AMD EPYC 7502P vs Intel Core 3 N350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a strikingly one-sided comparison. Across every recorded Cinebench test, the AMD EPYC 7502P outperforms the Intel Core 3 N350 by a massive margin. The smallest recorded advantage for the EPYC 7502P is 591.7% in Cinebench R20 multicore, where it scores 18,225 versus 2,635 for the Core 3 N350. The largest advantage appears in single-core tests, where the EPYC 7502P leads by 593.3% in both Cinebench R15 and R20 single-core.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 7502P scores 4,374 against 632 for the Core 3 N350, a delta of 592.1%. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 617 versus 89, a delta of 593.3%. Moving to Cinebench R23, the multicore score for the EPYC 7502P is 43,395, while the Core 3 N350 manages 6,274, a delta of 591.7%. The R23 single-core test shows 6,126 for the EPYC 7502P and 885 for the Core 3 N350, a delta of 592.2%.

The consistency of these deltas, all hovering near 592%, indicates that the performance gap is not workload-dependent within Cinebench. Whether the test stresses a single thread or all available threads, the EPYC 7502P maintains roughly a sixfold advantage. This uniformity suggests a fundamental difference in per-core capability and core count, not a quirk of any particular benchmark.

The Core 3 N350 does have additional PassMark benchmark entries in the database, but the head-to-head comparison only includes Cinebench results. In those six recorded tests, the EPYC 7502P wins all six. The Core 3 N350 records zero wins in this direct comparison.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD EPYC 7502P in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The EPYC 7502P scores 43,395, while the Intel Core 3 N350 scores 6,274. This results in a lead of 591.7% for the EPYC 7502P.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 N350 win any of the head-to-head benchmark tests?

A: No. The database records six head-to-head Cinebench tests, and the EPYC 7502P wins all six. The Core 3 N350 has zero wins.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference in Cinebench R20?

A: The EPYC 7502P scores 2,572, and the Core 3 N350 scores 371. The delta is 593.3% in favor of the EPYC 7502P.

Q: Are these processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Interestingly, both processors have a percentile rank of 66 against all CPUs in the database. However, their average benchmark scores differ: the EPYC 7502P averages 10,512, while the Core 3 N350 averages 9,903.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each processor based on average score?

A: For the EPYC 7502P, the nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 7D12 with an average score of 10,547 and a delta of -0.3%. For the Core 3 N350, the nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-3770 with an average score of 9,706 and a delta of 2%.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 3 N350 has a boost clock of 3.90 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7502P has a boost clock of 3.35 GHz. Despite this, the EPYC 7502P still dominates in all recorded benchmark comparisons.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 7502P is built on the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, and belongs to the EPYC 7002 series. It uses a 7 nm process node manufactured by TSMC, with 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. The Intel Core 3 N350 uses the Twin Lake architecture, also its codename, and is part of the Core 3 generation listed as Alder Lake-N. It uses a 10 nm process node from Intel's own foundry. The process node difference is significant: the EPYC 7502P uses a smaller 7 nm process, which typically allows for higher transistor density and better power efficiency per computation.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The EPYC 7502P offers 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and a large 128 MB shared L3 cache. The Core 3 N350 also has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, but its L2 cache is 2 MB shared, and its L3 cache is only 6 MB shared. The EPYC 7502P's 128 MB L3 cache is vastly larger, which benefits workloads with large working sets that require frequent data reuse.

The EPYC 7502P supports DDR4 memory with an eight-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Core 3 N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory, but uses a single-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. This is a major architectural difference: the EPYC 7502P has over five times the memory bandwidth of the Core 3 N350, which is critical for server workloads that move large amounts of data.

PCIe support also differs. The EPYC 7502P uses PCIe Gen 4, while the Core 3 N350 uses PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes available from the CPU. The EPYC 7502P is designed for server and workstation platforms with a socket type of AMD Socket SP3, while the Core 3 N350 is a mobile part soldered to Intel BGA 1264.

The EPYC 7502P supports ECC memory, while the Core 3 N350 does not. The Core 3 N350 includes integrated graphics, specifically UHD Graphics 770, while the EPYC 7502P has no integrated graphics. The EPYC 7502P's transistor count is explicitly recorded as 3,800 million, while the Core 3 N350's transistor count and die size are not listed in the database.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field. The EPYC 7502P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Core 3 N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads. The base clock of the EPYC 7502P is 2.50 GHz, while the Core 3 N350 has a base clock of 0.10 GHz. The boost clock favors the Core 3 N350 at 3.90 GHz versus 3.35 GHz for the EPYC 7502P.

Thermal design power differs enormously: the EPYC 7502P has a TDP of 180 watts, while the Core 3 N350 has a TDP of 7 watts. The socket types are incompatible: AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC 7502P, Intel BGA 1264 for the Core 3 N350. The process node is 7 nm for the EPYC 7502P and 10 nm for the Core 3 N350.

Memory support shows the EPYC 7502P limited to DDR4 but with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 3 N350 supports three memory types but only a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported only by the EPYC 7502P. PCIe generation differs: Gen 4 for the EPYC 7502P, Gen 3 for the Core 3 N350. The market segment is Server/Workstation for the EPYC 7502P and Mobile for the Core 3 N350.

Release dates are far apart: the EPYC 7502P was released on August 6, 2019, while the Core 3 N350 was released on January 6, 2025. The EPYC 7502P has a part number of 100-000000045, while the Core 3 N350 has a part number of SRPNS. Both processors have locked multipliers, meaning they cannot be overclocked via multiplier adjustment.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7502P wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark. Its 32 cores and 64 threads provide a massive advantage in multicore workloads, as shown by the Cinebench R23 multicore score of 43,395. The 128 MB L3 cache and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth make it suited for server virtualization, database processing, and compute-intensive workloads that benefit from large caches and high memory throughput. The eight-channel memory bus is a clear indicator that this processor is designed for memory-bandwidth-hungry applications.

The Intel Core 3 N350 wins in power efficiency. With a TDP of 7 watts, it uses dramatically less power than the EPYC 7502P's 180 watts. This makes it suitable for fanless or passively cooled mobile devices, embedded systems, or battery-operated hardware where absolute performance is secondary to energy consumption. Its integrated UHD Graphics 770 provides display output without a discrete GPU, which is not available on the EPYC 7502P. The Core 3 N350 also supports multiple memory types, including DDR5 and LPDDR5, which may appeal to designs that require modern memory features.

In single-threaded performance, the EPYC 7502P still wins decisively in Cinebench, despite the Core 3 N350's higher boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The EPYC 7502P's single-core score of 6,126 in R23 versus 885 for the Core 3 N350 indicates that the Zen 2 core is far more efficient per clock in this workload. The Core 3 N350's low base clock of 0.10 GHz suggests it relies heavily on boost behavior, which may not sustain under continuous load.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by use case. The AMD EPYC 7502P is the appropriate choice for server or workstation deployments that require maximum multicore throughput, large cache capacity, ECC memory support, and high memory bandwidth. Its 591.7% to 593.3% lead across all Cinebench tests demonstrates that it delivers roughly six times the rendering and compute performance of the Core 3 N350. The EPYC 7502P also sits at a 66th percentile among all CPUs, matching the Core 3 N350's percentile, but with a higher average benchmark score of 10,512 versus 9,903.

The Intel Core 3 N350 is the appropriate choice for mobile or low-power designs where the 7 watt TDP is a critical constraint. It offers integrated graphics, support for modern memory types, and a higher boost clock, but the benchmark record shows it cannot compete with the EPYC 7502P on raw performance. The Core 3 N350's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i7-3770 with a delta of 2%, indicate that it performs in the range of older desktop processors, not server-class silicon.

For users who need server-grade performance, the EPYC 7502P is the only viable option between these two. For users who need an energy-efficient mobile processor with graphics output, the Core 3 N350 is the clear choice. The benchmark data does not support any scenario where the Core 3 N350 outperforms the EPYC 7502P in compute tasks. The decision rests entirely on platform requirements: socket, memory channel count, ECC support, PCIe generation, and power budget.