Intel Core 3 N350 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive picture: the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core 3 N350. The largest margin appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 5 336H scores 299 versus 20 for the N350, a delta of -93.3% from the perspective of the N350. That is not a close race; it is a different performance class entirely.

Multi-threaded rendering workloads show similarly lopsided results. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Ultra 5 336H records 23991 points against 6274 for the N350, a -73.8% delta. The R20 multicore run follows the same pattern: 10076 for the Ultra 5 336H versus 2635, and R15 multicore shows 2418 versus 632. In each case the delta sits near -73.8% to -73.9%, indicating that the gap scales consistently across Cinebench generations rather than being an artifact of one test version.

Single-core performance tells a matching story. Cinebench R23 single-core gives the Ultra 5 336H 3387 points, while the N350 manages 885, a -73.9% delta. R20 single-core shows 1422 versus 371, and R15 single-core shows 341 versus 89. The consistency of the single-core deficit, roughly three-quarters across all three Cinebench versions, points to a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark's integer math test offers the narrowest margin of the entire set, yet it still favors the Ultra 5 336H by a wide amount: 62070 versus 27669, a -55.4% delta. That is the smallest percentage gap in the data, but it still represents a substantial absolute difference. The single-thread PassMark test, recorded both as passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread, gives the Ultra 5 336H 4013 points against 1974 for the N350, a -50.8% delta. Higher-level workloads amplify the divide. PassMark extended instructions shows 24542 versus 3981, a -83.8% delta, and physics simulation gives 2682 versus 446, a -83.4% delta.

Data compression and encryption follow the trend. The Ultra 5 336H scores 280340 in data compression against 80444, a -71.3% delta. Encryption shows 21291 versus 5693, a -73.3% delta. Floating-point math, often a strong indicator of compute-heavy tasks, delivers 82415 versus 17781, a -78.4% delta. Random string sorting rounds out the set at 34402 versus 10102, a -70.6% delta. The average benchmark score for the Ultra 5 336H is 34485, placing it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The N350 averages 9903 and sits at the 66th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Ultra 5 336H wins every recorded benchmark category, so the use-case split is defined by degree rather than by which processor takes a particular task. For lightly threaded work such as everyday desktop response, the single-thread PassMark score of 4013 versus 1974 shows the Ultra 5 336H has roughly double the single-core throughput. That translates to faster application launch, quicker script interpretation, and more responsive general navigation.

For sustained multi-threaded workloads, the gap widens further. Cinebench R23 multicore, a proxy for video rendering and 3D scene compilation, shows the Ultra 5 336H at 23991 points, nearly four times the N350's 6274. The PassMark multithread score of 28545 versus 7382 reinforces this: the Ultra 5 336H handles parallel workloads with a commanding lead. Integer math, floating-point math, and extended instructions all favor the Ultra 5 336H by margins from -55.4% to -83.8%, making it the clear choice for number-crunching tasks such as scientific computation, financial modeling, and code compilation.

The N350 does not win any benchmark category in the recorded data. Its role is better understood through its efficiency profile: a 7 W TDP versus 25 W for the Ultra 5 336H. The N350 uses a modest power envelope, which suits fanless or ultra-low-power mobile designs where battery life and thermal output take priority over raw performance. The data does not record any workload where the N350 outperforms the Ultra 5 336H, so any selection of the N350 must be based on power constraints rather than benchmark wins.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The N350 uses Twin Lake, listed in the database as part of the Core 3 (Alder Lake-N) generation. It is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. The Ultra 5 336H uses Panther Lake, from the Ultra 5 (Panther Lake-H) generation, fabricated on a 3 nm process, also at Intel. The process node difference of 10 nm versus 3 nm contributes to the substantial performance-per-clock gap seen in the single-core benchmarks.

Core counts differ sharply. The N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, so no hyper-threading is evident. The Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads, again with no hyper-threading. The doubling of physical cores explains a large portion of the multi-threaded benchmark advantage, though the single-core results show that per-core efficiency also favors the Ultra 5 336H.

Cache hierarchies reflect the generational leap. The N350 provides 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 336H provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The L2 configuration is particularly notable: per-core L2 on the Ultra 5 336H versus a small shared pool on the N350. Larger caches reduce memory latency and improve sustained throughput in cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory support diverges as well. The N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 over a single-channel memory bus, yielding 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra 5 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus, providing 115.2 GB/s. The threefold bandwidth advantage helps the Ultra 5 336H in memory-heavy tasks such as compression, encryption, and large dataset manipulation. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs. The N350 uses Gen 3 with 9 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 5 336H uses Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes. The newer and wider PCIe implementation on the Ultra 5 336H supports faster NVMe storage and more capable discrete GPUs, though the integrated graphics also differ. The N350 pairs with UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 5 336H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics, a newer graphics architecture. The sockets are incompatible: the N350 uses Intel BGA 1264, and the Ultra 5 336H uses Intel BGA 2540.

Clock speeds show the expected hierarchy. The N350 has a 0.10 GHz base clock and a 3.90 GHz boost clock. The Ultra 5 336H has a 1.90 GHz base clock and a 4.60 GHz boost clock. The boost clock advantage of 0.70 GHz on the Ultra 5 336H, combined with the newer microarchitecture, explains the single-thread score gap. The base clock difference is enormous on paper, though in practice mobile processors spend little time at their rated base when idling.

The Verdict

The measured data gives no scenario where the Intel Core 3 N350 outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H. Every benchmark, from Cinebench single-core to PassMark integer math, favors the Ultra 5 336H by margins ranging from -50.8% to -93.3%. The average benchmark score of 34485 for the Ultra 5 336H versus 9903 for the N350 represents a 3.5x overall gap, and the percentile ranking of 84 versus 66 confirms that the Ultra 5 336H sits far higher in the database's performance distribution.

Buyers who need rendering throughput, data compression, encryption, or any recorded compute workload should choose the Ultra 5 336H. Its nearest rivals in average score include the Intel Core i7-13700HX at 34554 (-0.2% delta), the Intel Core i5-13450HX at 34333 (+0.4%), the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X at 34260 (+0.7%), and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 at 34222 (+0.8%). That places it in established desktop-class territory, despite being a mobile part.

Buyers who prioritize the lowest possible power draw might consider the N350, since its 7 W TDP is far below the Ultra 5 336H's 25 W. The N350's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-3770 at 9706 (+2%), the Intel Core i5-1035G1 at 9684 (+2.3%), the AMD EPYC 7F52 at 10159 (-2.5%), and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 at 10230 (-3.2%). Those comparisons show the N350 performing in the vicinity of older desktop and low-power mobile processors, but the database does not record any performance win for it over the Ultra 5 336H. The choice is therefore simple: the Ultra 5 336H for performance, the N350 only when the power budget demands it.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher Cinebench R23 multicore score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H scores 23991, while the Intel Core 3 N350 scores 6274, a -73.8% delta.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 5 336H scores 3387 versus 885 for the N350, a -73.9% delta. PassMark single-thread shows 4013 versus 1974, a -50.8% delta.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The N350 has a 7 W TDP, and the Ultra 5 336H has a 25 W TDP.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the N350 and the Ultra 5 336H have ECC memory support set to false.

Q: Which processor uses a newer manufacturing process?

A: The Ultra 5 336H uses a 3 nm process, while the N350 uses a 10 nm process. Both are fabricated by Intel.

Q: How do the two compare in PassMark data compression?

A: The Ultra 5 336H scores 280340, and the N350 scores 80444, a -71.3% delta.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 N350 | Intel Core Ultra 5 336H |

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

| Cores | 8 | 16 |

| Threads | 8 | 16 |

| Base clock | 0.10 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.90 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| TDP | 7 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1264 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Twin Lake | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Core 3 (Alder Lake-N) | Ultra 5 (Panther Lake-H) |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| L1 cache | 96 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 9 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 12 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Release date | 2025-01-06 | 2026-01-04 |

| Part number | SRPNS | SA4RD |