Intel Core 3 N350 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

Intel Core 3 N350 and Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus occupy opposite ends of Intel’s current desktop and mobile lineup. The N350 is a low-power Twin Lake part aimed at compact systems, while the 250K Plus is a high-core-count Arrow Lake Refresh desktop processor. The benchmark database shows a complete sweep: the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with no wins for the Core 3 N350. The average benchmark score for the 250K Plus is 66,855, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the N350 scores an average of 9,903, which lands in the 66th percentile. This is not a close comparison; it is a two-tier matchup where the desktop part outperforms the mobile chip by wide margins across every measured workload.

Where Each One Wins

The data records zero wins for the Core 3 N350 in the head-to-head benchmark set. Every single test, from Cinebench multi-core to PassMark integer math, goes to the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. The N350’s best relative showing comes in single-threaded workloads, where the deficit narrows to 58.5 percent in PassMark single-thread and 60.9 percent in Cinebench R23 single-core. Still, those are losses, not wins. The N350 does not win any category, so its use-case split is defined by its lower power envelope and mobile socket rather than by performance leadership.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins everywhere. Its largest margins appear in PassMark extended instructions, where it leads by 91.1 percent, and PassMark find prime numbers, where it leads by 95.9 percent. These two tests point to heavy computational workloads, such as encryption, scientific computing, and integer-heavy algorithms. The 250K Plus also dominates multi-threaded rendering, with an 85.7 percent lead in Cinebench R20 multi-core and a 79.7 percent lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core. For any task that scales across cores, the 250K Plus is the clear choice. The N350’s role is limited to low-power, single-channel memory systems where its 7 watt TDP and compact BGA package fit, but even there the data shows no performance advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Core 3 N350 uses the Twin Lake architecture, which is part of the Core 3 generation based on Alder Lake-N. It is built on a 10 nm process node at Intel’s own foundry. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2 generation, and is manufactured on a 3 nm node at TSMC. That process difference alone explains a large portion of the performance gap, as the newer, denser node allows higher clock speeds and more transistors.

The N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. Its cache is substantially larger: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The transistor count for the 250K Plus is 17,800 million on a 243 mm² die, while the N350 has no recorded transistor or die size data.

Memory support also diverges. The N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, but only on a single-channel memory bus with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The 250K Plus supports only DDR5, but on a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 3x difference in memory bandwidth, which directly impacts any workload that streams data. The 250K Plus also supports ECC memory, while the N350 does not. PCIe lanes differ as well: the N350 provides Gen 3 with 9 lanes, while the 250K Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics are different too, with the N350 using UHD Graphics 770 and the 250K Plus using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results show a consistent pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 250K Plus scores 4,640 against the N350’s 632, a delta of 86.4 percent in favor of the desktop part. Single-core R15 is 328 versus 89, a 72.9 percent lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 18,442 versus 2,635, an 85.7 percent gap, and single-core shows 2,603 versus 371, also an 85.7 percent gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core is 30,867 versus 6,274, a 79.7 percent lead, and single-core is 2,261 versus 885, a 60.9 percent lead. These numbers indicate that the 250K Plus is roughly 4 to 7 times faster in multi-threaded rendering, and roughly 2.5 to 7 times faster in single-threaded rendering, depending on the test version.

PassMark results reinforce the same story. Data compression shows 568,721 versus 80,444, an 85.9 percent lead. Data encryption shows 42,144 versus 5,693, an 86.5 percent lead. Extended instructions show 44,565 versus 3,981, a 91.1 percent lead. Find prime numbers shows 486 versus 20, a 95.9 percent lead, which is the largest single margin in the entire dataset. Floating point math is 162,692 versus 17,781, an 89.1 percent lead. Integer math is 125,091 versus 27,669, a 77.9 percent lead. Multithread is 51,596 versus 7,382, an 85.7 percent lead. Physics is 3,494 versus 446, an 87.2 percent lead. Random string sorting is 69,090 versus 10,102, an 85.4 percent lead. Single-thread is 4,757 versus 1,974, a 58.5 percent lead. The smallest margins are in single-threaded tests, which suggests the N350’s boost clock of 3.90 GHz is not far off in pure clock speed, but the 250K Plus still wins by a wide margin due to its much higher base clock and larger cache.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field. The N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. Base clocks are 0.10 GHz versus 4.20 GHz, and boost clocks are 3.90 GHz versus 5.30 GHz. TDP is 7 watts versus 125 watts, a 118 watt difference that explains the cooling and power requirements. The N350 uses Intel BGA 1264, while the 250K Plus uses Intel Socket 1851. Process node is 10 nm versus 3 nm, and the foundry is Intel versus TSMC. The 250K Plus has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the N350 has no recorded transistor count or die size.

Cache structures are fundamentally different. The N350 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The 250K Plus has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The 250K Plus also has more total cache, though the exact total L3 is not listed. Memory support differs: the N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 on a single-channel bus, while the 250K Plus supports only DDR5 on a dual-channel bus. Memory bandwidth is 38.4 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the 250K Plus. PCIe is Gen 3 with 9 lanes versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 770 versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Market segment is Mobile versus Desktop. The 250K Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the N350 does not. Release dates differ by over a year, with the N350 released in January 2025 and the 250K Plus in March 2026. The 250K Plus has a launch MSRP of $199, while the N350 has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Intel Core 3 N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the 250K Plus scores 486 versus the N350’s 20, a 95.9 percent lead. The smallest gap is in PassMark single-thread, where the 250K Plus leads by 58.5 percent.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 on a single-channel bus, while the 250K Plus supports only DDR5 on a dual-channel bus. The 250K Plus also supports ECC memory, which the N350 does not.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The N350 has a TDP of 7 watts, while the 250K Plus has a TDP of 125 watts. That is a difference of 118 watts.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The 250K Plus has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, compared to the N350’s 3.90 GHz.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The 250K Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the N350 does not.

The Verdict

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins all 17 head-to-head benchmarks, with an average score of 66,855 that places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 3 N350 averages 9,903 and sits in the 66th percentile. For any workload that values raw compute, the 250K Plus is the only option between the two. Its 18 cores, 5.30 GHz boost clock, 30 MB of shared L3, dual-channel DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, and Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes make it suitable for rendering, encryption, physics simulation, and multi-threaded productivity. The N350, with 8 cores, a 3.90 GHz boost clock, 6 MB of L3, single-channel memory at 38.4 GB/s, and Gen 3 PCIe, is limited to low-power mobile systems. Its 7 watt TDP and BGA package fit compact devices, but the performance data shows no workload where it beats the 250K Plus. The 250K Plus also offers an unlocked multiplier and a launch MSRP of $199, while the N350 has no recorded launch MSRP. Users who need maximum performance should choose the 250K Plus; users who need a low-power mobile chip have only the N350, but they should expect the performance gap shown here.