Intel Core 3 N350 vs Intel Core 5 211E Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each processor?

A: The Intel Core 3 N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How do their boost clocks compare?

A: The Core 3 N350 boosts to 3.90 GHz, while the Core 5 211E boosts to 4.90 GHz.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Core 5 211E has 20 MB of shared L3 cache, whereas the Core 3 N350 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these two chips?

A: The Core 3 N350 is rated at 7 W, and the Core 5 211E is rated at 65 W.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core 5 211E supports ECC memory, while the Core 3 N350 does not.

Q: Which processor has the higher overall benchmark percentile?

A: The Core 5 211E sits at the 86th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the Core 3 N350 at the 66th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different Intel design families. The Core 3 N350 uses the Twin Lake architecture (codenamed Twin Lake) and is listed under the Alder Lake-N generation. The Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) generation.

The process node is nominally the same at 10 nm, and both are fabricated by Intel. However, their physical packages and sockets differ completely. The Core 3 N350 uses Intel BGA 1264, is classified as a Mobile segment part, and uses a single-channel memory bus with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core 5 211E uses Intel Socket 1700, is a Desktop segment part, and uses a dual-channel memory bus with 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The die size of the Core 5 211E is 257 mm², whereas no die size is recorded for the Core 3 N350.

Cache structures differ substantially. The Core 3 N350 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core 5 211E has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Core 5 211E also offers Gen 5 PCIe with 16 lanes, while the Core 3 N350 provides Gen 3 with 9 lanes.

Memory support is broader on the Core 3 N350, which lists DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, whereas the Core 5 211E lists DDR4 and DDR5 only. The integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 3 N350 carries UHD Graphics 770, and the Core 5 211E carries UHD Graphics 730. The Core 5 211E supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the Core 3 N350. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The benchmark data leaves little ambiguity. The Core 5 211E wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, and the Core 3 N350 records zero wins. The Core 5 211E also holds a significantly higher average benchmark score of 37829 versus 9903 for the Core 3 N350. In percentile terms, the Core 5 211E ranks at 86, while the Core 3 N350 ranks at 66.

The Core 3 N350 is positioned as a low-power mobile part. Its 7 W TDP, single-channel memory bus, and Twin Lake architecture point toward efficiency-focused designs. The Core 5 211E, with a 65 W TDP, dual-channel memory, more cores, and a larger cache, is clearly the stronger compute part for desktop workloads. The recorded data shows the Core 5 211E is the choice for any task requiring sustained multi-core performance, memory bandwidth, or ECC support. The Core 3 N350 is the choice only where power draw and mobile integration matter more than raw throughput. There is no benchmark category in which the Core 3 N350 leads.

Specification Differences

• Cores: 8 (Core 3 N350) versus 10 (Core 5 211E)
• Threads: 8 versus 16
• Base clock: 0.10 GHz versus 2.70 GHz
• Boost clock: 3.90 GHz versus 4.90 GHz
• TDP: 7 W versus 65 W
• Socket: Intel BGA 1264 versus Intel Socket 1700
• Codename: Twin Lake versus Bartlett Lake
• Generation: Core 3 (Alder Lake-N) versus Core 5 (Bartlett Lake)
• Die size: not recorded versus 257 mm²
• L1 cache: 96 KB per core versus 80 KB per core
• L2 cache: 2 MB shared versus 2 MB per core
• L3 cache: 6 MB shared versus 20 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 versus DDR4, DDR5
• Memory bus: single-channel versus dual-channel
• Memory bandwidth: 38.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s
• ECC memory: not supported versus supported
• PCIe: Gen 3, 9 lanes versus Gen 5, 16 lanes
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 770 versus UHD Graphics 730
• Market segment: Mobile versus Desktop
• Release date: 2025-01-06 versus 2025-01-12
• Launch MSRP: none recorded versus $221
• Part number: SRPNS versus SRQERQ65F

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core 5 211E dominates every recorded test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 20389 against 6274 for the Core 3 N350, a delta of -69.2%. The single-core result in R23 is similarly lopsided: 2878 versus 885, also -69.2%. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 8563 versus 2635 (-69.2%), and R20 single-core shows 1208 versus 371 (-69.3%). Cinebench R15 multi-core and single-core both show 2055 versus 632 and 289 versus 89, each with a -69.2% delta.

The PassMark suite tells the same story with even wider margins in some tests. Data compression heavily favors the Core 5 211E at 346757 versus 80444, a -76.8% delta. Extended instructions show 21592 versus 3981, a -81.6% delta, the largest gap in the entire benchmark set. Floating point math scores 66402 versus 17781 (-73.2%), and random string sorting scores 34308 versus 10102 (-70.6%). Integer math is 88117 versus 27669 (-68.6%). Data encryption is 17938 versus 5693 (-68.3%). The multithread test shows 23833 versus 7382 (-69%).

Some gaps are smaller. The physics test shows 702 versus 446, a -36.5% delta, the narrowest margin in the set. Single-thread performance is 4006 versus 1974, a -50.7% delta. The find prime numbers test is 43 versus 20, a -53.5% delta. Even the Core 5 211E's smallest wins, such as physics, still represent a solid advantage. The data shows a consistent pattern: the Core 5 211E is roughly two to five times faster depending on the workload.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 211E wins everywhere in the recorded data. Its largest advantages appear in extended instructions (-81.6%), data compression (-76.8%), and floating point math (-73.2%). These are compute-heavy, throughput-oriented tasks that benefit from its 10 cores, 16 threads, dual-channel memory, and 20 MB of L3 cache. The multi-core Cinebench results confirm this, with all three Cinebench multi-core tests showing a -69.2% delta. The Core 5 211E is also the only one of the two with ECC memory support, which matters for reliability-sensitive workloads.

The Core 3 N350 has no benchmark wins to claim. Its narrowest defeats come in physics (-36.5%) and find prime numbers (-53.5%), meaning it is relatively less disadvantaged in those tests than in others. Its 7 W TDP, however, makes it the only part of the two suitable for very low-power or battery-driven mobile designs. It also supports LPDDR5 memory, which the Core 5 211E does not list. For a workload profile focused on minimal power draw in a mobile chassis, the Core 3 N350 is the only option that fits the socket and thermal envelope. For any workload where performance, memory bandwidth, or ECC support is the priority, the Core 5 211E is the clear selection.