Intel Core 3 N350 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a comprehensive victory for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H across every single benchmark in the comparison. The Core Ultra 7 366H wins all 17 head-to-head tests, with the Core 3 N350 failing to secure a single win. The most decisive margin appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Core Ultra 7 366H delivers a score of 326 against the Core 3 N350's 20, a delta of -93.9%. This indicates a dramatic difference in integer-heavy, single-threaded mathematical workloads.

Cinebench results reinforce the same pattern. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core Ultra 7 366H scores 28,477 versus 6,274 for the Core 3 N350, a delta of -78%. The single-core Cinebench R23 test shows the Core Ultra 7 366H at 4,020 against 885, also a -78% delta. These consistent deltas across the Cinebench suite suggest the performance gap is not workload-specific but rather a fundamental difference in processing capability.

In PassMark integer math, the Core Ultra 7 366H scores 83,695, while the Core 3 N350 manages 27,669, a delta of -66.9%. This is the narrowest margin in the comparison, yet it still represents a substantial lead. The floating point math test shows a wider gap, with the Core Ultra 7 366H at 103,615 and the Core 3 N350 at 17,781, a delta of -82.8%. Extended instructions follow a similar trend, with scores of 26,901 versus 3,981, a delta of -85.2%.

The PassMark single-thread test records the smallest relative difference at -51.2%, with scores of 4,043 for the Core Ultra 7 366H and 1,974 for the Core 3 N350. Even in this closest comparison, the Core Ultra 7 366H still more than doubles the Core 3 N350's score. Data compression shows the Core Ultra 7 366H at 327,455 versus 80,444, a delta of -75.4%. Data encryption yields 25,845 versus 5,693, a delta of -78%. The multithread score is 33,429 versus 7,382, a delta of -77.9%, and the physics test shows 2,880 versus 446, a delta of -84.5%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has an average benchmark score of 41,263, while the Intel Core 3 N350 has an average score of 9,903.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of overall percentile ranking?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Core 3 N350 is in the 66th percentile.

Q: What is the closest rival to each processor according to the database?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H's nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, with a delta of 0.1%. The Intel Core 3 N350's nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-3770, with a delta of 2%.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, compared to 3.90 GHz for the Intel Core 3 N350.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Intel Core 3 N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X only.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core 3 N350 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to entirely different architectural generations. The Intel Core 3 N350 is built on the Twin Lake architecture, which is part of the Core 3 generation derived from Alder Lake-N. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically from the Ultra 7 Panther Lake-H generation. This architectural split explains many of the performance differences observed in the benchmarks.

The process node also differs significantly. The Core 3 N350 is fabricated on a 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 7 366H uses a 3 nm process. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the smaller process node for the Core Ultra 7 366H allows for denser transistor packing and potentially better power efficiency per unit of performance.

Core and thread counts show a direct doubling. The Core 3 N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading, as thread counts equal core counts in both cases. The Core Ultra 7 366H's additional cores provide a clear advantage in multicore workloads, as reflected in the Cinebench R23 multicore score of 28,477 versus 6,274.

Cache hierarchies are also structurally different. The Core 3 N350 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 cache allocation in the Core Ultra 7 366H is particularly notable, as it provides each core with substantially more dedicated cache.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 3 N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, while the Core Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The memory bus is single-channel on the Core 3 N350 and dual-channel on the Core Ultra 7 366H. This dual-channel configuration contributes to the Core Ultra 7 366H's memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, compared to 38.4 GB/s for the Core 3 N350. The PCIe interface also differs, with the Core 3 N350 using Gen 3 with 9 lanes and the Core Ultra 7 366H using Gen 5 with 12 lanes.

Integrated graphics are another point of differentiation. The Core 3 N350 includes UHD Graphics 770, while the Core Ultra 7 366H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics. The sockets are different as well: the Core 3 N350 uses Intel BGA 1264, and the Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel BGA 2540.

Specification Differences

The base clock speeds differ substantially. The Core 3 N350 has a base clock of 0.10 GHz, while the Core Ultra 7 366H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz. Boost clocks show a similar gap, with the Core 3 N350 reaching 3.90 GHz and the Core Ultra 7 366H reaching 4.80 GHz.

Thermal design power is another clear distinction. The Core 3 N350 has a TDP of 7 watts, while the Core Ultra 7 366H has a TDP of 25 watts. This difference reflects the Core Ultra 7 366H's higher performance ceiling and the Core 3 N350's focus on low power consumption.

The release dates are separated by roughly one year. The Core 3 N350 was released on January 6, 2025, and the Core Ultra 7 366H was released on January 4, 2026. Both processors are currently marked as Active in production status.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported on either part. Both are targeted at the mobile market segment. The part numbers differ, with the Core 3 N350 carrying part number SRPNS and the Core Ultra 7 366H carrying part number SA4R9Q9EL. Neither has ECC memory support.

The L1 cache configuration differs by a factor of two per core, with the Core 3 N350 at 96 KB per core and the Core Ultra 7 366H at 192 KB per core. The L2 cache is shared in the Core 3 N350 at 2 MB total, but per-core in the Core Ultra 7 366H at 2.5 MB per core. The L3 cache is 6 MB shared in the Core 3 N350 and 18 MB shared in the Core Ultra 7 366H.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates a clear performance hierarchy between these two mobile processors. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H outperforms the Intel Core 3 N350 in every recorded test, with deltas ranging from -51.2% to -93.9%. The Core Ultra 7 366H's average benchmark score of 41,263 places it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 N350's average score of 9,903 places it in the 66th percentile.

The nearest rival data confirms the positioning. The Core Ultra 7 366H trades nearly evenly with the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (0.1% delta) and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (0.1% delta), while also matching the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X (-0.3% delta). In contrast, the Core 3 N350 sits close to the Intel Core i7-3770 (2% delta) and the Intel Core i5-1035G1 (2.3% delta), with its nearest rivals being older or lower-tier parts.

The specification differences support the benchmark results. The Core Ultra 7 366H doubles the core count, uses a newer 3 nm process, has a larger cache hierarchy, supports dual-channel memory, and offers higher clock speeds. The Core 3 N350's advantages are limited to a lower TDP of 7 watts and support for DDR4 memory, which the Core Ultra 7 366H does not offer.

For workloads that demand maximum performance, the Core Ultra 7 366H is the clear choice based on the recorded data. For scenarios where power consumption is the primary constraint, the Core 3 N350's 7-watt TDP may be preferable, though this comes with a significant performance trade-off.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins in all 17 benchmark comparisons. Its largest margins come in prime number finding (-93.9%), extended instructions (-85.2%), and physics (-84.5%). These tests indicate strengths in advanced mathematical operations, SIMD workloads, and physics simulation. The floating point math score of 103,615 versus 17,781 also shows a dominant position in FP-heavy tasks.

The Core Ultra 7 366H's smallest relative advantage is in single-thread performance, where it scores 4,043 against 1,974, a -51.2% delta. Even in this closest category, the Core Ultra 7 366H maintains a comfortable lead. The integer math test shows the next smallest delta at -66.9%, with scores of 83,695 versus 27,669.

The Intel Core 3 N350 does not record a single win in the head-to-head comparison. However, its specifications suggest a different use case. The 7-watt TDP positions it for power-sensitive mobile devices where battery life takes priority over raw performance. Its support for DDR4 memory may also appeal to systems using older memory technology. The single-channel memory bus, while limiting bandwidth to 38.4 GB/s, reduces complexity and power draw.

The data shows the Core 3 N350 competing with processors like the Intel Core i7-3770 and Intel Core i5-1035G1, which are older designs. This indicates that the Core 3 N350 is positioned in a lower performance tier. The Core Ultra 7 366H, by contrast, competes with the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, a high-end desktop processor from a previous generation, despite being a mobile part.

For users prioritizing multi-threaded workloads, the Core Ultra 7 366H's Cinebench R23 multicore score of 28,477 versus 6,274 delivers roughly 4.5 times the performance. For memory-intensive applications, the dual-channel configuration and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth of the Core Ultra 7 366H provide a clear advantage over the Core 3 N350's 38.4 GB/s. The PCIe Gen 5 support on the Core Ultra 7 366H also enables faster connectivity for peripheral devices compared to the Core 3 N350's PCIe Gen 3.

The Core 3 N350 remains a viable option only in contexts where its low power envelope is the deciding factor. Its benchmark profile, with a 66th percentile ranking and nearest rivals from older generations, confirms that it is not designed for performance-intensive tasks. The Core Ultra 7 366H, with its 87th percentile ranking and parity with high-end desktop parts, is the appropriate choice for demanding mobile workloads.