CPU Comparison

The Intel Core 3 N350 and Intel Atom x7835RE are both 8-core, 8-thread mobile processors built on Intel’s 10 nm process and sharing the same BGA 1264 socket. Despite these similarities, benchmark data reveals a consistent performance gap favoring the Core 3 N350, which wins 14 of 17 head-to-head tests. The Atom x7835RE, however, secures notable victories in specific workloads, making the choice between them dependent on the intended application. The data shows the N350 achieves an average benchmark score of 9903, placing it in the 66th percentile of all CPUs, while the x7835RE scores 9430, landing in the 65th percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core 3 N350 has a boost clock of 3.90 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Atom x7835RE’s 3.60 GHz. The N350 also has a lower base clock of 0.10 GHz compared to the x7835RE’s 1.30 GHz.

Q: How do their benchmark scores compare in single-threaded tasks?

A: The Core 3 N350 dominates in single-threaded performance, scoring 1974 in Passmark single-thread tests, which is 23.5% higher than the Atom x7835RE’s 1599. This is one of the largest deltas between the two chips.

Q: In which benchmarks does the Atom x7835RE outperform the Core 3 N350?

A: The Atom x7835RE wins three tests: Passmark find prime numbers (23 vs 20, a 13% advantage), Passmark physics (500 vs 446, a 10.8% advantage), and Passmark random string sorting (10180 vs 10102, a 0.8% advantage).

Q: What is the difference in their integrated graphics?

A: The Core 3 N350 features UHD Graphics 770, while the Atom x7835RE comes with UHD Graphics 32EU. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory, but the N350 also adds LPDDR5 support.

Q: Are both processors from the same architectural family?

A: No, despite similar specs, they use different architectures. The Core 3 N350 is based on Twin Lake (from the Core 3 generation, Alder Lake-N), while the Atom x7835RE uses Amston Lake (from the Atom generation, Gracemont).

Q: How does the average benchmark score of each chip compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The N350’s 9903 average is 2% higher than the Intel Core i7-3770 (9706) and 2.3% higher than the Intel Core i5-1035G1 (9684), but 2.5% lower than the AMD EPYC 7F52 (10159). The x7835RE’s 9430 average is nearly identical to the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 (9406), which is 0.3% lower.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 3 N350 is the clear winner in most compute-heavy scenarios. It takes 14 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, including every Cinebench test (R15, R20, R23) for both multi-core and single-core. This makes it the superior choice for general productivity, content creation, and any workload that relies on sustained multi-threaded performance. Its 23.5% lead in Passmark single-thread testing is particularly significant for applications that are poorly optimized for multi-core use, where individual core speed matters most. The N350 also excels in floating-point math, scoring 9.5% higher, and extended instructions, with a 10.1% advantage, indicating stronger performance in scientific simulations, financial modeling, and media encoding tasks.

The Atom x7835RE, while losing the majority of tests, carves out a niche in specific workloads. Its wins in Passmark physics (500 vs 446) suggest an advantage in certain simulation or gaming physics calculations. The 13% lead in find prime numbers hints at better performance in specific integer-based algorithms, though this is an isolated win. The near-tie in random string sorting (10180 vs 10102) shows the Atom is competitive in memory-heavy sorting tasks. For embedded or industrial applications that prioritize these specific workloads, the x7835RE might be the better fit, but the data suggests these are narrow use cases rather than general-purpose superiority.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different Intel design philosophies. The Core 3 N350 uses the Twin Lake architecture, belonging to the Core 3 generation built on Alder Lake-N. The Atom x7835RE, in contrast, uses the Amston Lake architecture from the Atom generation based on Gracemont cores. Both are fabricated on Intel’s 10 nm process, but the underlying microarchitecture differs significantly. The N350’s L2 cache is listed as 2 MB (shared), while the x7835RE has 2 MB (per module), which could affect how data is accessed across cores. Both share 6 MB of L3 cache, but the per-core L1 cache is identical at 96 KB.

Memory support also differs. The N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, while the x7835RE only lists DDR4 and DDR5. Both operate on a single-channel memory bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, so the additional LPDDR5 support on the N350 may offer flexibility in low-power designs. The integrated graphics are a major divergence: the N350 uses UHD Graphics 770, while the x7835RE has UHD Graphics 32EU. This suggests the N350 likely has more execution units for graphical tasks, though the benchmark data does not explicitly test GPU performance. The release dates also differ, with the x7835RE launching earlier on 2024-04-07 and the N350 following on 2025-01-06.

Specification Differences

The core specifications show a mixed picture. Both chips have 8 cores and 8 threads, but the N350 has a base clock of 0.10 GHz versus the x7835RE’s 1.30 GHz. However, the N350 boosts higher at 3.90 GHz compared to 3.60 GHz. This creates an interesting dynamic: the Atom starts at a faster speed but cannot reach the same peak clock. The TDP differs as well, with the N350 rated at 7 W and the x7835RE at 12 W, meaning the N350 achieves its performance at a lower power envelope.

Cache configurations are similar but not identical. The L1 cache is 96 KB per core for both. The L2 cache is 2 MB shared for the N350, but 2 MB per module for the x7835RE. Both have 6 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is a clear differentiator, with the N350 adding LPDDR5 to the DDR4 and DDR5 support shared by both. PCIe capabilities are identical: Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). Neither chip supports ECC memory, and both are unlocked for multipliers. The x7835RE has a launch MSRP of $127, while no MSRP is listed for the N350.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent pattern of N350 superiority. In R15 multi-core, the N350 scores 632 against 609, a 3.8% lead. Single-core R15 shows a 4.7% advantage (89 vs 85). R20 multi-core has the N350 at 2635 versus 2541, a 3.7% gap, while single-core R20 is 371 vs 358, a 3.6% lead. R23 multi-core continues the trend at 6274 vs 6051 (3.7%), and single-core R23 is 885 vs 854 (3.6%). These margins are consistent, suggesting the N350’s higher boost clock provides a steady advantage across all Cinebench versions.

Passmark tests reveal where each chip excels. The N350’s biggest win is in single-thread performance, scoring 1974 versus 1599, a massive 23.5% delta. This is likely due to the higher boost clock. In floating-point math, the N350 leads 17781 to 16236, a 9.5% advantage, and in extended instructions, it wins 3981 to 3617, a 10.1% margin. Data compression also favors the N350 (80444 vs 76736, 4.8% higher), as does integer math (27669 vs 26623, 3.9%). Data encryption is closer, with the N350 ahead 5693 to 5579, just 2% higher.

The Atom x7835RE’s wins are notable for their specificity. In find prime numbers, it scores 23 versus 20, a 13% advantage. Physics testing shows a 10.8% lead (500 vs 446). Random string sorting is nearly tied, with the x7835RE at 10180 and the N350 at 10102, a 0.8% difference. The multithread test is close, with the N350 winning 7382 to 7119 (3.7%), but the Atom’s performance in these niche tests suggests its Gracemont cores have strengths in particular computational patterns.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly indicates that the Intel Core 3 N350 is the faster processor for the vast majority of workloads. Its 23.5% lead in single-thread performance and consistent 3.7% to 4.8% advantages across Cinebench and most Passmark tests make it the superior choice for general-purpose computing. The N350 also achieves this at a lower TDP of 7 W versus 12 W, making it more power-efficient. For users running typical productivity apps, web browsing, or even lighter content creation, the N350 is the obvious pick based on the data.

The Intel Atom x7835RE is not without merit, but its wins are highly specialized. The 10.8% lead in physics and 13% lead in prime number calculations could matter for specific embedded or industrial applications that rely on those operations. Its higher base clock of 1.30 GHz might also provide more consistent performance in scenarios where boost clocks are not sustained. However, with only 3 wins out of 17 benchmarks and a lower average score of 9430, the x7835RE is best suited for niche tasks where its specific strengths align with the workload. For anyone else, the Core 3 N350’s higher scores, lower power draw, and additional LPDDR5 memory support make it the data-supported recommendation. The choice ultimately comes down to whether the Atom’s specific benchmark victories are more valuable than the N350’s broad superiority.