Intel Core 3 N350 vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 3 N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: How do their boost clocks compare?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 boosts to 4.60 GHz, which is significantly higher than the Intel Core 3 N350's 3.90 GHz boost clock. The Core 5 320 also has a higher base clock at 1.50 GHz versus 0.10 GHz.

Q: What is the difference in process node?

A: The Intel Core 3 N350 uses a 10 nm process, while the Intel Core 5 320 uses a 3 nm process.

Q: Which chip has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 has an average benchmark score of 18023, compared to 9903 for the Intel Core 3 N350. The Core 5 320 also sits in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, versus the 66th percentile for the Core 3 N350.

Q: Does the Core 3 N350 win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 3 N350 wins one head-to-head test: Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 6274 versus 6197 for the Core 5 320, a 1.2% advantage.

Q: What memory types does each support?

A: The Intel Core 3 N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5. The Intel Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design lineages. The Intel Core 3 N350 is based on Twin Lake architecture, which is part of the Alder Lake-N generation. It uses a 10 nm process node and packs 8 cores with 8 threads. The cache layout includes 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3.

The Intel Core 5 320 uses Wildcat Lake architecture from the Core 5 generation. It is built on a 3 nm process, a much denser node. Despite having fewer cores (6 versus 8), it features a larger L1 cache at 192 KB total, 2.5 MB of L2, and the same 6 MB of shared L3. The integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 3 N350 uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores.

Memory support also splits along node lines. The Core 3 N350 accepts DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, while the Core 5 320 only supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The memory bus is single-channel for both, but the Core 5 320 delivers 59.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 38.4 GB/s for the Core 3 N350.

PCIe connectivity differs too. The Core 3 N350 provides Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 5 320 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). Both chips are mobile segments, active in production, and have locked multipliers. The Core 3 N350 uses socket Intel BGA 1264, and the Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 320 dominates nearly every workload category in the recorded data. Out of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, it wins 16. The single win for the Core 3 N350 comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where its 8 cores edge out the 6-core design by a narrow 1.2% margin. That result suggests that in heavily threaded rendering workloads that scale well beyond 6 cores, the extra two cores of the N350 can offset its older architecture.

Everywhere else, the Core 5 320 shows a clear advantage. Single-thread performance is dramatically better, with the Core 5 320 scoring 4045 in PassMark single-thread versus 1974 for the Core 3 N350. That gap appears in Cinebench single-core tests as well, where the Core 5 320 leads by 54% to 67.8% depending on the test version.

In integer math, the Core 5 320 scores 32323 versus 27669 for the Core 3 N350, a 14.4% lead. Floating-point math shows an even larger gap: 42440 versus 17781, a 58.1% advantage. Extended instruction workloads favor the Core 5 320 heavily, with a score of 13262 versus 3981, a 70% gap. Physics simulation also favors the Core 5 320, scoring 1221 versus 446, a 63.5% lead.

For data compression and encryption, the Core 5 320 wins by 45.9% and 48.2% respectively. Random string sorting shows a 44% advantage for the Core 5 320. Prime number finding is the largest relative gap, with the Core 5 320 scoring 110 versus 20, an 81.8% lead.

For users who need the best possible multi-threaded rendering performance in Cinebench R23, the Core 3 N350 holds a small edge. For everything else, including general productivity, scientific computation, and single-threaded applications, the Core 5 320 is the stronger choice.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The Core 3 N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clock speeds are 0.10 GHz for the Core 3 N350 and 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 320. Boost clocks are 3.90 GHz versus 4.60 GHz.

Thermal design power differs significantly: the Core 3 N350 is rated at 7 W, while the Core 5 320 is rated at 15 W. The socket changes from Intel BGA 1264 to Intel BGA 1516. Architecture names differ: Twin Lake for the Core 3 N350, Wildcat Lake for the Core 5 320. Process nodes are 10 nm versus 3 nm.

Cache configurations are not identical. The Core 3 N350 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core 5 320 has 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3.

Memory support differs: the Core 3 N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, while the Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth is 38.4 GB/s for the Core 3 N350 and 59.7 GB/s for the Core 5 320. PCIe generation and lane count also differ: Gen 3 with 9 lanes for the Core 3 N350, Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the Core 5 320.

Integrated graphics are different: UHD Graphics 770 on the Core 3 N350, Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) on the Core 5 320. The release dates are January 2025 for the Core 3 N350 and April 2026 for the Core 5 320. Part numbers are SRPNS for the Core 3 N350 and SAE3H for the Core 5 320. The Core 5 320 has a launch MSRP of $340.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a consistent pattern of dominance by the Intel Core 5 320, with one notable exception. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 3 N350 scores 6274 against 6197 for the Core 5 320, a 1.2% win. This is the only test where the 8-core chip outperforms the 6-core chip.

The largest single advantage for the Core 5 320 comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 110 versus 20 for the Core 3 N350, an 81.8% lead. This suggests a massive difference in integer-heavy algorithmic workloads.

Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 67.8% advantage for the Core 5 320, scoring 276 versus 89. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 51.9% lead, with 771 versus 371. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 54% lead, with 1926 versus 885. These results confirm that the Core 5 320's higher boost clock and newer architecture deliver substantially better per-thread performance.

Multi-core Cinebench results are mixed. In R15, the Core 5 320 leads by 40%, scoring 1054 versus 632. In R20, the lead is 51.8%, with 5462 versus 2635. But in R23, the Core 3 N350 pulls ahead by 1.2%. The R23 result likely reflects the workload's ability to use all 8 cores effectively, while R15 and R20 may not scale as well.

PassMark multi-thread shows a 52.2% advantage for the Core 5 320, scoring 15450 versus 7382. PassMark physics shows a 63.5% lead, with 1221 versus 446. Floating-point math shows a 58.1% lead, with 42440 versus 17781.

Data compression favors the Core 5 320 by 45.9%, with 148779 versus 80444. Data encryption shows a 48.2% lead, with 10984 versus 5693. Extended instructions show a 70% lead, with 13262 versus 3981. Integer math shows a 14.4% lead, with 32323 versus 27669. Random string sorting shows a 44% lead, with 18038 versus 10102.

Single-thread PassMark tests show the Core 5 320 at 4045 versus 1974 for the Core 3 N350, a 51.2% advantage. This matches the pattern seen in Cinebench single-core tests.

The Core 3 N350's average benchmark score is 9903, placing it in the 66th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-3770 at 9706 (2% behind) and the Intel Core i5-1035G1 at 9684 (2.3% behind). The AMD EPYC 7F52 scores 10159 (2.5% ahead) and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 scores 10230 (3.2% ahead).

The Core 5 320's average benchmark score is 18023, placing it in the 72nd percentile. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 at 17994 (0.2% behind), the Intel Core 5 120U at 17898 (0.7% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT at 17891 (0.7% behind). The Intel Core i5-1334U scores 18154 (0.7% ahead).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core 5 320 wins 16 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks and posts an average score of 18023, which is 82% higher than the Core 3 N350's 9903 average. The Core 5 320 also ranks higher in the overall percentile, at 72 versus 66.

For most workloads, the Core 5 320 is the obvious pick. Its single-thread performance is more than double that of the Core 3 N350 in some tests, and its advantages in floating-point math, extended instructions, and physics simulation are substantial. The only scenario where the Core 3 N350 wins is Cinebench R23 multi-core, where its 8 cores provide a marginal 1.2% edge.

The Core 3 N350's lower 7 W TDP makes it suitable for power-constrained designs, while the Core 5 320's 15 W TDP indicates a higher performance envelope. The Core 5 320 also offers newer memory standards (DDR5 and LPDDR5X) and higher memory bandwidth at 59.7 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s.

Given the benchmark record, a system builder prioritizing raw performance should select the Intel Core 5 320. A builder targeting maximum multi-threaded rendering in Cinebench R23 specifically, or operating under strict power limits, might consider the Core 3 N350. Otherwise, the Core 5 320 delivers a commanding performance advantage across nearly every measured workload.