AMD EPYC 7552 vs Intel Core 3 N355 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 7552 and Intel Core 3 N355 occupy entirely different segments, and the benchmark data reflects that divide. The EPYC 7552 is a 48-core, 96-thread server processor built for heavy multi-threaded workloads, while the Core 3 N355 is an 8-core, 8-thread mobile chip designed for efficiency. Across all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, the EPYC 7552 wins every single one, with deltas ranging from 313.1% to 827.4%. The largest gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC 7552 scores 48,801 versus 5,262, a 827.4% advantage. For anyone running dense virtualization, database workloads, or content rendering, the EPYC 7552 is the only choice from this data. The Core 3 N355, meanwhile, has no wins in these benchmarks, but its 15 W TDP and integrated UHD Graphics 770 make it suitable for low-power mobile systems where multi-core throughput is secondary. The data shows no scenario in the recorded benchmarks where the Intel chip outperforms the AMD part. A buyer needing server-class throughput should choose the EPYC 7552; a buyer needing a compact, low-power mobile processor should consider the Core 3 N355, but not for raw compute.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7552 has 48 cores and 96 threads. The Intel Core 3 N355 has 8 cores and 8 threads. The EPYC 7552 offers 40 additional cores and 88 additional threads.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7552 scores 48,801 while the Core 3 N355 scores 5,262, a difference of 827.4%. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the EPYC 7552 scores 20,496 versus 3,612, a 467.4% lead.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 N355 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes. The Core 3 N355 includes UHD Graphics 770. The AMD EPYC 7552 has no integrated graphics listed in the database.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The EPYC 7552 supports DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 3 N355 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 with a single-channel bus and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The EPYC 7552 supports ECC memory. The Core 3 N355 does not support ECC memory.

Q: How do the two compare in single-core performance?

A: The EPYC 7552 wins all single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 6,889 versus 1,039, a 563% lead. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 2,893 versus 509, a 468.4% lead. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 694 versus 168, a 313.1% lead.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 7552 is built on Zen 2 architecture under the codename Rome, part of the EPYC 7002 series. It uses a 7 nm process node fabricated by TSMC with 3,800 million transistors and a die size of 74 mm². The Intel Core 3 N355 uses Twin Lake architecture, listed as part of the Core 3 generation with Alder Lake-N lineage. It uses a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The process difference is significant: the EPYC 7552's 7 nm node allows for a much denser transistor layout, supporting 48 cores, while the Core 3 N355's 10 nm node is paired with only 8 cores.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The EPYC 7552 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 192 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 3 N355 also has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, but its L2 cache is 2 MB shared, and its L3 cache is 6 MB shared. The EPYC 7552's L3 cache is 32 times larger in total. This massive L3 allocation supports server workloads with large working sets, while the Core 3 N355's modest cache reflects its mobile positioning.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The EPYC 7552 uses an eight-channel DDR4 memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 3 N355 uses a single-channel bus supporting DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The memory bandwidth difference is roughly a factor of five. PCIe connectivity shows a similar divide: the EPYC 7552 provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 3 N355 provides Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC 7552 also supports ECC memory, which the Core 3 N355 does not.

The sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC 7552 versus Intel BGA 1264 for the Core 3 N355. The EPYC 7552 is a server/workstation part with a 200 W TDP, while the Core 3 N355 is a mobile part with a 15 W TDP. The EPYC 7552's release date is 2019-08-06, while the Core 3 N355's release date is 2025-01-06. Both are listed as Active in production status.

Specification Differences

The core count difference is the most prominent specification gap: 48 cores and 96 threads for the EPYC 7552 versus 8 cores and 8 threads for the Core 3 N355. Base clocks differ: the EPYC 7552 runs at 2.20 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost, while the Core 3 N355 runs at 1.90 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost. The Core 3 N355 has a higher boost clock by 0.60 GHz, but this does not translate into benchmark wins.

TDP differs by 185 W: 200 W for the EPYC 7552 versus 15 W for the Core 3 N355. The EPYC 7552 uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Core 3 N355 uses Intel BGA 1264. Process nodes differ: 7 nm for the EPYC 7552, 10 nm for the Core 3 N355. Transistor count and die size are listed only for the EPYC 7552: 3,800 million transistors and 74 mm² die size. The Core 3 N355 has no transistor or die size data.

Cache specifications differ in L2 and L3. The EPYC 7552 has 512 KB L2 per core and 192 MB shared L3. The Core 3 N355 has 2 MB shared L2 and 6 MB shared L3. L1 cache is identical at 96 KB per core. Memory support differs: DDR4 for the EPYC 7552 versus DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 for the Core 3 N355. Memory bus width differs: eight-channel versus single-channel. Memory bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s. ECC support: yes for the EPYC 7552, no for the Core 3 N355. PCIe: Gen 4 with 128 lanes versus Gen 3 with 9 lanes. Integrated graphics: none for the EPYC 7552, UHD Graphics 770 for the Core 3 N355. Market segment: Server/Workstation versus Mobile. Launch MSRP for the EPYC 7552 is $4025; the Core 3 N355 has no launch MSRP listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, and the AMD EPYC 7552 wins all six. The smallest margin is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the EPYC 7552 scores 694 against 168, a 313.1% advantage. The largest margin is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC 7552 scores 48,801 against 5,262, a 827.4% advantage.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7552 scores 4,919 versus 822, a 498.4% lead. This test reflects heavy multi-threaded rendering, and the 48-core part dominates. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the EPYC 7552 scores 20,496 versus 3,612, a 467.4% lead. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the EPYC 7552 scores 2,893 versus 509, a 468.4% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC 7552 scores 6,889 versus 1,039, a 563% lead.

The single-core results are notable because the Core 3 N355 has a higher boost clock (3.90 GHz versus 3.30 GHz) yet still loses by wide margins. This indicates that the EPYC 7552's Zen 2 architecture delivers substantially more instructions per clock in these workloads, or that the benchmark favors the server processor's memory subsystem and cache hierarchy. The 192 MB L3 cache on the EPYC 7552 likely contributes to these single-core wins by keeping more data close to the cores.

The average benchmark scores in the database place the EPYC 7552 at 14,115 and the Core 3 N355 at 13,492. Both sit at the 68th percentile of all CPUs. The EPYC 7552's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6756E (avg score 14,163, delta -0.3%), Intel Core i5-10400F (avg score 14,185, delta -0.5%), Intel Core i5-10400 (avg score 14,037, delta 0.6%), and Intel Core 7 160UL (avg score 14,232, delta -0.8%). The Core 3 N355's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-12100F (avg score 13,494, delta 0%), Intel Core i5-9500 (avg score 13,452, delta 0.3%), Intel Core 5 120UL (avg score 13,594, delta -0.8%), and Intel Core i7-1250U (avg score 13,351, delta 1.1%).

An interesting observation: despite the massive Cinebench differences, the average benchmark scores of the two processors are close, differing by only 623 points. This is because the Core 3 N355 has additional PassMark tests in the database (data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime numbers, floating point math, integer math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, single thread), while the EPYC 7552 only has Cinebench scores. These additional tests raise the Core 3 N355's average, masking the Cinebench gap. The PassMark results for the Core 3 N355 show strengths in integer math (33,894), floating point math (22,695), and data compression (117,435), but these are not comparable to the EPYC 7552 because no PassMark data exists for the AMD part.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7552 wins every recorded benchmark, so its strengths are clear. Multi-core rendering is its dominant territory: Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 827.4% lead, R20 multi-core shows 467.4%, and R15 multi-core shows 498.4%. These results indicate that workloads like video rendering, 3D scene compilation, simulation, and server-side batch processing will run dramatically faster on the EPYC 7552. The 48-core, 96-thread configuration paired with 192 MB L3 cache and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth supports heavy parallel workloads. The eight-channel memory bus and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes also suit server environments with high I/O demands. ECC memory support adds reliability for data centers and workstations.

Single-core performance also favors the EPYC 7552, despite the Core 3 N355's higher boost clock. The EPYC 7552 leads by 313.1% in R15 single-core, 468.4% in R20 single-core, and 563% in R23 single-core. This suggests that even lightly threaded applications will run faster on the AMD part, likely due to architecture efficiency and the large cache. The launch MSRP of $4025 positions it as a premium server processor.

The Intel Core 3 N355 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data, but it has attributes that suit a different use case. Its 15 W TDP is 185 W lower than the EPYC 7552, making it suitable for fanless or passively cooled mobile devices. The integrated UHD Graphics 770 provides display output without a discrete GPU, which the EPYC 7552 cannot do. The Core 3 N355 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory, offering flexibility across memory types, and its single-channel bus aligns with low-power operation. The 3.90 GHz boost clock is the highest frequency between the two processors, though it does not produce benchmark wins.

For users with workloads that fit within 8 cores and 8 threads, such as basic productivity, web browsing, or lightweight media playback, the Core 3 N355's efficiency profile is the deciding factor. The PassMark data shows reasonable scores for integer math (33,894) and floating point math (22,695), indicating competent performance for everyday tasks. However, for any workload that scales beyond 8 threads, the EPYC 7552's 96 threads provide an overwhelming advantage. The database records no scenario where the Core 3 N355 outperforms the EPYC 7552; the choice between them depends entirely on platform requirements, power constraints, and whether the workload is server-class or mobile-class.