AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D vs Intel Core 3 N355 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for these two processors is asymmetrical: the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D has no benchmark scores in the database, while the Intel Core 3 N355 has a full set of Cinebench and PassMark results. Direct numerical comparisons are therefore impossible. What the data does allow is a positional analysis of the Intel part against its nearest rivals, which gives context for where the Core 3 N355 sits, and a specification-level comparison against the AMD part.

The Intel Core 3 N355 posts an average benchmark score of 13492. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i3-12100F, scores 13494, a delta of 0 percent. That places the two effectively at parity. The Intel Core i5-9500 trails by 0.3 percent with a score of 13452, while the Intel Core 5 120UL leads by 0.8 percent at 13594. The Intel Core i7-1250U sits 1.1 percent behind at 13351. The N355's percentile ranking against all CPUs is 68, meaning it outperforms roughly two-thirds of the database.

Cinebench results for the N355 show a multicore R23 score of 5262 and a single-core score of 1039. The R20 run delivers 3612 multicore and 509 single-core. The R15 run produces 822 multicore and 168 single-core. PassMark results are more granular: multithread scoring 10174, single-thread scoring 2153, integer math at 33894, floating point math at 22695, extended instructions at 5968, data compression at 117435, data encryption at 8121, find prime numbers at 27, random string sorting at 14706, and physics at 625.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D has no recorded benchmarks, no average score, and no nearest rivals in the database. Its percentile is listed as 50, which is a neutral placement pending data. The wins tally shows zero for both parts, confirming that no head-to-head benchmark results exist. The practical consequence is that any performance comparison must be inferred from architectural and specification differences, not from measured scores.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the Intel Core 3 N355 is a measured, mid-tier performer relative to its peer group. Its 68th percentile and near-identical score to the Core i3-12100F indicate a solid mainstream mobile processor. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D cannot be positioned by benchmark data because none exists in the database. Its 50th percentile is a default value, not a measured result.

For users selecting between these two, the decision hinges on availability of benchmark data versus specification expectations. The N355 has verifiable performance numbers and a clear peer comparison. The 9950X3D offers a far larger core count, higher clock speeds, a newer process node, and substantially more cache, but none of that is confirmed by recorded scores. The database currently supports the Intel part as the only one with measurable performance evidence.

The AMD part targets a different product tier entirely. Sixteen cores, thirty-two threads, a 5.70 GHz boost clock, and 128 MB of L3 cache place it in the high-end desktop segment. The Intel part is an eight-core, eight-thread mobile chip with a 3.90 GHz boost clock and 6 MB of L3 cache. These are not competing in the same performance class; the data simply lacks the benchmarks to quantify the gap.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 3 N355 wins in the only category that currently has recorded data: measured benchmark results. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 5262 and PassMark multithread score of 10174 provide concrete reference points. Its nearest rival comparison shows it within 0.8 percent of the Core 5 120UL and ahead of the i5-9500 by 0.3 percent. For workloads like data compression, it posts 117435 in PassMark, and integer math reaches 33894. These are the numbers a builder can use today.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D wins on every specification that predicts performance. Its 16 cores and 32 threads double the Intel part's 8 cores and 8 threads. Its 5.70 GHz boost clock exceeds the N355's 3.90 GHz by a wide margin. Its 128 MB of L3 cache dwarfs the N355's 6 MB. The 4 nm TSMC process node is two generations ahead of Intel's 10 nm. Its dual-channel DDR5 memory bus delivers 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth compared to the N355's single-channel 38.4 GB/s. Its PCIe Gen 5 interface with 24 lanes far exceeds the N355's Gen 3 with 9 lanes. The AMD part also supports ECC memory and has an unlocked multiplier, neither of which applies to the Intel part.

The N355, by contrast, supports DDR4 in addition to DDR5 and LPDDR5, giving it broader memory compatibility for low-power designs. Its 15 W TDP is dramatically lower than the AMD part's 170 W, making it suitable for fanless or passively cooled systems where power draw is the primary constraint.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 3 N355 has an average benchmark score of 13492. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D has no recorded average score; its value is 0.

Q: How does the Intel Core 3 N355 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It scores 13492, which is 0 percent different from the Intel Core i3-12100F at 13494, 0.3 percent ahead of the Intel Core i5-9500 at 13452, 0.8 percent behind the Intel Core 5 120UL at 13594, and 1.1 percent ahead of the Intel Core i7-1250U at 13351.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core 3 N355 has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The AMD part supports DDR5 only. The Intel part supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 3 N355 does not.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D has a TDP of 170 W. The Intel Core 3 N355 has a TDP of 15 W.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D uses the Granite Ridge codename and belongs to the Ryzen Embedded generation built on Zen 5. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a transistor count of 16,630 million spread across two chiplets, each measuring 70.6 mm². The Intel Core 3 N355 uses the Twin Lake architecture, which the database lists under the Alder Lake-N generation. It is built on a 10 nm process at Intel, with no transistor count or die size recorded.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The AMD part allocates 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, with 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part provides 96 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of shared L2, with only 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD part's 128 MB L3 is the largest single advantage in the cache comparison, more than twenty times the Intel part's L3 capacity.

The AMD part uses AMD Socket AM5, a desktop socket with an unlocked multiplier. The Intel part uses Intel BGA 1264, a soldered mobile package with no multiplier unlock. The AMD part integrates Radeon Graphics, while the Intel part integrates UHD Graphics 770. The AMD part supports PCIe Gen 5 with 24 CPU lanes; the Intel part supports PCIe Gen 3 with 9 CPU lanes. The production status for both is Active.

Specification Differences

Clock speeds differ sharply. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D has a base clock of 4.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz. The Intel Core 3 N355 has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The AMD part's base clock alone exceeds the Intel part's boost clock.

Memory bandwidth reflects the platform gap. The AMD part delivers 89.6 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR5 bus. The Intel part delivers 38.4 GB/s over a single-channel bus that supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5. The AMD part also supports ECC memory; the Intel part does not.

TDP is the most divergent specification. The AMD part draws 170 W, placing it firmly in high-performance desktop territory. The Intel part draws 15 W, a low-power mobile design point. The AMD part has an unlocked multiplier and a part number of 100-000000719E. The Intel part has a locked multiplier and a part number of SRPNT. The AMD part targets the desktop market segment, while the Intel part targets mobile.

Process technology favors AMD. The 4 nm TSMC node versus Intel's 10 nm node represents a significant density and efficiency advantage for the AMD part, though the higher TDP means that efficiency is directed toward performance rather than power savings. The Intel part compensates with a much lower power envelope, making it viable for compact and passively cooled systems.