Intel Core 3 N350 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H Comparison
Intel Core 3 N350
Core Ultra 7 356H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 3 N350 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The benchmark data paints an unambiguous picture: the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H wins every single recorded test, taking all 17 head-to-head comparisons. The Core 3 N350 does not secure a single victory. The margin is substantial across every workload category, from single-thread responsiveness to heavily parallel rendering tasks.
The largest gap appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 7 356H scores 327 against the N350's 20, a delta of -93.9%. This kind of delta indicates a fundamental difference in raw computational throughput per cycle, not just a matter of extra cores. Extended instructions show a similar story, with the Ultra 7 356H posting 27898 versus 3981, a -85.7% difference. Floating point math follows at 103128 versus 17781, a -82.8% gap, while physics simulation shows 2895 against 446, a -84.6% delta.
In Cinebench testing, the multi-core results are decisive. The R23 multi-core score for the Ultra 7 356H is 18395, while the N350 manages 6274, a -65.9% delta. The R20 multi-core test shows 12153 versus 2635, a -78.3% gap, and R15 multi-core records 3055 against 632, a -79.3% difference. These results confirm that the Ultra 7 356H delivers roughly three times the multi-threaded rendering throughput in the most demanding Cinebench workload.
Single-core performance also favors the Ultra 7 356H heavily, though the gap is slightly narrower. The R23 single-core score is 2040 versus 885, a -56.6% delta. R20 single-core shows 1715 against 371, a -78.4% gap, and R15 single-core records 303 versus 89, a -70.6% difference. The PassMark single-thread test shows 4072 versus 1974, a -51.5% delta, which is the narrowest margin in the entire comparison. Even so, the Ultra 7 356H is still more than twice as fast in that test.
Data-oriented workloads follow the same pattern. Data compression on the Ultra 7 356H scores 336177 against 80444, a -76.1% delta. Data encryption shows 26345 versus 5693, a -78.4% gap. Random string sorting records 40990 versus 10102, a -75.4% difference. Integer math delivers 83111 against 27669, a -66.7% delta. The multi-thread PassMark score is 33978 for the Ultra 7 356H versus 7382 for the N350, a -78.3% gap.
The average benchmark score reinforces this hierarchy. The Ultra 7 356H sits at 41215, while the N350 trails at 9903. In percentile terms against all CPUs, the Ultra 7 356H ranks in the 87th percentile, while the N350 sits in the 66th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 7 356H include the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 at 41208 and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H at 41263, showing this chip is competitively placed within its own performance tier. The N350's nearest rivals are older or lower-end parts, including the Intel Core i7-3770 at 9706 and the Intel Core i5-1035G1 at 9684.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from entirely different architectural lineages. The Core 3 N350 uses the Twin Lake architecture, which the database identifies as part of the Core 3 (Alder Lake-N) generation. The Ultra 7 356H uses Panther Lake, under the Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H) generation label. This generational split explains much of the performance delta.
The process node difference is stark. The N350 is built on a 10 nm process, while the Ultra 7 356H uses a 3 nm node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the smaller node provides clear transistor density and efficiency advantages for the newer chip. The release dates also differ: the N350 entered production in January 2025, while the Ultra 7 356H followed with a January 2026 release.
Core configuration diverges sharply. The N350 offers 8 cores and 8 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. The Ultra 7 356H doubles that with 16 cores and 16 threads. Cache hierarchies reflect the core count difference. The N350 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 356H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The L2 cache structure is particularly telling: the N350 shares a small 2 MB pool across all cores, while the Ultra 7 356H gives each core its own 2.5 MB slice.
Clock speeds also favor the newer chip. The N350 has a base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The Ultra 7 356H starts at 1.90 GHz base and boosts to 4.70 GHz. The base clock difference is enormous, and the boost clock advantage adds another 0.80 GHz on top.
Memory architecture differs in capacity and bandwidth. The N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory through a single-channel bus, delivering 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra 7 356H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X through a dual-channel bus, delivering 115.2 GB/s, exactly three times the bandwidth. PCIe connectivity also moves forward: the N350 uses Gen 3 with 9 lanes, while the Ultra 7 356H uses Gen 5 with 12 lanes.
Integrated graphics differ as well. The N350 uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 7 356H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers. The sockets are incompatible: the N350 uses Intel BGA 1264, the Ultra 7 356H uses Intel BGA 2540.
Where Each One Wins
The data shows no benchmark category where the N350 comes out ahead. Every recorded workload, from single-thread integer operations to multi-core rendering, favors the Ultra 7 356H. The N350's only relative advantage is its much lower power envelope. The N350 has a TDP of 7 watts, while the Ultra 7 356H has a TDP of 25 watts. That is a meaningful difference for fanless designs, compact notebooks, or battery-sensitive deployments, but it does not translate into any performance win in the recorded data.
The Ultra 7 356H is the clear choice for any workload that benefits from raw compute. Its 16 cores and 16 threads, combined with the higher boost clock of 4.70 GHz and larger cache hierarchy, make it suitable for rendering, compilation, data compression, encryption, and floating-point heavy tasks. The Cinebench multi-core scores indicate strong sustained throughput for long-running parallel jobs.
The N350, with its 8 cores and 8 threads, a 3.90 GHz boost clock, and a 7 watt TDP, fits a different profile. Its low power draw makes it appropriate for always-on systems, thin-and-light laptops, or embedded-style mobile devices where thermal limits are strict. The single-channel memory and Gen 3 PCIe also suggest a more modest platform overall.
The single-thread results deserve attention. While the Ultra 7 356H wins the PassMark single-thread test with 4072 against 1974, the -51.5% delta is the smallest in the comparison. This indicates that even in lightly threaded workloads, the newer chip is roughly twice as fast, but the relative gap is narrower than in multi-core tests. Users who need snappy responsiveness for everyday tasks will still benefit from the Ultra 7 356H, but the N350's single-thread performance is less catastrophic relative to its own multi-core showing.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ on nearly every specification field recorded in the database. Cores: 8 for the N350, 16 for the Ultra 7 356H. Threads: 8 versus 16. Base clock: 0.10 GHz versus 1.90 GHz. Boost clock: 3.90 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. TDP: 7 watts versus 25 watts. Socket: Intel BGA 1264 versus Intel BGA 2540.
Architecture names differ: Twin Lake versus Panther Lake. Generation labels differ: Core 3 (Alder Lake-N) versus Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H). Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm. Release date: January 2025 versus January 2026. Part numbers differ: SRPNS versus SA4RGQ9EU.
Cache configuration differs across all levels. L1 per core: 96 KB versus 192 KB. L2: 2 MB shared versus 2.5 MB per core. L3: 6 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory support: DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5 versus DDR5/LPDDR5X. Memory bus: single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 38.4 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. PCIe: Gen 3 with 9 lanes versus Gen 5 with 12 lanes. Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 770 versus Intel Xe3 Graphics.
Both processors share some traits. Both are mobile segments, both are active production, both lack ECC memory support, both have locked multipliers, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP. Neither has recorded transistor counts or die sizes in the database.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 3 N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads.
Q: How much faster is the Ultra 7 356H in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test?
A: The Ultra 7 356H scores 18395, while the N350 scores 6274, a -65.9% delta in favor of the Ultra 7 356H.
Q: What is the TDP difference between the two chips?
A: The N350 has a TDP of 7 watts, while the Ultra 7 356H has a TDP of 25 watts.
Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?
A: No. Both the N350 and the Ultra 7 356H have ECC memory support listed as false.
Q: Which processor has a smaller manufacturing process node?
A: The Ultra 7 356H is built on a 3 nm process, while the N350 uses a 10 nm process.
Q: How do the integrated graphics compare?
A: The N350 uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 7 356H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics.
The Verdict
The benchmark data leaves no ambiguity for performance-oriented buyers. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H is faster in every recorded workload, with deltas ranging from -51.5% in single-thread tests to -93.9% in prime number finding. It delivers roughly three times the multi-core Cinebench R23 score, nearly five times the PassMark multi-thread score, and more than double the single-thread score. Its 16 cores, 3 nm process, dual-channel memory with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, and 18 MB of L3 cache make it the superior choice for any compute-heavy mobile application.
The Intel Core 3 N350 is not without a place. Its 7 watt TDP is the clearest differentiator, enabling system designs where power draw is the primary constraint. For fanless devices, ultra-portable notebooks, or battery-critical workloads, the N350's lower power envelope may be the deciding factor. Its 8 cores and 8 threads, 10 nm process, and single-channel memory at 38.4 GB/s are modest, but adequate for light productivity and media consumption.
The percentile ranking confirms the class difference. The Ultra 7 356H sits at the 87th percentile against all CPUs, while the N350 sits at the 66th percentile. The average benchmark score of 41215 for the Ultra 7 356H places it alongside desktop-class parts like the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, which scores 41376. The N350's average of 9903 places it near older parts like the Intel Core i7-3770 and Intel Core i5-1035G1.
For a user choosing between these two, the decision hinges on power versus performance. If the system can accommodate a 25 watt TDP, the Ultra 7 356H is the clear choice. If the design requires a 7 watt envelope, the N350 is the only option that fits. The data does not support any other conclusion.