Intel Core 3 N350 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a complete sweep: the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the Intel Core 3 N350 does not win a single one. This is not a close contest by any metric, and the use-case split is therefore stark.

The Core 3 N350 belongs in low-power, efficiency-focused mobile systems where the 7 W TDP and basic computing needs take priority over performance. Its single-channel memory bus, 38.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 8 cores without hyper-threading make it suitable for light productivity, web browsing, and office tasks. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, with a 55 W TDP, 24 cores, dual-channel memory, and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, is built for heavy multi-threaded workloads, content creation, and any task that scales across many cores.

The benchmark deltas are enormous in every category. Multi-threaded rendering, data compression, encryption, and math workloads all show the Ultra 9 leading by margins between 83% and 96% in the head-to-head delta percentages. Single-thread performance is comparatively closer but still heavily favors the Ultra 9, with deltas around 60% to 74%. This means the N350 cannot keep pace even in lightly threaded tasks.

For a builder choosing between these two, the decision is not about which is better in a particular area, it is about whether the target system needs the raw throughput of a flagship mobile processor or the minimal power draw of an entry-level chip. The N350's efficiency profile and the Ultra 9's performance profile do not overlap in any practical sense.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 3 N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-threaded rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 9 scores 39684 versus the N350's 6274, a delta of 84.2% in favor of the Ultra 9. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Ultra 9 scores 21198 versus 2635, an 87.6% delta.

Q: What is the difference in single-thread performance?

A: The Ultra 9 leads by 62.4% in Cinebench R23 single-core (2356 versus 885) and by 60.1% in PassMark single-thread (4951 versus 1974).

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 with a single-channel bus. The Ultra 9 supports only DDR5 but uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 38.4 GB/s for the N350.

Q: Which processor has ECC memory support?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 3 N350 does not.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores and performance percentiles?

A: The Ultra 9 has an average benchmark score of 79574 and sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The N350 has an average score of 9903 and sits at the 66th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is uniformly one-sided, but the magnitude of the deltas varies by workload type. The closest relative margin is in PassMark single-thread, where the Ultra 9 scores 4951 against 1974 for the N350, a 60.1% delta. The largest relative margin is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 9 scores 519 versus 20, a 96.1% delta. That particular test shows the extreme gap in raw integer computational throughput between the two designs.

Cinebench results tell a consistent story. In R15 multi-core, the Ultra 9 delivers 5981 against 632, an 89.4% delta. The R20 multi-core test shows 21198 versus 2635, an 87.6% delta. R23 multi-core shows 39684 versus 6274, an 84.2% delta. The single-core Cinebench results are less lopsided but still decisive: R15 single-core shows 340 versus 89 (73.8% delta), R20 single-core shows 2992 versus 371 (87.6% delta), and R23 single-core shows 2356 versus 885 (62.4% delta).

PassMark workloads follow the same pattern. Data compression shows 658724 for the Ultra 9 versus 80444 for the N350, an 87.8% delta. Data encryption shows 50008 versus 5693, an 88.6% delta. Extended instructions show 51290 versus 3981, a 92.2% delta. Floating point math shows 201773 versus 17781, a 91.2% delta. Integer math shows 164839 versus 27669, an 83.2% delta. The multithread benchmark shows 59439 versus 7382, an 87.6% delta. Physics shows 3387 versus 446, an 86.8% delta. Random string sorting shows 80327 versus 10102, an 87.4% delta.

Every single benchmark in the database records the Ultra 9 as the winner. The N350 does not offer a single workload where it closes the gap to a competitive level. Even the PassMark single-thread score of 1974, which represents the N350's best relative showing, is still 60% behind the Ultra 9.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The N350 uses 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Ultra 9 uses 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 0.10 GHz for the N350 and 2.70 GHz for the Ultra 9. Boost clocks are 3.90 GHz versus 5.50 GHz. The TDP difference is substantial: 7 W for the N350, 55 W for the Ultra 9.

Sockets differ as well. The N350 uses Intel BGA 1264, while the Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2114. The N350 has a single-channel memory bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ultra 9 has a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. Memory support also differs: the N350 accepts DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, while the Ultra 9 accepts only DDR5. ECC memory is supported on the Ultra 9 but not on the N350.

PCIe capabilities are another major split. The N350 offers Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 9 offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ too: the N350 uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 9 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

The multiplier is locked on the N350 and unlocked on the Ultra 9. Release dates are also far apart: the N350 launched on 2025-01-06, while the Ultra 9 is dated 2026-03-16. The part numbers are SRPNS for the N350 and SADSS for the Ultra 9.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is fundamental. The N350 is built on Intel's Twin Lake architecture, listed under the Core 3 (Alder Lake-N) generation, on a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The Ultra 9 comes from the Core Ultra Series 2, codename Arrow Lake-HX Refresh, under the Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-HX) generation, on a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. The Ultra 9 also lists 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the N350 has no transistor or die size data recorded.

Cache hierarchies differ sharply. The N350 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The per-core L2 allocation on the Ultra 9 is particularly notable; it scales with the larger core count and provides significantly more total cache.

The process node difference alone explains much of the performance and efficiency gap. A 10 nm Intel process versus a 3 nm TSMC process represents multiple generations of manufacturing improvement. The Ultra 9 also benefits from a newer architectural lineage, Arrow Lake-HX, whereas the N350 traces back to Alder Lake-N, an older design in the database's classification. Both are mobile-segment parts and both remain in active production, but they are engineered for completely different tiers of mobile computing.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the dominant performer in every recorded benchmark, with an average score of 79574 against 9903 for the Intel Core 3 N350. It sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the N350 sits at the 66th percentile. The Ultra 9 also sits alongside much more powerful desktop parts in the nearest rivals list: the Intel Core i9-14900KF (0.3% delta), the AMD EPYC 7413 (0.6% delta), and the Intel Core i9-14900K (0.6% delta). The N350, by contrast, is grouped with older and lower-end parts like the Intel Core i7-3770 (2% delta) and the Intel Core i5-1035G1 (2.3% delta).

A system builder choosing the N350 is making an efficiency-driven decision. Its 7 W TDP, single-channel memory, and modest core count suit fanless or low-power designs where battery life and thermals matter more than throughput. Its 66th percentile ranking indicates it is not a weak processor in absolute terms; it simply competes in a lower performance class.

The Ultra 9 is the choice for anyone who needs maximum multi-threaded performance in a mobile package. Its 24 cores, 36 MB of L3 cache, dual-channel DDR5 support, and 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth place it in desktop-class territory, and its nearest rivals include some of Intel's fastest desktop CPUs. The 95th percentile ranking confirms that this is a top-tier part.

Neither processor is a poor product for its intended role. The N350 delivers adequate performance for basic tasks at minimal power draw. The Ultra 9 delivers exceptional performance across all workload types but requires 55 W and a more capable cooling solution. The recorded benchmarks leave no ambiguity: the Ultra 9 wins every test, and the N350 wins no use case in the data.