Intel Core 3 N350 vs Intel Core 5 315 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data delivers a one-sided comparison. The Intel Core 5 315 wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark entries listed in the database, with no wins recorded for the Intel Core 3 N350. The margin varies significantly by workload, ranging from a modest single-digit gap in some integer tasks to a dominant multi-fold advantage in others.

The largest single delta appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test. The Core 5 315 scores 112, while the Core 3 N350 scores 20, a delta of -82.1% from the perspective of the slower chip. This indicates the Core 5 315 is roughly five and a half times faster in prime number calculation, a workload that is highly sensitive to raw integer throughput and memory latency. The extended instructions test also shows a massive gap: the Core 5 315 records 13,143 versus 3,981 for the Core 3 N350, a delta of -69.7%. This suggests the newer processor handles advanced instruction sets with substantially greater efficiency.

The Cinebench suite reinforces the same hierarchy across both multi-core and single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 5 315 scores 12,981, while the Core 3 N350 manages 6,274, a delta of -51.7%. The single-core R23 result is similarly lopsided: 1,832 for the Core 5 315 versus 885 for the Core 3 N350, again a delta of -51.7%. These consistent deltas across all Cinebench versions, from R15 through R23, indicate a uniform architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The PassMark multithread test shows the Core 5 315 at 15,272 versus 7,382 for the Core 3 N350, a delta of -51.7%. The single-thread test records 4,021 for the Core 5 315 and 1,974 for the Core 3 N350, a delta of -50.9%. The near-identical percentage gaps in both single-thread and multithread results suggest that the Core 5 315's advantage stems from per-core performance improvements, not just additional parallel resources.

Data compression shows the Core 5 315 at 146,143 versus 80,444 for the Core 3 N350, a delta of -45%. Data encryption records 11,119 versus 5,693, a delta of -48.8%. Floating point math delivers 42,441 versus 17,781, a delta of -58.1%. Physics simulation shows 1,163 versus 446, a delta of -61.7%. Random string sorting records 17,551 versus 10,102, a delta of -42.4%.

The narrowest gap in the entire comparison appears in PassMark integer math. The Core 5 315 scores 31,690, while the Core 3 N350 scores 27,669, a delta of only -12.7%. This is the only benchmark where the two processors approach parity, indicating that basic integer arithmetic does not fully exercise the architectural differences between them.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 315 wins every recorded benchmark category, but the degree of dominance varies by workload type. The data reveals distinct clusters of performance deltas that map to different computational patterns.

For single-core and lightly threaded workloads, the Core 5 315 holds a consistent advantage of roughly 50% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests, as well as PassMark single-thread. This consistency suggests the per-core IPC and clock speed improvements are the primary drivers. The boost clock difference is notable: the Core 5 315 reaches 4.40 GHz versus 3.90 GHz for the Core 3 N350, and the base clock is 1.50 GHz versus 0.10 GHz.

For multi-core workloads, the Core 5 315 again shows roughly 50% advantages in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, plus PassMark multithread. This is despite the Core 3 N350 having more cores, 8 versus 6. The Core 5 315 compensates with higher per-core throughput and a more efficient architecture, resulting in nearly double the multi-core score.

For data-heavy workloads, the Core 5 315 shows even larger margins. Extended instructions, prime number finding, physics, and floating point math all show deltas between -58% and -82%. These tasks benefit heavily from the newer instruction set support and improved execution units in the Core 5 315.

The only area where the Core 3 N350 comes close is PassMark integer math, with a delta of -12.7%. This indicates that for simple integer operations, the two processors are more comparable, though the Core 5 315 still leads.

The Core 3 N350 offers no benchmark category where it records a win. Its 8 cores and 8 threads provide a thread count advantage, but the recorded scores show the Core 5 315's 6 cores and 6 threads deliver superior results across every measured task.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The Intel Core 3 N350 uses the Twin Lake architecture, also identified as Alder Lake-N, and is manufactured on a 10 nm process node at Intel's foundry. The Intel Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake architecture and is manufactured on a 3 nm process node, also at Intel's foundry. The process node difference, from 10 nm to 3 nm, represents a substantial reduction in feature size, which typically enables higher transistor density and improved power efficiency.

Core counts differ: the Core 3 N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts equal core counts for both. The Core 3 N350's extra cores do not translate into benchmark wins, as the Core 5 315's per-core performance dominates.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 3 N350 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 5 315 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 5 315 offers double the L1 cache per core and slightly more L2 cache, while L3 remains equal at 6 MB.

Memory support diverges significantly. The Core 3 N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory, while the Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use a single-channel memory bus, but the memory bandwidth differs substantially: the Core 3 N350 delivers 38.4 GB/s, while the Core 5 315 delivers 59.7 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage likely contributes to the Core 5 315's strong showing in data-intensive benchmarks.

PCIe support also differs. The Core 3 N350 offers PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 5 315 offers PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The generation upgrade provides more bandwidth per lane, though the lane count is lower.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 N350 uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Core 5 315 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The newer Xe3 architecture represents a significant graphics upgrade, though the benchmark data focuses on CPU workloads.

The sockets differ: the Core 3 N350 uses Intel BGA 1264, while the Core 5 315 uses Intel BGA 1516. Both are mobile processors in active production. The Core 5 315 has a launch MSRP of $340, while the Core 3 N350 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Power characteristics differ, with the Core 3 N350 rated at 7 W TDP and the Core 5 315 rated at 15 W TDP. The higher TDP of the Core 5 315 aligns with its higher clock speeds and performance, though the database does not record power efficiency measurements.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 3 N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Neither supports simultaneous multithreading.

Q: What is the benchmark score difference in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 scores 12,981, while the Intel Core 3 N350 scores 6,274, a delta of -51.7% from the perspective of the slower chip.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 has a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, while the Intel Core 3 N350 has a boost clock of 3.90 GHz.

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

A: The Intel Core 5 315 scores 4,021 in PassMark single-thread, while the Intel Core 3 N350 scores 1,974, a delta of -50.9%.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 3 N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, while the Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use a single-channel memory bus.

Q: Which processor has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 delivers 59.7 GB/s, while the Intel Core 3 N350 delivers 38.4 GB/s.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy: the Intel Core 5 315 outperforms the Intel Core 3 N350 in every recorded test. The Core 5 315 wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark entries, with no wins recorded for the Core 3 N350. The average benchmark score for the Core 5 315 is 18,188, placing it at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 3 N350 averages 9,903 and sits at the 66th percentile.

The Core 5 315's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD EPYC 9274F with a delta of 0%, the Intel Core i7-9700 with a delta of 0%, the Intel Core i7-1365U with a delta of 0.1%, and the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U with a delta of 0.1%. These close matches indicate the Core 5 315 performs at a level comparable to established desktop and mobile processors from previous generations.

The Core 3 N350's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-3770 with a delta of 2%, the Intel Core i5-1035G1 with a delta of 2.3%, the AMD EPYC 7F52 with a delta of -2.5%, and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 with a delta of -3.2%. These comparisons place the Core 3 N350 in the range of older desktop and enterprise processors.

For workloads that demand high single-thread performance, such as lightly threaded applications and legacy software, the Core 5 315 delivers roughly double the score of the Core 3 N350 across Cinebench and PassMark single-thread tests. For multi-threaded tasks, the Core 5 315 also delivers roughly double the score, despite having fewer cores. For specialized workloads like extended instructions and prime number finding, the Core 5 315's advantage grows to three-fold or more.

The Core 3 N350's 8 cores may appeal to scenarios where thread count alone is a consideration, but the recorded data shows no benchmark where this translates into a performance win. The Core 5 315's architecture, built on a 3 nm process with higher clock speeds, larger L1 cache, and greater memory bandwidth, establishes it as the superior processor across every measured metric.

The data indicates that the Core 5 315 is the appropriate choice for applications where performance is the primary criterion, particularly for single-threaded responsiveness, multi-core rendering, and data-intensive tasks. The Core 3 N350 remains a functional processor for basic mobile workloads, but the benchmark evidence positions it clearly below the Core 5 315 in all recorded scenarios.