Intel Core 3 N350 vs Intel Core 7 360 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data leaves no ambiguity: the Intel Core 7 360 wins every single recorded test against the Intel Core 3 N350. Across all 17 head-to-head comparisons, the Core 7 360 takes the win, with the Core 3 N350 recording zero victories. The margins vary significantly by workload, which reveals the architectural gap between these two mobile processors.

In Cinebench tests, the Core 7 360 dominates by a remarkably consistent margin. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 1374 against 632 for the Core 3 N350, a 54% advantage. The single-core R15 result shows 193 versus 89, a 53.9% lead. Moving to R20, the multicore result is 5726 versus 2635 (54% ahead), and single-core is 808 versus 371 (54.1% ahead). The R23 results continue the pattern: multicore at 13634 versus 6274 (54% lead) and single-core at 1924 versus 885 (also 54% ahead). The consistency of these deltas across all three Cinebench versions suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-specific.

The PassMark suite reveals where each processor's strengths and weaknesses lie. The largest single margin comes in the find prime numbers test, where the Core 7 360 scores 120 versus just 20 for the Core 3 N350, an 83.3% advantage. This test is highly sensitive to raw integer throughput and clock speed, and the Core 7 360's higher boost clock shows clearly here. Extended instructions also show a massive gap: 12390 versus 3981, a 67.9% lead. Physics simulation shows a 63.2% margin (1213 versus 446), and floating point math shows a 60.5% gap (44963 versus 17781).

The narrowest margin appears in integer math, where the Core 7 360 scores 34238 against 27669 for the Core 3 N350, a 19.2% advantage. This is notable because the Core 3 N350 has 8 cores versus 6 for the Core 7 360, yet the Core 7 360 still wins by nearly a fifth. Other PassMark results show the Core 7 360 ahead by 43.7% in data compression (142877 versus 80444), 49% in data encryption (11164 versus 5693), 52.5% in multithread (15544 versus 7382), 42.7% in random string sorting (17636 versus 10102), and 53.8% in single thread (4274 versus 1974).

The average benchmark score reinforces the overall picture. The Core 7 360 averages 18374 across the database, while the Core 3 N350 averages 9903. In percentile terms, the Core 7 360 sits at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 3 N350 sits at the 66th percentile. The nearest rivals for each chip confirm their respective performance tiers. The Core 7 360 lands within 0.4% of the Intel Core i3-13100, Core 5 330, Core i3-14100, and Core 3 305. The Core 3 N350 sits near the Intel Core i7-3770 (2% ahead), Core i5-1035G1 (2.3% ahead), AMD EPYC 7F52 (2.5% behind), and Xeon Platinum 8280 (3.2% behind).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Core 7 360 is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark, and the margins are substantial in most cases. The 54% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore and the 53.8% lead in single-thread PassMark indicate that this is not a close contest. The Core 3 N350's extra two cores do not compensate for the Core 7 360's advantages in clock speed, architecture, and per-core efficiency.

The Core 7 360's nearest rivals are all modern desktop-oriented parts: the Core i3-13100, Core i3-14100, and Core 5 330 all sit within 0.4% of its average score. This places it in a performance class that can handle demanding mobile workloads. The Core 3 N350, by contrast, sits alongside older desktop parts like the Core i7-3770 and the Core i5-1035G1, a mobile chip from several generations back.

The Core 7 360 targets workloads that need strong single-threaded performance and efficient multi-core execution. Its 4.80 GHz boost clock and 3 nm process node give it a significant advantage in bursty tasks and sustained loads alike. The Core 3 N350, with its 7 W TDP and 10 nm process, targets power-sensitive designs where battery life and thermals take priority over raw performance.

Users who need responsive application performance, faster compilation, quicker rendering, and snappier general use should choose the Core 7 360. Users who prioritize minimal power draw and are willing to accept roughly half the performance in most workloads should consider the Core 3 N350. The data does not support any scenario where the Core 3 N350 outperforms the Core 7 360.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core 7 360 scores 13634 versus 6274 for the Core 3 N350, a 54% advantage.

Q: Does the Core 3 N350 win any benchmark?

A: No. Across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the Core 7 360 wins every test. The Core 3 N350 records zero wins.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Core 7 360 averages 18374, within 0.4% of the Core i3-13100, Core 5 330, Core i3-14100, and Core 3 305. The Core 3 N350 averages 9903, sitting 2% above the Core i7-3770 and 2.3% above the Core i5-1035G1.

Q: Which chip has the larger performance gap in single-threaded work?

A: The Core 7 360 leads by 53.8% in PassMark single-thread (4274 versus 1974) and by 54% in Cinebench R23 single-core (1924 versus 885).

Q: What is the smallest performance difference between the two?

A: In PassMark integer math, the Core 7 360 scores 34238 versus 27669 for the Core 3 N350, a 19.2% lead. This is the narrowest margin in the entire benchmark set.

Q: How do their average scores and percentiles compare?

A: The Core 7 360 has an average benchmark score of 18374 and sits at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 N350 averages 9903 and sits at the 66th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The Core 3 N350 uses 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 7 360 uses 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clocks differ substantially: the Core 3 N350 runs at 0.10 GHz, while the Core 7 360 runs at 1.50 GHz. Boost clocks show a similar gap, with the Core 3 N350 reaching 3.90 GHz and the Core 7 360 reaching 4.80 GHz.

Thermal design power differs by more than double. The Core 3 N350 has a TDP of 7 W, while the Core 7 360 has a TDP of 15 W. The sockets are different as well: the Core 3 N350 uses Intel BGA 1264, while the Core 7 360 uses Intel BGA 1516.

Memory support diverges significantly. The Core 3 N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, while the Core 7 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X only. Both use a single-channel memory bus, but memory bandwidth differs: the Core 3 N350 offers 38.4 GB/s, while the Core 7 360 offers 59.7 GB/s. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe capabilities also differ. The Core 3 N350 provides PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 7 360 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 3 N350 uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Core 7 360 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores.

The process nodes are different generations. The Core 3 N350 is built on a 10 nm process, while the Core 7 360 is built on a 3 nm process. Both are manufactured by Intel and both have locked multipliers. The Core 7 360 has a listed launch MSRP of $426; the Core 3 N350 has no listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips is substantial. The Core 3 N350 uses the Twin Lake architecture with the codename Twin Lake, belonging to the Core 3 (Alder Lake-N) generation. The Core 7 360 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, belonging to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. These are separate design families targeting different market positions.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The Core 3 N350 provides 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 360 provides 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 allocation is particularly notable: the Core 7 360 has more than double the L2 per core compared to the Core 3 N350, which helps explain its superior performance in cache-sensitive workloads.

The process node difference of 10 nm versus 3 nm contributes to the efficiency and clock speed advantages of the Core 7 360. The 3 nm node allows higher boost clocks (4.80 GHz versus 3.90 GHz) while maintaining a reasonable power envelope. The Core 7 360 also supports LPDDR5X memory, which the Core 3 N350 does not, enabling higher memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s.

The integrated graphics represent a generational leap. The Core 3 N350 uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Core 7 360 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The newer Xe3 architecture and dedicated Xe cores give the Core 7 360 a more capable graphics solution, though the benchmark data does not include specific graphics tests.

The Core 7 360 also uses PCIe Gen 4, while the Core 3 N350 is limited to PCIe Gen 3. This affects available bandwidth for storage and peripheral devices, though the Core 7 360 has fewer lanes (6 versus 9), so the practical impact depends on the specific device configuration.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 7 360 wins every benchmark category in the database, so the question is not where it wins, but how much it wins by in each workload type. The largest margins appear in integer-heavy and instruction-heavy workloads. The find prime numbers test shows an 83.3% lead, and extended instructions show a 67.9% lead. These workloads benefit directly from the higher boost clock and the per-core L2 cache advantage of the Core 7 360.

Floating point and physics workloads also show large gaps. Floating point math favors the Core 7 360 by 60.5%, and physics simulation by 63.2%. These results indicate that the Core 7 360 is substantially stronger in scientific and simulation workloads. Data encryption shows a 49% lead, and data compression shows a 43.7% lead, making the Core 7 360 the clear choice for archival tasks and encrypted storage operations.

The narrowest margin is in integer math at 19.2%. This is the one workload where the Core 3 N350's additional two cores partially offset the Core 7 360's architectural advantages. Even so, the Core 7 360 still wins by nearly a fifth, which suggests that its per-core efficiency and higher clocks outweigh the raw core count deficit.

For users running Cinebench-style rendering workloads, the Core 7 360 delivers roughly double the performance of the Core 3 N350 across all versions of the test. The consistent 54% margins in R15, R20, and R23 multicore, and the similar single-core margins, indicate that the Core 7 360 is the appropriate choice for content creation and rendering tasks.

The Core 3 N350's only advantages in the recorded data are its lower TDP of 7 W versus 15 W and its support for older DDR4 memory. These are specification advantages, not performance advantages. In every recorded benchmark, the Core 7 360 comes out ahead. The practical takeaway from the data is straightforward: the Core 7 360 is the higher-performing processor in every measurable way, and the Core 3 N350 should be reserved for designs where its lower power draw is more important than performance.