Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core 3 N350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a dominant performance profile for the Intel Core 3 305 across every benchmark in the comparison set. In the 17 head-to-head tests, the Core 3 305 wins all 17, with the Core 3 N350 recording zero wins. The margin of victory varies by workload, from a modest 16.7% advantage in integer math to a massive 475% lead in prime number finding.

The Cinebench suite reveals the clearest overall performance gap. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 3 305 scores 13,123 against 6,274 for the N350, a delta of 109.2%. The single-core test shows a similar pattern: 1,852 versus 885, a 109.3% delta. The R20 and R15 tests mirror this consistency, with deltas of 109.1% and 109.2% in multi-core, and 109.4% and 109.0% in single-core. This across-the-board doubling suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark results split into two groups. The first group, including data compression, encryption, multithread, and random string sorting, shows deltas between 74.5% and 109.1%. The Core 3 305 delivers 146,857 in data compression versus 80,444, a 82.6% advantage. Encryption shows 11,019 against 5,693, a 93.6% delta. The multithread test records 15,439 versus 7,382, a 109.1% delta. Random string sorting shows 17,623 against 10,102, a 74.5% delta.

The second PassMark group highlights specialized instruction handling. Extended instructions show the Core 3 305 at 13,543 versus 3,981, a 240.2% delta. Floating point math delivers 42,284 against 17,781, a 137.8% delta. The extreme outlier is prime number finding: 115 versus 20, a 475% delta. Physics testing also shows a wide gap, with 1,233 against 446, a 176.5% delta.

The narrowest margin appears in integer math, where the Core 3 305 scores 32,295 versus 27,669, a 16.7% delta. This indicates that basic integer operations benefit less from the architectural differences than floating point, encryption, or extended instruction workloads. Single-thread PassMark shows 3,977 versus 1,974, a 101.5% delta, consistent with the Cinebench single-core results.

Average benchmark scores place the Core 3 305 at 18,302 and the N350 at 9,903. The Core 3 305 sits at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs, while the N350 sits at the 66th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 3 305 include the Intel Core i3-14100 at 18,318 (a -0.1% delta), the Intel Core 5 330 at 18,345 (-0.2%), the Intel Core 7 360 at 18,374 (-0.4%), and the AMD Ryzen 5 2600E at 18,230 (+0.4%). The N350's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-3770 at 9,706 (+2.0%), the Intel Core i5-1035G1 at 9,684 (+2.3%), the AMD EPYC 7F52 at 10,159 (-2.5%), and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 at 10,230 (-3.2%).

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core 3 305 is the stronger processor for every measured workload. Its average benchmark score of 18,302 nearly doubles the N350's 9,903. The delta of roughly 109% across Cinebench tests means the Core 3 305 delivers approximately twice the multi-threaded and single-threaded rendering performance. For users running Cinebench-class workloads, the choice is clear.

The nearest rival comparison reinforces this positioning. The Core 3 305 matches the Intel Core i3-14100 within 0.1%, while the N350 aligns with older desktop and mobile parts like the Core i7-3770 and Core i5-1035G1. The N350's 66th percentile ranking versus the Core 3 305's 72nd percentile confirms the latter sits higher in the overall performance distribution.

The N350 does offer one distinct advantage from the data: power consumption. Its TDP is 7 watts versus 15 watts for the Core 3 305. This makes the N350 suitable for scenarios where thermal and energy budgets are the primary constraint. However, the benchmark scores show that the N350's efficiency comes at a steep performance cost, with no workload where it closes the gap below 16.7%.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 3 305 wins in every benchmark category recorded. The largest wins appear in extended instructions (240.2% delta), prime number finding (475%), physics (176.5%), and floating point math (137.8%). These results indicate the Core 3 305's architecture handles complex mathematical operations, simulation physics, and specialized instruction sets far more effectively. The smallest win is integer math at 16.7%, suggesting the N350's integer throughput is relatively less disadvantaged.

The Intel Core 3 N350 does not win any benchmark in the dataset. Its strongest relative performance is integer math, where it trails by only 16.7%. Its weakest relative performance is prime number finding, where it trails by 475%. For workloads dominated by integer operations, the N350 remains usable but still slower. For workloads involving extended instructions or heavy floating point, the N350 falls far behind.

The N350's 8 cores and 8 threads exceed the Core 3 305's 6 cores and 6 threads. Despite the core count disadvantage, the Core 3 305 wins multi-core tests by roughly 109%. This indicates the Core 3 305's per-core performance, combined with its higher boost clock of 4.30 GHz versus 3.90 GHz, overcomes the N350's two additional cores. The base clock difference is extreme: 1.50 GHz for the Core 3 305 versus 0.10 GHz for the N350.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 3 305 has an average benchmark score of 18,302, while the Intel Core 3 N350 has an average score of 9,903.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Core 3 305 scores 13,123 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 6,274 for the N350, a delta of 109.2%.

Q: Does the N350 have more cores than the Core 3 305?

A: Yes, the N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Despite this, the Core 3 305 wins all multi-core benchmarks.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The Core 3 305 has a TDP of 15 watts, and the N350 has a TDP of 7 watts.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core 3 305 has a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, compared to 3.90 GHz for the N350.

Q: How do the two compare in single-thread PassMark performance?

A: The Core 3 305 scores 3,977 in PassMark single-thread, versus 1,974 for the N350, a delta of 101.5%.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is built on a 3 nm process node. The Intel Core 3 N350 uses the Twin Lake codename and is built on a 10 nm process node. Both processors are manufactured by Intel. The process node difference explains much of the performance gap, as the 3 nm node allows for higher clock speeds and better transistor efficiency.

The Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The N350's extremely low base clock indicates it relies heavily on boost behavior for actual performance delivery. The Core 3 305's higher base clock provides more consistent performance under sustained loads.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The Core 3 305 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The N350 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 3 305's larger L1 and L2 caches support its higher per-core performance. Both share 6 MB of L3 cache.

Memory support differs. The Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, while the N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5. Memory bandwidth favors the Core 3 305 at 59.7 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s for the N350. Both use single-channel memory buses. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe capabilities differ. The Core 3 305 uses PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the N350 uses PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 3 305 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe), while the N350 uses UHD Graphics 770.

Specification Differences

The socket types differ: the Core 3 305 uses Intel BGA 1516, and the N350 uses Intel BGA 1264. The Core 3 305 has a launch MSRP of $309, while the N350 has no recorded launch MSRP. The release dates differ, with the Core 3 305 releasing on 2026-04-15 and the N350 releasing on 2025-01-06. Both processors are active in production and have locked multipliers.

Part numbers differ: the Core 3 305 uses part number SAE3L, and the N350 uses SRPNS. The Core 3 305's generation is listed as Core 3 (Wildcat Lake), while the N350's generation is listed as Core 3 (Alder Lake-N), with architecture Twin Lake. The N350 records a base clock of 0.10 GHz, while the Core 3 305 records 1.50 GHz. The N350's 8 cores and 8 threads exceed the Core 3 305's 6 cores and 6 threads.

The N350 supports DDR4 memory in addition to DDR5 and LPDDR5, while the Core 3 305 supports only DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The N350 offers 9 PCIe Gen 3 lanes versus the Core 3 305's 6 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, which means more lanes but an older generation. The N350's 7 watt TDP is less than half the Core 3 305's 15 watt TDP, positioning the N350 for lower-power designs. The Core 3 305's 3 nm process node versus the N350's 10 nm process node represents the most significant architectural difference between the two.