AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 vs Intel Core 3 N355 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 is the outright performance winner in this comparison. Across all 11 recorded head-to-head benchmark tests, the AMD part takes every single win. The Intel Core 3 N355 does not win a single test in the database. The data shows a 98.2% advantage for the AMD chip in data compression, an 87.6% lead in multithread performance, and a 74.5% edge in single-thread performance. The AMD processor also sits at the 86th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel part sits at the 68th percentile.

The Intel Core 3 N355 is the lower-power option. Its TDP is 15 watts compared to 28 watts for the AMD part. That makes it suitable for fanless or passively cooled designs, or for very power-sensitive mobile systems. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435, with its higher power budget and larger performance envelope, is the choice for anyone who prioritizes compute throughput over energy draw.

The AMD chip uses a 4 nm TSMC process, while the Intel chip uses a 10 nm Intel process. The AMD part supports dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth; the Intel part is limited to single-channel memory at 38.4 GB/s. That memory bandwidth gap alone explains a substantial portion of the benchmark deltas.

Users who need a compact, low-power processor for basic tasks should consider the Intel part. Users who need real compute headroom, whether for compilation, content creation, or data processing, should pick the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435. The benchmark data does not support any other conclusion.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 uses the Zen 5 architecture with the Gorgon Point codename. It belongs to the Ryzen AI PRO 400 generation, which combines Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. The process node is 4 nm, fabricated by TSMC. The Intel Core 3 N355 uses the Twin Lake architecture, part of the Core 3 generation built on Alder Lake-N. Its process node is 10 nm, fabricated by Intel.

Core counts differ meaningfully. The AMD chip has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel chip has 8 cores and 8 threads. The AMD part benefits from simultaneous multithreading, which the Intel part lacks. The Intel part has more physical cores but no thread doubling, so its thread count is equal to its core count.

Cache layouts are opposite in design philosophy. The AMD chip allocates 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a 4 MB shared L3 pool. The Intel chip allocates 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD approach gives each core private L2, which reduces latency for single-threaded access patterns. The Intel approach shares a smaller total cache pool across more cores.

Integrated graphics differ. The AMD chip pairs with the Radeon 840M. The Intel chip uses UHD Graphics 770. Neither part supports overclocking; both have locked multipliers.

Memory support diverges sharply. The AMD chip supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Intel chip supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5. The AMD memory bus is dual-channel, while the Intel bus is single-channel. The measured memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for AMD and 38.4 GB/s for Intel. That is a 2.3x difference in theoretical bandwidth, which shows up directly in memory-heavy workloads.

The AMD chip supports ECC memory; the Intel chip does not. PCIe connectivity also differs: the AMD part uses Gen 4 with 14 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part uses Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). The AMD part is built for AMD Socket FP8; the Intel part uses Intel BGA 1264. Release dates differ by about a year: the Intel part launched in January 2025, the AMD part in January 2026.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest margin is in extended instructions. AMD scores 16,724 versus Intel's 5,968, a 180.2% delta. That indicates a massive advantage in SIMD and cryptography workloads. The AMD chip also dominates prime number finding with a 111.1% lead (57 versus 27).

Data compression shows a 98.2% advantage for AMD: 232,803 versus 117,435. This is the single biggest raw score difference in the set. Multithread performance is 87.6% higher for AMD, with scores of 19,091 versus 10,174. Floating point math is 81.2% ahead (41,114 versus 22,695). Integer math is 79.6% ahead (60,879 versus 33,894).

Single-thread performance is 74.5% higher for AMD, with scores of 3,757 versus 2,153. Random string sorting shows a 69.6% advantage (24,936 versus 14,706). Physics tests show a 59.2% lead (995 versus 625). Data encryption is 38.7% ahead (11,267 versus 8,121).

The AMD part's average benchmark score is 37,762. The Intel part's average is 13,492. That is a 2.8x difference in overall measured performance. The nearest rivals for the AMD chip are the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 at 37,804 (-0.1%), the Intel Core 5 211E at 37,829 (-0.2%), the Intel Core i5-13600K at 37,685 (+0.2%), and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 at 37,904 (-0.4%). The AMD part sits within 0.4% of all four, meaning it competes with desktop-class and higher-tier mobile parts.

The Intel chip's nearest rivals are the Intel Core i3-12100F at 13,494 (0.0%), the Intel Core i5-9500 at 13,452 (+0.3%), the Intel Core 5 120UL at 13,594 (-0.8%), and the Intel Core i7-1250U at 13,351 (+1.1%). The Intel part effectively trades blows with older desktop quad-cores and low-power mobile chips.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 | Intel Core 3 N355 |

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

| Cores | 6 | 8 |

| Threads | 12 | 8 |

| Base clock | 2.00 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.50 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 15 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel BGA 1264 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Twin Lake |

| Codename | Gorgon Point | Twin Lake |

| Generation | Ryzen AI PRO 400 (Zen 5 / Zen 5c) | Core 3 (Alder Lake-N) |

| Process node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| L1 cache | 80 KB per core | 96 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 1 MB per core | 2 MB shared |

| L3 cache | 4 MB | 6 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 14 lanes | Gen 3, 9 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 840M | UHD Graphics 770 |

| Part number | 100-000001788 | SRPNT |

| Release date | 2026-01-04 | 2025-01-06 |

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 has 12 threads from 6 cores. The Intel Core 3 N355 has 8 threads from 8 cores. The AMD part has 50% more threads despite having fewer physical cores.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 N355 support ECC memory?

A: No. ECC memory support is listed as false for the Intel part. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 does support ECC memory.

Q: Which chip has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 has 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth over a dual-channel bus. The Intel Core 3 N355 has 38.4 GB/s over a single-channel bus. AMD's bandwidth is 2.3x higher.

Q: How do these chips compare on single-thread performance?

A: The AMD chip scores 3,757 in the PassMark single-thread test, which is 74.5% higher than the Intel chip's 2,153. The AMD boost clock of 4.50 GHz versus 3.90 GHz for Intel contributes to this gap.

Q: Which processor is more power-efficient based on the data?

A: The Intel Core 3 N355 has a 15 W TDP, which is 13 watts lower than the AMD part's 28 W TDP. However, the AMD part delivers roughly 2.8x the average benchmark score. The power efficiency depends on the workload and whether the lower TDP is worth the large performance sacrifice.

Q: What is the percentile ranking difference between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 ranks at the 86th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 3 N355 ranks at the 68th percentile. That places the AMD part in the upper tier of all recorded processors, while the Intel part sits in the upper-middle range.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 wins every recorded benchmark. Its largest margins are in extended instructions (180.2% over Intel), prime number finding (111.1%), and data compression (98.2%). These results point to workloads that use SIMD instructions, encryption, compression, and heavy integer math. The dual-channel memory bus at 89.6 GB/s is the enabling factor for the compression and sorting wins. The 12 threads allow the multithread score of 19,091 to dominate the Intel part's 10,174. The 4.50 GHz boost clock drives the single-thread score of 3,757, which is 74.5% higher than Intel's 2,153.

The AMD part is the correct choice for any application that stresses the CPU: software compilation, video encoding, scientific computing, large spreadsheet operations, database work, or any parallel workload. The 86th percentile ranking and the fact that it trades within 0.4% of the Intel Core i5-13600K in average score show that this mobile chip is not a compromise part.

The Intel Core 3 N355 wins in one category: power draw. Its 15 W TDP is roughly half the AMD part's 28 W TDP. That makes it viable for passively cooled chassis, small-form-factor systems, and battery-focused mobile devices. Its 8 physical cores without multithreading, plus its 6 MB shared L3 cache, give it enough capability for basic office work, web browsing, and light media playback. The 10 nm Intel process and single-channel memory keep costs and complexity down, though the data does not include pricing.

The Intel part's nearest rivals are older desktop parts like the Core i3-12100F and Core i5-9500, which suggests it performs at a level comparable to entry-level desktop CPUs from previous generations. It does not compete with the AMD part in any compute metric. The choice is simple: if the workload requires performance, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 is the only option. If the workload is light and power budget is the primary constraint, the Intel Core 3 N355 has the lower TDP. There is no workload in the recorded data where the Intel part wins on performance.