Intel Core 3 N350 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus Comparison
Intel Core 3 N350
Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 3 N350 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The benchmark data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus across all 17 recorded tests. The Core 3 N350 does not win a single head-to-head comparison. The most striking pattern is the consistency of the margin: in six of the seven Cinebench tests, the delta sits at exactly -85.3% for the Core 3 N350. That includes Cinebench R15 multi-core (632 vs 4305), R15 single-core (89 vs 607), R20 multi-core (2635 vs 17941), R20 single-core (371 vs 2532), R23 multi-core (6274 vs 42718), and R23 single-core (885 vs 6030). Only the PassMark single-thread tests show a narrower gap, with the Core 3 N350 scoring 1974 against 4698 for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, a delta of -58%.
The widest margin appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core 3 N350 scores 20 and the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 452, a -95.6% delta. That test is particularly sensitive to instruction-level efficiency and raw integer throughput, and the data indicates the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is in a different class entirely for that workload. PassMark extended instructions also shows a large gap: 3981 vs 42880, a -90.7% delta. This suggests the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has substantially stronger SIMD and vector processing capabilities.
Other PassMark tests show slightly smaller but still decisive margins. Floating point math: 17781 vs 159824, a -88.9% delta. Data compression: 80444 vs 553155, a -85.5% delta. Data encryption: 5693 vs 41292, a -86.2% delta. Physics: 446 vs 3183, a -86% delta. Random string sorting: 10102 vs 67209, a -85% delta. Integer math: 27669 vs 123030, a -77.5% delta, which is the second smallest gap behind the single-thread tests. Multithread: 7382 vs 50146, a -85.3% delta.
The overall average benchmark score reinforces this divide. The Core 3 N350 sits at 9903, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus reaches 66159. In percentile terms, the Core 3 N350 lands at the 66th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus sits at the 93rd percentile. That 27-point percentile gap places these chips in very different performance tiers despite both being current Intel products.
FAQ
Q: Why does the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus win every single benchmark in the head-to-head data?
A: The recorded data shows a 17-0 win count for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. The Core 3 N350 does not win any of the 17 head-to-head tests, which include Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and eight PassMark workloads.
Q: Which benchmark shows the smallest performance gap between the two processors?
A: The PassMark single-thread test shows the smallest delta at -58%, with the Core 3 N350 scoring 1974 and the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scoring 4698. The PassMark integer math test is the next closest at -77.5%.
Q: Which benchmark shows the largest performance gap?
A: PassMark find prime numbers shows the largest delta at -95.6%. The Core 3 N350 scores 20, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 452. PassMark extended instructions is the second largest at -90.7%.
Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?
A: The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 42718 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, compared to 6274 for the Core 3 N350. This represents a -85.3% delta for the Core 3 N350.
Q: What do the percentile scores indicate about their relative standing?
A: The Core 3 N350 is at the 66th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is at the 93rd percentile. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus places considerably higher in the overall distribution of recorded CPU performance.
Q: Does the Core 3 N350 have any benchmark where it is competitive with the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus?
A: No. The narrowest margin is the PassMark single-thread test at -58%, but the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus still leads by more than 2.3x in that workload. Every other test shows a delta of -77.5% or worse for the Core 3 N350.
Where Each One Wins
The data splits cleanly by use case. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins every performance-sensitive workload category. For multi-threaded rendering, Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 42718 vs 6274. For single-threaded responsiveness, Cinebench R23 single-core shows 6030 vs 885. For compression and archiving tasks, PassMark data compression shows 553155 vs 80444. For encryption workloads, PassMark data encryption shows 41292 vs 5693. For scientific computing with extended instructions, PassMark extended instructions shows 42880 vs 3981. For physics simulation, PassMark physics shows 3183 vs 446.
The Core 3 N350 does not have a single recorded win in any category. Its only relative strength, if the data can be interpreted that way, is in the PassMark single-thread test, where the delta narrows to -58%. Even there, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus delivers more than double the score. The Core 3 N350 also shows its smallest relative deficit in integer math at -77.5%, but that still means the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 4.4x higher.
For workload selection, the data suggests the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the appropriate choice for any task that depends on CPU throughput, whether that is rendering, mathematical computation, data processing, or software compilation. The Core 3 N350, with its 8 cores and 8 threads, sits firmly in a lower performance band. Its 66th percentile ranking places it near older or lower-end desktop processors such as the Intel Core i7-3770 and Intel Core i5-1035G1, both of which appear as nearest rivals with average scores of 9706 and 9684 respectively.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Core 3 N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. Neither processor supports hyper-threading based on the thread counts matching core counts. Base clocks differ substantially: 0.10 GHz for the Core 3 N350 versus 4.20 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. Boost clocks also differ: 3.90 GHz versus 5.30 GHz.
Thermal design power presents a stark contrast. The Core 3 N350 is rated at 7 W, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is rated at 125 W. This is a 118 W difference, indicating the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus draws far more power under load. The sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 1264 for the Core 3 N350 versus Intel Socket 1851 for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. The Core 3 N350 is a mobile part, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is a desktop part.
Memory support differs as well. The Core 3 N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 with a single-channel memory bus and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports only DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is not supported on the Core 3 N350 but is supported on the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Core 3 N350 uses Gen 3 with 9 lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes.
The Core 3 N350 includes integrated UHD Graphics 770, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics, as the "F" designation indicates. The multiplier is locked on the Core 3 N350 but unlocked on the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, enabling user overclocking on the latter. Release dates differ: the Core 3 N350 launched in January 2025, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus launched in March 2026. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus carries a launch MSRP of $184.
Architecture Differences
The architectural divide is fundamental. The Core 3 N350 uses the Twin Lake architecture, also identified as Twin Lake codename, belonging to the Core 3 generation based on Alder Lake-N. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, from the Ultra 5 generation based on Arrow Lake, within the Core Ultra Series 2 lineup. These are different microarchitectures with different design goals.
Process nodes differ significantly. The Core 3 N350 is fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses TSMC's 3 nm process. The foundry also differs: Intel for the Core 3 N350, TSMC for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 3 N350 does not have transistor count or die size recorded in the database.
Cache hierarchies show a clear scaling advantage for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. The Core 3 N350 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The L3 cache difference is particularly notable: 6 MB versus 30 MB, a fivefold difference. The per-core L2 allocation also differs: 2 MB shared across all cores versus 3 MB per core.
Both processors have 8 threads at the Core 3 N350 level and 18 threads at the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus level, matching their core counts. The Core 3 N350's single-channel memory bus limits its memory bandwidth to 38.4 GB/s, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus's dual-channel bus reaches 115.2 GB/s. This memory bandwidth difference likely contributes to the large performance gaps in memory-intensive workloads like data compression and random string sorting.
The Verdict
The data directs a clear choice based on workload requirements. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus delivers a dominant performance profile across every recorded benchmark. Its 93rd percentile ranking, 18 cores, 5.30 GHz boost clock, and 30 MB of L3 cache support its position as a high-end desktop processor. The 17-0 head-to-head record leaves no ambiguity for performance-focused applications.
The Intel Core 3 N350 serves a different role entirely. Its 7 W TDP, integrated graphics, and mobile BGA socket indicate a low-power design for compact or portable systems. The 66th percentile ranking places it among older mainstream desktop processors like the Intel Core i7-3770 and Intel Core i5-1035G1, both of which have average scores within 2.3% of the Core 3 N350. The single-channel memory bus and 6 MB of L3 cache limit its capability for demanding workloads.
The choice between these two processors depends on the system's power envelope and form factor requirements. The Core 3 N350 suits fanless or battery-powered mobile designs where the 7 W thermal budget is a hard constraint. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus suits desktop systems with adequate cooling and power delivery, where its 125 W TDP and unlocked multiplier allow for overclocking. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus also includes ECC memory support, which the Core 3 N350 lacks, making it more suitable for error-sensitive computing environments.
The performance data shows no scenario where the Core 3 N350 outperforms the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. The closest margin, -58% in single-thread performance, still represents a massive gap. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus also launches with a stated MSRP of $184, which is the only pricing information available in the database. For users who need maximum CPU throughput, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the only option supported by the recorded benchmarks. For users who need minimal power draw and integrated graphics in a mobile form factor, the Core 3 N350 is the only option that fits those specifications.