402P wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, often by margins exceeding 80%, making it the unequivocal choice for heavy multi-threaded workloads. The Core 3 N350, with its 7 W TDP and mobile focus, is not a competitor in raw compute but serves a fundamentally different purpose.

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD EPYC 7402P compare to the Intel Core 3 N350 in multi-core performance?

A: The EPYC 7402P is dramatically faster. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 37195 versus the N350's 6274, a delta of 83.1%. Similar margins appear in Cinebench R15 (3749 vs 632) and R20 (15621 vs 2635).

Q: Is the Intel Core 3 N350 competitive in single-core performance?

A: No. The EPYC 7402P leads by 83.2% in Cinebench R15 single-core (529 vs 89) and by 83.1% in R23 single-core (5251 vs 885). The N350's 3.90 GHz boost clock does not overcome the EPYC's architectural advantage.

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

A: The Intel Core 3 N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads. The AMD EPYC 7402P has 24 cores and 48 threads, offering three times the cores and six times the threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7402P supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 3 N350 does not. This makes the EPYC suitable for servers and workstations where data integrity is critical.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 7402P provides 204.8 GB/s over an eight-channel DDR4 bus. The N350 offers 38.4 GB/s over a single-channel bus, a 5.3x bandwidth advantage for the EPYC.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core 3 N350 has an average benchmark score of 9903, ranking in the 66th percentile. The AMD EPYC 7402P averages 9529, ranking in the 65th percentile. Despite the EPYC's dominance in multi-core tests, the N350's overall average is slightly higher.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clear split: the AMD EPYC 7402P wins every multi-threaded and single-threaded benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. It is the superior processor for rendering, scientific computing, virtualization, and any workload that scales with core count. Its 24 cores and 48 threads, combined with 128 MB of L3 cache, deliver massive throughput in Cinebench tests. For example, its R23 multi-core score of 37195 is nearly six times the N350's 6274.

The Intel Core 3 N350 has no benchmark wins in this comparison. However, its 7 W TDP and integrated UHD Graphics 770 make it suitable for low-power mobile devices, fanless designs, and basic productivity tasks. Its average benchmark score of 9903, which is 3.9% higher than the EPYC's 9529, suggests that in a broader benchmark suite, the N350's efficiency-oriented design can hold its own in lighter workloads. The N350's 66th percentile ranking versus the EPYC's 65th confirms this narrow overall advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design philosophies. The Intel Core 3 N350 is built on the Twin Lake architecture, part of the Alder Lake-N generation, using Intel's 10 nm process. It features 8 cores with 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. Its base clock is listed at 0.10 GHz with a boost clock of 3.90 GHz, a configuration typical of low-power mobile parts.

The AMD EPYC 7402P uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, on TSMC's 7 nm process. It has 24 cores with 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and a massive 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's base clock is 2.80 GHz with a boost of 3.35 GHz. It contains 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. The EPYC is built for server density, with ECC memory support and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, while the N350 has no ECC and only 9 PCIe Gen 3 lanes.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights the key specification differences between the two processors:

| Specification | Intel Core 3 N350 | AMD EPYC 7402P |

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

| Cores | 8 | 24 |

| Threads | 8 | 48 |

| Base Clock | 0.10 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.90 GHz | 3.35 GHz |

| TDP | 7 W | 180 W |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 7 nm |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (shared) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 128 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 9 Lanes | Gen 4, 128 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | None |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1264 | AMD Socket SP3 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are one-sided. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7402P scores 3749 against the N350's 632, a 83.1% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a similar gap: 529 versus 89, an 83.2% lead for the EPYC. These margins persist across all Cinebench versions.

Cinebench R20 multi-core sees the EPYC at 15621 and the N350 at 2635, again an 83.1% delta. The R20 single-core result is 2205 versus 371, an 83.2% difference. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC's 37195 dwarfs the N350's 6274, with the same 83.1% gap. The R23 single-core test shows 5251 versus 885, an 83.1% margin.

The consistency of these deltas—all between 83.1% and 83.2%—indicates that the performance gap is structural, not workload-specific. The EPYC's advantage comes from its 3x core count, 6x thread count, and 21.3x larger L3 cache. The N350's higher boost clock of 3.90 GHz versus 3.35 GHz cannot compensate for these fundamental resource differences.

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 7402P is the clear performance winner. It dominates every benchmark test, with multi-core scores nearly six times higher than the Intel Core 3 N350. For server workloads, virtualization, and content creation, the EPYC's 24 cores, 48 threads, and 128 MB of L3 cache deliver unmatched throughput. Its ECC memory support and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes make it a proper server platform, despite its 180 W TDP.

The Intel Core 3 N350, however, has its own place. With a 7 W TDP and integrated UHD Graphics 770, it targets fanless mobile devices and low-power embedded systems. Its average benchmark score of 9903, slightly above the EPYC's 9529, reflects efficiency in lighter tasks. The N350's 66th percentile ranking versus the EPYC's 65th is a statistical tie, but the workloads they serve are entirely different.

Users needing raw compute should choose the EPYC 7402P without hesitation. Its Cinebench scores are in a different class. Users prioritizing power efficiency and basic graphics in a mobile form factor should consider the N350, but they must accept that it will lose every multi-threaded benchmark to the EPYC by over 80%. The data is unambiguous: the EPYC 7402P is the performance king, while the N350 is the efficiency specialist.