CPU Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7F52 and Intel Core 3 N350 occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects this. The EPYC 7F52 is a server-class processor with a 240 W TDP, 16 cores, and 32 threads, while the Core 3 N350 is a mobile chip with a 7 W TDP, 8 cores, and 8 threads. Across all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, the EPYC 7F52 wins decisively, with delta percentages ranging from 459.8% to 461.2%. Despite this, both processors share the same 66th percentile ranking among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are remarkably close: 10,159 for the EPYC and 9,903 for the Core 3. This paradox is explained by the fact that the Core 3 N350 has additional PassMark tests in its benchmark suite, which contribute to its average score and mask its Cinebench deficit.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7F52 is the superior processor for any workload that leverages multi-threaded performance. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 35,123 is 459.8% higher than the Core 3 N350's 6,274. In single-core performance, the EPYC also leads, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4,958 versus 885 for the Intel part, a 460.2% advantage. If your primary concern is raw compute throughput, rendering, scientific simulation, or heavy compilation, the EPYC 7F52 is the only choice from this pair. The data shows no scenario in the head-to-head benchmarks where the Core 3 N350 wins.

However, the Intel Core 3 N350 is not without merit. Its 7 W TDP is a fraction of the EPYC's 240 W, and it integrates UHD Graphics 770, which the EPYC lacks entirely. The mobile segment it targets prioritizes power efficiency and compactness over peak performance. The benchmark results indicate that the Core 3 N350 delivers usable performance for everyday tasks, with a PassMark single-thread score of 1,974 and a PassMark integer math score of 27,669. For a fanless laptop or a low-power embedded system, the Core 3 N350 is the viable option. The EPYC 7F52, by contrast, demands a server platform with eight-channel DDR4 memory and a Gen 4 PCIe interface, which is a different class of hardware entirely.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7F52 wins in every single benchmark test listed in the head-to-head comparison. This includes both multicore and single-core variants of Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. The largest margin is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the EPYC scores 2,082 against the Core 3's 371, a 461.2% delta. The smallest margin is still a 459.8% advantage in Cinebench R20 multicore, with scores of 14,751 and 2,635 respectively. This pattern indicates that the EPYC's advantage is not merely a function of core count; it also has superior per-core performance.

The Intel Core 3 N350 wins in no head-to-head benchmark. Yet its PassMark results show strengths in specific workloads. Its PassMark data compression score of 80,444 is particularly notable, suggesting efficient handling of compression algorithms. The PassMark integer math score of 27,669 and floating point math score of 17,781 indicate a capable general-purpose processor for its power class. The PassMark multithread score of 7,382 and physics score of 446 are modest, but they demonstrate that the chip can handle light parallel workloads. The single-thread score of 1,974 is competitive for a mobile processor, though it is vastly outpaced by the EPYC's Cinebench single-core results.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD EPYC 7F52 uses the Zen 2 architecture on a 7 nm process from TSMC, codenamed Rome. It has 16 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The cache hierarchy is generous: 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The chip contains 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. Memory support is DDR4 with an eight-channel bus, yielding a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. It supports ECC memory and uses PCIe Gen 4. The socket is AMD Socket SP3, and the TDP is 240 W.

The Intel Core 3 N350 uses the Twin Lake architecture on a 10 nm process from Intel, with a codename that matches the architecture name. It has 8 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The base clock is extraordinarily low, which is typical for a chip designed for power savings. Cache is 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. Memory support includes DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, but with a single-channel bus and a bandwidth of only 38.4 GB/s. It does not support ECC memory. PCIe is Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). The chip has integrated UHD Graphics 770, which is absent from the EPYC. The socket is Intel BGA 1264, and the TDP is just 7 W.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher multi-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F52 has significantly higher multi-core performance. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 35,123 compared to the Intel Core 3 N350's 6,274, a 459.8% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 N350 win any benchmark against the EPYC 7F52?

A: No. In the six head-to-head Cinebench tests, the EPYC 7F52 wins all of them. The Core 3 N350 has no benchmark wins in the comparison data.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F52 has a TDP of 240 W, while the Intel Core 3 N350 has a TDP of 7 W. This makes the Intel part dramatically more power-efficient.

Q: Do these processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The EPYC 7F52 supports DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and ECC memory. The Core 3 N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 with a single-channel bus and no ECC support.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core 3 N350 has integrated graphics, featuring UHD Graphics 770. The AMD EPYC 7F52 does not include an integrated GPU.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 7F52 has an average benchmark score of 10,159, while the Core 3 N350 has an average of 9,903. The EPYC is about 2.5% higher, which is a small margin given the massive differences in individual Cinebench scores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a uniform outcome: the AMD EPYC 7F52 wins every test by a margin greater than 459%. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC scores 3,540 versus the Core 3's 632, a 460.1% delta. The R15 single-core test shows 499 for the EPYC and 89 for the Core 3, a 460.7% advantage. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore test yields 14,751 for the EPYC and 2,635 for the Core 3, a 459.8% delta. The R20 single-core test shows 2,082 versus 371, a 461.2% advantage, which is the largest margin in the comparison.

The Cinebench R23 results continue the pattern. In multicore, the EPYC scores 35,123 against the Core 3's 6,274, a 459.8% delta. In single-core, the EPYC scores 4,958 versus 885, a 460.2% advantage. These numbers demonstrate that the EPYC's dominance is consistent across different versions of the Cinebench benchmark, which vary in workload intensity. The consistency of the delta percentages, all falling between 459.8% and 461.2%, suggests that the performance ratio is stable regardless of the specific test version.

The nearest rival data provides additional context. The EPYC 7F52's nearest rival, the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280, has an average score of 10,230, which is 0.7% higher than the EPYC's 10,159. The Intel Xeon Gold 6312U scores 10,291 (1.3% higher), and the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 scores 10,320 (1.6% higher). This places the EPYC in a tight cluster of server processors. The Core 3 N350's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-3770 with a score of 9,706 (2% lower), the Intel Core i5-1035G1 with 9,684 (2.3% lower), and the EPYC 7F52 itself with a delta of -2.5%. The Core 3's average score of 9,903 is competitive with these older or lower-power parts, but it is fundamentally outclassed by the EPYC in the head-to-head tests. The data clearly shows that the EPYC 7F52 is a high-performance server processor, while the Core 3 N350 is a low-power mobile chip; their benchmark averages are close only because the Core 3 benefits from a broader set of PassMark tests that are not included in the head-to-head comparison.