Intel Core 3 N350 vs Intel Core 5 330 Comparison

The Intel Core 3 N350 and the Intel Core 5 330 represent two distinct performance tiers within Intel’s mobile processor lineup. The database shows a decisive performance gap between them, with the Core 5 330 winning all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Core 3 N350 is positioned as a low-power, efficient mobile processor, while the Core 5 330 delivers substantially higher performance across every measured workload, albeit with a higher power envelope.

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these two processors into different usage classes. The Intel Core 5 330 is the overwhelming performance leader, winning every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. Its average benchmark score of 18345 places it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 N350’s average score of 9903 puts it in the 66th percentile. The Core 5 330 outperforms the Core 3 N350 by a remarkable 85% in average benchmark score.

For users prioritizing raw performance, the Core 5 330 is the only choice based on this data. It delivers more than double the multi-core performance in Cinebench R23, scoring 13150 versus 6274. It also shows a substantial lead in single-threaded workloads, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1856 compared to 885.

The Core 3 N350 is the power-efficient alternative. With a thermal design power (TDP) of 7 watts versus 15 watts for the Core 5 330, it consumes significantly less power while still delivering functional performance for basic tasks. Its 8-core configuration with 8 threads does not translate into a performance advantage, as the Core 5 330’s 6 cores with 6 threads outperform it in every workload tested.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Core 3 N350 uses the Twin Lake architecture (codenamed Twin Lake) and belongs to the Core 3 generation based on Alder Lake-N. It is fabricated on Intel’s 10 nm process node. The Core 5 330, in contrast, uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation based on Wildcat Lake, fabricated on a 3 nm process node.

These architectural differences have a direct impact on clock speeds. The Core 3 N350 has a base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The Core 5 330 operates at a base clock of 1.50 GHz and boosts to 4.60 GHz. The higher boost clock of the Core 5 330 contributes significantly to its single-threaded performance advantage.

Cache configurations also differ between the two. The Core 3 N350 features 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 5 330 provides 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. While the L3 cache is identical, the Core 5 330 has double the L1 cache per core and 25% more L2 cache.

Memory support and connectivity also diverge. The Core 3 N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory over a single-channel bus with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, also over a single-channel bus, but with a higher bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core 5 330 also uses PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core 3 N350 uses PCIe Gen 3 with 9 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 N350 uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Core 5 330 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both are locked processors without an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a sweeping victory for the Core 5 330, but the margin varies significantly by workload. The largest gap appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Core 5 330 scores 114 versus 20 for the Core 3 N350, a delta of 82.5% in favor of the Core 5 330.

Cinebench results are consistently in favor of the Core 5 330 by roughly 52% across all versions and thread counts. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 5 330 scores 13150 versus 6274, a delta of 52.3%. Single-core performance follows the same pattern, with the Core 5 330 scoring 1856 versus 885 in Cinebench R23 single-core, also a delta of 52.3%. Cinebench R15 and R20 results show the same approximate 52% advantage for the Core 5 330 in both multi-core and single-core tests.

PassMark tests reveal a broader range of deltas. The extended instructions test shows the Core 5 330 leading by 68.9%, scoring 12808 versus 3981. Floating point math shows a 59.5% advantage, with scores of 43885 versus 17781. The physics test shows the Core 5 330 scoring 1201 versus 446, a delta of 62.9%. Data encryption results show the Core 5 330 at 11076 versus 5693, a delta of 48.6%.

The smallest margin appears in integer math, where the Core 5 330 scores 33258 versus 27669 for the Core 3 N350, a delta of only 16.8%. This suggests that the Core 3 N350 is comparatively less disadvantaged in integer-heavy workloads than in floating-point or encryption tasks. Other PassMark tests show intermediate margins: data compression at 44.6%, random string sorting at 43.2%, and multithread at 52.3%. Single-thread performance shows the Core 5 330 scoring 4088 versus 1974, a delta of 51.7%.

The Core 3 N350 does not win a single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. Every one of the 17 recorded tests favors the Core 5 330.

Specification Differences

The core specifications that separate these two processors are extensive. The Core 3 N350 uses 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 5 330 uses 6 cores and 6 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the Core 5 330 delivers superior performance due to its newer architecture and higher clock speeds.

The base clock differs substantially: 0.10 GHz for the Core 3 N350 compared to 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 330. Boost clocks also differ, with 3.90 GHz on the Core 3 N350 and 4.60 GHz on the Core 5 330. The TDP is 7 watts for the Core 3 N350 and 15 watts for the Core 5 330.

Socket compatibility differs as well. The Core 3 N350 uses Intel BGA 1264, while the Core 5 330 uses Intel BGA 1516. Process nodes differ, with the Core 3 N350 on 10 nm and the Core 5 330 on 3 nm. The Core 5 330 has a launch MSRP of $309.

Cache hierarchies differ in L1 and L2 capacity. The Core 3 N350 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of shared L2 cache. The Core 5 330 has 192 KB of L1 cache and 2.5 MB of L2 cache. Both share 6 MB of L3 cache.

Memory support differs, with the Core 3 N350 supporting DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, while the Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth is higher on the Core 5 330 at 59.7 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s. PCIe support also differs, with Gen 3 and 9 lanes on the Core 3 N350 versus Gen 4 and 6 lanes on the Core 5 330.

The integrated graphics units differ, with UHD Graphics 770 on the Core 3 N350 and Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores on the Core 5 330. Both processors are mobile segments, active in production, and locked.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 3 N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Despite the core count advantage, the Core 3 N350 does not win any benchmark against the Core 5 330.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-threaded workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 5 330 scores 13150 versus 6274 for the Core 3 N350, a delta of 52.3%. The PassMark multithread test shows a similar margin, with the Core 5 330 scoring 15471 versus 7382.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The Core 3 N350 has a TDP of 7 watts, while the Core 5 330 has a TDP of 15 watts. The Core 3 N350 consumes less power but also delivers less performance.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, while the Intel Core 3 N350 boosts to 3.90 GHz. The Core 5 330 also has a higher base clock at 1.50 GHz versus 0.10 GHz.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 3 N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5. The Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Core 5 330 has higher memory bandwidth at 59.7 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s.

Q: How do these processors compare to similar CPUs in the market?

A: The Core 3 N350 has an average benchmark score of 9903, placing it near the Intel Core i7-3770 with a delta of 2% and the Intel Core i5-1035G1 with a delta of 2.3%. The Core 5 330 has an average score of 18345, placing it near the Intel Core i3-14100 with a delta of 0.1% and the Intel Core i3-13100 with a delta of 0.2%.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 330 wins in every single benchmark category recorded in the database. Its most dominant victories come in the PassMark extended instructions test, where it leads by 68.9%, and the PassMark physics test, where it leads by 62.9%. The floating point math test shows a 59.5% advantage. These results indicate that the Core 5 330 is particularly strong in workloads that depend on modern instruction sets and floating-point arithmetic.

The Core 5 330 also shows its greatest relative strength in computational tasks like prime number finding, where it leads by 82.5%, and data encryption, where it leads by 48.6%. Its Cinebench results, consistently around 52% ahead, confirm that it is roughly twice as fast as the Core 3 N350 in both single-core and multi-core render workloads.

The Core 3 N350 has no benchmark wins, but its smaller deficit in integer math (16.8% behind) suggests it is less disadvantaged in integer-heavy applications than in other workload types. Its lower TDP of 7 watts also positions it as the more power-efficient option, a factor not captured directly in performance benchmarks but relevant for systems where thermals and battery life are priorities.

For users with workloads that require maximum processing speed, the Core 5 330 is the superior processor across every measured metric. For systems constrained by power consumption, the Core 3 N350 offers a functional, lower-power alternative, though the data shows it trails the Core 5 330 in all performance categories.