AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X vs Intel Core 3 N350 Comparison

The Intel Core 3 N350 and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X occupy opposite ends of the CPU landscape: one is a 7-watt mobile part built for efficiency, the other a 280-watt desktop workstation flagship designed for sustained heavily threaded workloads. The recorded benchmark data reflects that divide starkly, with the Threadripper 3960X winning every shared head-to-head test by a margin of roughly 86 percent. Yet the database also shows the two chips landing in nearly the same overall percentile against all measured CPUs, at 66 for the N350 and 65 for the 3960X, a reminder that percentile placement depends on the breadth of the test mix as much as raw throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The shared benchmark set between these two processors consists of the Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 suites in both single-core and multi-core variants, and the Threadripper 3960X sweeps all six contests.

The multi-core gaps are enormous. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 3960X scores 4692 against the N350's 632, an 86.5 percent delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core tells the same story: 19553 versus 2635, again an 86.5 percent gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core is the most demanding of the three render tests, and the spread holds at 86.5 percent, with the 3960X posting 46557 and the N350 posting 6274. A sevenfold advantage in rendering throughput is consistent with the core-count asymmetry: 24 cores and 48 threads against 8 cores and 8 threads, with no SMT on the Intel side to partially offset the deficit.

Single-core results follow the same pattern, which is more notable. The 3960X leads Cinebench R15 single-core 662 to 89, an 86.6 percent delta, and repeats that exact margin in R20 single-core, 2760 versus 371. Cinebench R23 single-core lands at 6572 for the 3960X versus 885 for the N350, an 86.5 percent gap. Single-threaded workloads normally compress differences between chips of different classes, but here the per-thread deficit mirrors the multi-threaded one. The N350's 0.10 GHz base clock and 3.90 GHz boost, recorded against the 3960X's 3.80 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost, plus its efficiency-focused mobile design, explain why its per-core output in these rendering tests is so far behind.

The Threadripper's scaling behavior across thread counts is visible in its 3DMark CPU profile data: 725 on a single thread, 1436 on 2 threads, 2775 on 4 threads, 5267 on 8 threads, 9989 on 16 threads, and 13978 at maximum threads. That curve shows near-linear scaling through 8 threads and continued gains beyond it, while the N350 has no threading headroom beyond its 8 cores and 8 threads.

Architecture Differences

These processors could hardly be more architecturally distinct. The Intel Core 3 N350 uses the Twin Lake architecture, belongs to the Core 3 generation derived from the Alder Lake-N lineage, and is manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X uses the Zen 2 architecture under the Castle Peak codename, belongs to the 3000 series, and is built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The 3960X packs 15,200 million transistors across a die configuration of 4x 74 mm², while the database records no transistor or die-size figures for the N350.

Core topology diverges completely. The N350 offers 8 cores and 8 threads; the 3960X offers 24 cores and 48 threads via simultaneous multithreading. Cache hierarchies differ accordingly. The N350 carries 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The 3960X carries 64 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, but its standout figure is 128 MB of L3, more than twenty times the N350's shared L3 capacity, a cache pool designed to feed 24 cores in parallel.

Memory subsystems point to opposite use cases. The N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 over a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth, a flexible but narrow configuration suited to compact mobile designs. The 3960X supports only DDR4 but runs it quad-channel with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. Neither chip supports ECC memory. PCIe differs in both generation and scale: the N350 exposes Gen 3 with 9 lanes from the CPU, while the 3960X provides Gen 4 connectivity on the TRX4 socket platform.

Platform characteristics round out the contrast. The N350 is a mobile-segment BGA 1264 part with a locked multiplier and integrated UHD Graphics 770. The 3960X is a desktop-segment Socket TRX4 part with an unlocked multiplier and no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU. The N350 launched in January 2025; the 3960X launched in November 2019 with a launch MSRP of $1399 and remains listed as Active in production status, as does the N350.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head record is unambiguous: the 3960X wins all six shared tests and the N350 wins none. For rendering, encoding-style parallel work, physics simulation, or any software that scales with thread count, the 3960X is the clear choice in the recorded data. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 46557 versus 6274, and its Geekbench multi-core score of 13326, define its territory: sustained throughput on heavily threaded professional workloads.

The N350's case rests on efficiency and integration rather than raw performance. Its 7-watt TDP, forty times lower than the 3960X's 280-watt rating, positions it for thermally constrained mobile systems where the Threadripper simply cannot operate. Its integrated UHD Graphics 770 removes the need for a discrete GPU, and its support for DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 gives platform designers memory flexibility the DDR4-only 3960X lacks. The N350 also holds its own in the database's broader percentile ranking, placing at the 66th percentile against all CPUs compared to the 3960X's 65th, though this parity stems from the differing test mixes each chip has recorded rather than equivalent capability: the N350's average benchmark score of 9903 reflects Passmark-heavy coverage, while the 3960X's 9284 average reflects its rendering-focused suite.

Within its own peer group, the N350 sits close to the Intel Core i7-3770 (avgScore 9706, a 2 percent delta) and the Intel Core i5-1035G1 (avgScore 9684, 2.3 percent), and just behind the AMD EPYC 7F52 (10159, -2.5 percent) and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 (10230, -3.2 percent). The 3960X's nearest rivals cluster almost exactly at its level: the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280M (9260, 0.3 percent), the Intel Core i5-10300H (9243, 0.4 percent), the Intel Core i7-1165G7 (9235, 0.5 percent), and the Intel Xeon Gold 5320 (9234, 0.5 percent). In short: the N350 competes with mainstream mobile and legacy desktop parts on aggregate scores, while the 3960X trades blows with server-class Xeons on its recorded suite.

Specification Differences

• Cores/Threads: N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads; 3960X has 24 cores and 48 threads.
• Clocks: N350 runs a 0.10 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost; 3960X runs a 3.80 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost.
• TDP: 7 watts for the N350 versus 280 watts for the 3960X.
• Process and foundry: 10 nm at Intel (N350) versus 7 nm at TSMC (3960X).
• Architecture: Twin Lake (N350) versus Zen 2 / Castle Peak (3960X).
• Cache: 96 KB L1 per core, 2 MB shared L2, 6 MB shared L3 (N350) versus 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, 128 MB L3 (3960X).
• Memory: DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5 single-channel at 38.4 GB/s (N350) versus DDR4 quad-channel at 102.4 GB/s (3960X). Neither supports ECC.
• PCIe: Gen 3 with 9 CPU lanes (N350) versus Gen 4 (3960X).
• Graphics: UHD Graphics 770 integrated (N350) versus none (3960X).
• Socket and segment: BGA 1264 mobile (N350) versus Socket TRX4 desktop (3960X).
• Multiplier: locked on the N350, unlocked on the 3960X.
• Release: January 2025 for the N350, November 2019 for the 3960X.

FAQ

Q: How large is the Threadripper 3960X's advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The 3960X scores 46557 versus 6274 for the N350, an 86.5 percent gap in the Threadripper's favor.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 N350 win any head-to-head benchmark against the 3960X?

A: No. The 3960X wins all six shared Cinebench tests, with deltas between 86.5 and 86.6 percent, including every single-core contest.

Q: How do the two compare in the database's overall percentile ranking?

A: They are nearly tied: the N350 sits at the 66th percentile against all CPUs and the 3960X at the 65th, though this reflects different test mixes rather than equivalent performance.

Q: Which chip is more power-efficient on paper?

A: The N350, with a 7-watt TDP versus 280 watts for the 3960X, a fortyfold difference that defines the mobile-versus-workstation split.

Q: Can either processor be overclocked?

A: Only the 3960X, which has an unlocked multiplier. The N350's multiplier is locked.

Q: Which memory types does each processor support?

A: The N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 on a single-channel bus at 38.4 GB/s; the 3960X supports DDR4 only, quad-channel, at 102.4 GB/s.