Intel Core 3 N350 vs Intel Core i5-1035G1 Comparison

The Intel Core 3 N350 and Intel Core i5-1035G1 are two mobile processors with nearly identical average benchmark scores, but they achieve that parity through very different architectures and performance profiles. The data shows the Core 3 N350 edges out the i5-1035G1 in the aggregate, posting an average benchmark score of 9903 against 9684, a 2.3% advantage that places it in the 66th percentile of all CPUs versus the i5-1035G1's 65th percentile. However, the head-to-head results reveal a more nuanced picture: the Core 3 N350 wins 13 of 17 benchmarks, but the i5-1035G1 counters with decisive victories in specific workloads, making the choice between them dependent on the intended use case.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to the Intel Core 3 N350 as the better all-around choice for multi-threaded and compute-heavy workloads. It leads in every Cinebench test, with margins ranging from 3.3% to 3.5% across R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core runs. The Core 3 N350 also dominates in PassMark's floating-point math (17781 vs 15483, a 14.8% advantage), integer math (27669 vs 26645, a 3.8% lead), and data encryption (5693 vs 4094, a commanding 39.1% lead). For users running rendering, scientific calculations, or encryption tasks, the Core 3 N350 is the clear winner from the data.

The Intel Core i5-1035G1 is the better pick only when single-thread responsiveness or extended instruction set performance is the priority. Its PassMark single-thread score of 2198 beats the Core 3 N350's 1974 by 10.2%, and its extended instructions score of 5524 surpasses the Core 3 N350's 3981 by 27.9%. The i5-1035G1 also wins narrowly in data compression (80534 vs 80444, a 0.1% edge). Users prioritizing older legacy single-threaded applications or workloads that leverage extended SIMD instructions would find the i5-1035G1 more suitable, but this comes at the cost of losing the multi-core advantages.

Given the overall win count and the breadth of the Core 3 N350's victories, the data suggests it is the more versatile processor for general mobile use. The i5-1035G1's wins are concentrated in two specific areas, while the Core 3 N350's wins span rendering, math, physics, and sorting tasks. For a neutral recommendation, the Core 3 N350 offers a more balanced performance profile with a higher aggregate score, while the i5-1035G1 serves a narrower niche.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and microarchitectures, which explains their divergent performance characteristics. The Core 3 N350 is based on Twin Lake, a continuation of the Alder Lake-N family, while the i5-1035G1 uses the older Ice Lake architecture with Sunny Cove cores. Both are built on a 10 nm process node from Intel, but the similarity ends there.

The core configurations are markedly different. The Core 3 N350 packs 8 cores and 8 threads, while the i5-1035G1 has only 4 cores but 8 threads through Hyper-Threading. This explains why the Core 3 N350 excels in multi-threaded tests despite a lower base clock of 0.10 GHz versus the i5-1035G1's 1000.00 GHz base clock. The boost clocks tell a different story: the Core 3 N350 boosts to 3.90 GHz, while the i5-1035G1 boosts to 3.60 GHz, giving the Core 3 N350 a higher peak frequency.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 3 N350 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of shared L2 cache, while the i5-1035G1 has 80 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB per core of L2. Both share 6 MB of L3 cache, but the per-core L2 allocation differs significantly. The i5-1035G1 also has a smaller die size at 123 mm², while the Core 3 N350's die size is not listed in the data.

Memory support is a major differentiator. The Core 3 N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 across a single-channel memory bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The i5-1035G1 supports only DDR4 but uses a dual-channel memory bus, doubling bandwidth to 51.2 GB/s. This memory bandwidth advantage does not translate into benchmark wins for the i5-1035G1, as the data shows it loses most memory-sensitive tests.

Other differences include the socket (BGA 1264 for the Core 3 N350 versus BGA 1526 for the i5-1035G1), PCIe support (Gen 3 with 9 lanes for the Core 3 N350 versus Gen 3 without lane count for the i5-1035G1), and integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 770 for the Core 3 N350 versus generic UHD Graphics for the i5-1035G1). The Core 3 N350 also has a much lower TDP of 7 watts versus 15 watts for the i5-1035G1, making it more power-efficient on paper.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 3 N350 has an average benchmark score of 9903, which is 2.3% higher than the Intel Core i5-1035G1's 9684. This places the Core 3 N350 in the 66th percentile of all CPUs, versus the 65th percentile for the i5-1035G1.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Core 3 N350 scores 6274 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, beating the i5-1035G1's 6062 by 3.5%. This is consistent with the Core 3 N350's lead in all other Cinebench tests, where it wins by margins between 3.3% and 3.5%.

Q: Is there any workload where the i5-1035G1 is significantly better?

A: Yes, the i5-1035G1 wins the PassMark extended instructions test by 27.9%, scoring 5524 versus 3981 for the Core 3 N350. It also wins the single-thread test by 10.2% and data compression by a slim 0.1% margin.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Core 3 N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the i5-1035G1 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Core 3 N350 relies on more physical cores, whereas the i5-1035G1 uses Hyper-Threading to reach 8 threads from 4 cores.

Q: How does memory bandwidth differ between the two?

A: The i5-1035G1 has a dual-channel memory bus with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core 3 N350 uses a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s. Despite this disadvantage, the Core 3 N350 wins most memory-related benchmarks in the data.

Q: Which processor has a lower TDP?

A: The Core 3 N350 has a TDP of 7 watts, while the i5-1035G1 has a TDP of 15 watts. This makes the Core 3 N350 more power-efficient, though the data does not include battery life or thermal measurements.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where the two processors differ, based on the fact pack.

| Specification | Intel Core 3 N350 | Intel Core i5-1035G1 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 8 | 4 |

| Threads | 8 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 0.10 GHz | 1000.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.90 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| TDP | 7 W | 15 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1264 | Intel BGA 1526 |

| Architecture | Twin Lake | Ice Lake |

| Codename | Twin Lake | Ice Lake-U |

| Generation | Core 3 (Alder Lake-N) | Core i5 (Sunny Cove-U) |

| Die Size | Not listed | 123 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 96 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (shared) | 256 KB (per core) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 9 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3 |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | UHD Graphics |

| Release Date | 2025-01-06 | 2019-07-31 |

| Part Number | SRPNS | SRGKGSRGKL |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victory for the Core 3 N350 comes in the PassMark data encryption test, where it scores 5693 against the i5-1035G1's 4094, a massive 39.1% lead. This is the largest margin in any benchmark between the two processors and highlights a significant strength in cryptographic workloads. The Core 3 N350 also shows a strong 14.8% advantage in floating-point math (17781 vs 15483), suggesting better performance in scientific and simulation tasks that rely heavily on FPU operations.

The Core 3 N350 maintains a consistent edge across all six Cinebench tests, with every margin falling between 3.3% and 3.5%. In R15 multi-core, it scores 632 versus 611; in R15 single-core, 89 versus 86; in R20 multi-core, 2635 versus 2546; in R20 single-core, 371 versus 359; in R23 multi-core, 6274 versus 6062; and in R23 single-core, 885 versus 855. This uniformity suggests a fundamental architectural advantage in rendering and 3D workloads, not just a boost-clock artifact.

The i5-1035G1's biggest win is in the PassMark extended instructions test, where it scores 5524 versus the Core 3 N350's 3981, a 27.9% margin. This indicates the i5-1035G1's Sunny Cove cores handle advanced SIMD instructions more efficiently, which could benefit multimedia encoding or scientific libraries that use these instructions. Its single-thread score of 2198 also beats the Core 3 N350's 1974 by 10.2%, showing that the i5-1035G1's architecture delivers higher per-core throughput when only one thread is active.

In the remaining PassMark tests, the Core 3 N350 wins by smaller but consistent margins: 5.3% in find prime numbers (20 vs 19), 5.4% in physics (446 vs 423), 3.8% in integer math (27669 vs 26645), 3.3% in random string sorting (10102 vs 9782), and 2.4% in multithread (7382 vs 7211). The data compression test is the closest, with the i5-1035G1 winning 80534 to 80444, a negligible 0.1% difference that falls within typical run-to-run variance.

The win count tells the story: the Core 3 N350 takes 13 benchmarks, while the i5-1035G1 takes 4. However, the i5-1035G1's two largest wins are substantial, meaning that for workloads specifically targeting single-thread performance or extended instructions, it would be the better choice. The Core 3 N350's wins are more numerous but generally smaller, with only the encryption and floating-point tests showing double-digit margins. Overall, the aggregate score of 9903 for the Core 3 N350 versus 9684 for the i5-1035G1 reflects a 2.2% to 2.3% gap, confirming the Core 3 N350 as the slightly faster processor in most scenarios.