Intel Arc G3 vs Intel Core 3 N350 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc G3 and Intel Core 3 N350 occupy different ends of the mobile processor spectrum, and the recorded data reflects a clear division of roles. The Arc G3, a Panther Lake part built for performance, brings 14 cores and 14 threads, a 4.60 GHz boost clock, and a 25 W TDP. The Core 3 N350, a Twin Lake design, uses 8 cores and 8 threads, boosts to 3.90 GHz, and sips power at 7 W. Benchmark results indicate that the Arc G3 is positioned for sustained multi-threaded workloads, while the Core 3 N350 is tuned for efficiency and lighter tasks.

The Core 3 N350 has a full benchmark suite recorded in the database, and it shows a mixed profile. In Cinebench R23, it scores 6274 in multi-core and 885 in single-core. The PassMark suite reveals where it excels: data compression at 80444, integer math at 27669, floating point math at 17781, and random string sorting at 10102. Its single-thread PassMark score is 1974. The Arc G3, however, has no benchmark entries in the database, so all direct comparisons must be inferred from specifications and the N350's performance context.

The N350's percentile ranking is 66, meaning it outperforms roughly two-thirds of all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-3770 with an average score of 9706, the Intel Core i5-1035G1 at 9684, the AMD EPYC 7F52 at 10159, and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 at 10230. The N350's average benchmark score is 9903. This places it in a competitive zone for entry-level and mid-range mobile workloads, but the Arc G3's architecture and clock advantage suggest it would dominate in raw throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge substantially in their underlying designs. The Arc G3 uses a 3 nm process node, fabricated by Intel, and is based on the Panther Lake codename. Its generation is listed as "Arc G3 (Panther Lake)". The Core 3 N350 uses a 10 nm node, also from Intel, and is based on Twin Lake, with its generation listed as "Core 3 (Alder Lake-N)". The process node difference alone indicates a significant generational leap for the Arc G3, enabling higher transistor density and potentially better power efficiency per operation, despite its higher TDP.

Cache hierarchies differ sharply. The Arc G3 features 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 3 N350 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Arc G3's larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations, combined with triple the L3, give it a substantial advantage in data-heavy workloads where cache hits reduce memory latency.

Memory support also separates the two. The Arc G3 supports LPDDR5X memory over a dual-channel bus, yielding 136.5 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Core 3 N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, but only over a single-channel bus, capping bandwidth at 38.4 GB/s. That is a 3.55x bandwidth advantage for the Arc G3, a critical factor for integrated graphics performance and multi-threaded compute. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Arc G3 uses Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes, while the Core 3 N350 uses Gen 3 with 9 CPU lanes. The Arc G3's newer PCIe standard offers higher per-lane throughput, though the N350 provides more physical lanes.

Integrated graphics diverge in naming and presumably capability. The Arc G3 carries an Arc B370 iGPU, while the Core 3 N350 uses UHD Graphics 770. The Arc branding suggests a more capable graphics solution, though no benchmark data confirms this. The Arc G3 also uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket, whereas the Core 3 N350 uses Intel BGA 1264, meaning they are not interchangeable in system designs. Both processors are unlocked for multipliers, both lack ECC memory support, and both are marked as active in production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Because the Arc G3 lacks recorded benchmark scores, the head-to-head comparison relies on the Core 3 N350's measured performance and the Arc G3's specification advantages. The N350's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 6274 illustrates its ceiling in heavily threaded workloads. A 14-core processor at 3 nm with a 4.60 GHz boost and 18 MB of L3 would, based on architectural scaling, be expected to exceed that score by a wide margin, though no exact number is available in the database.

The single-core picture is clearer in relative terms. The N350 posts a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 885 and a PassMark single-thread score of 1974. The Arc G3's boost clock is 0.70 GHz higher, and its newer 3 nm process should improve instructions per clock. The data suggests the Arc G3 would lead in single-threaded responsiveness, but the absence of a measured score prevents a precise delta.

Memory bandwidth offers a quantitative contrast: 136.5 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s. For tasks like data compression, where the N350 scores 80444 in PassMark, the Arc G3's dual-channel LPDDR5X would likely reduce bottlenecks. The N350's PassMark multi-thread score of 7382, physics score of 446, and extended instructions score of 3981 all reflect its 8-core, 7 W design. The Arc G3's 14 cores and 25 W TDP point to a processor built for higher sustained output, particularly in rendering, encoding, and simulation workloads.

The N350's nearest rival data provides context for its standing. It sits 2% above the Core i7-3770, 2.3% above the Core i5-1035G1, 2.5% below the EPYC 7F52, and 3.2% below the Xeon Platinum 8280. These deltas show that the N350, despite its low power draw, competes with desktop processors from a decade ago and older server parts. The Arc G3, with its modern architecture and higher core count, would logically sit above all of these, though the database does not record a score for it.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Arc G3 has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Intel Core 3 N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Arc G3 supports LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus with 136.5 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core 3 N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 over a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s.

Q: How does the Core 3 N350 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The N350 scores 2% above the Intel Core i7-3770, 2.3% above the Intel Core i5-1035G1, 2.5% below the AMD EPYC 7F52, and 3.2% below the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280.

Q: What is the Core 3 N350's Cinebench R23 multi-core score?

A: The N350 scores 6274 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 885 in single-core.

Q: Which processor has a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The Arc G3 uses a 3 nm process node. The Core 3 N350 uses a 10 nm process node, both fabricated by Intel.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the Arc G3 and the Core 3 N350 have ECC memory support listed as false.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Arc G3 | Intel Core 3 N350 |

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

| Cores | 14 | 8 |

| Threads | 14 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 1.90 GHz | 0.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| TDP | 25 W | 7 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2540 | Intel BGA 1264 |

| Codename | Panther Lake | Twin Lake |

| Generation | Arc G3 (Panther Lake) | Core 3 (Alder Lake-N) |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2.5 MB (per core) | 2 MB (shared) |

| L3 Cache | 18 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 136.5 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 9 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc B370 | UHD Graphics 770 |

| Release Date | 2026-05-27 | 2025-01-06 |

| Part Number | SA4QZ | SRPNS |

The specification table shows a processor aimed at different market tiers. The Arc G3 brings newer process technology, more cores, faster clocks, larger caches, and dramatically higher memory bandwidth. The Core 3 N350 counters with a much lower TDP of 7 W, making it suitable for fanless or ultra-low-power designs. The release dates confirm the Arc G3 is a later product, arriving in May 2026 compared to the N350's January 2025 debut. Both remain in active production, and neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database. The data confirms that these are complementary designs, not direct competitors.