Intel Core 3 N350 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H across all 17 head-to-head comparisons, with the Intel Core 3 N350 failing to claim a single win. The most decisive margin appears in the PassMark prime number finding test, where the Core Ultra 9 386H scores 341 against the Core 3 N350's 20, a delta of 94.1 percent in favor of the Ultra part. This test measures raw integer iteration and branch prediction efficiency, and the gap there indicates a fundamental difference in execution capability rather than a marginal clock advantage.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 386H posts 3223 points against 632 for the Core 3 N350, a delta of 80.4 percent. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 303.5 versus 89, a 70.7 percent gap. These early Cinebench versions stress both memory latency and per-core throughput, so the magnitude of the difference suggests the Ultra 9 386H benefits from more than just additional cores. The R20 multi-core test shows 12820 versus 2635, a 79.4 percent delta, while R20 single-core lands at 1809 versus 371, a 79.5 percent delta. The consistency of these margins across different Cinebench generations points to a sustained architectural advantage.

The R23 results narrow somewhat but remain lopsided. Multi-core R23 gives the Core Ultra 9 386H 20547 points against 6274 for the Core 3 N350, a 69.5 percent delta. Single-core R23 shows 2071.5 versus 885, a 57.3 percent delta. The smaller single-core gap in R23 relative to R15 suggests the newer test better accommodates the efficiency-oriented design of the Core 3 N350, though the Ultra part still maintains a commanding lead.

PassMark workloads reinforce the pattern. Data compression favors the Core Ultra 9 386H at 352365 against 80444, a 77.2 percent delta. Data encryption shows 27150 versus 5693, a 79 percent delta. Extended instructions produce 29138 versus 3981, an 86.3 percent delta. Floating point math delivers 108527 versus 17781, an 83.6 percent delta. Integer math gives 87284 versus 27669, a 68.3 percent delta. The multi-thread PassMark score is 35399 versus 7382, a 79.1 percent delta, and the physics test shows 3028 versus 446, an 85.3 percent delta. Random string sorting completes the list at 42135 versus 10102, a 76 percent delta.

The single-thread PassMark score, listed twice in the database as both "single_thread" and "singlethread" with identical values, shows 4218 for the Core Ultra 9 386H against 1974 for the Core 3 N350, a 53.2 percent delta. This is the smallest margin in the entire comparison, yet it still represents a decisive single-core advantage for the Ultra part. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 9 386H is 43210, placing it at the 88th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Core 3 N350 averages 9903 and sits at the 66th percentile.

The Verdict

The data indicates two processors serving distinctly different performance tiers. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H delivers a 43210 average benchmark score, which places it 4.36 times higher than the Core 3 N350's 9903 average. The percentile gap is equally stark: 88th versus 66th percentile among all CPUs. For any workload that depends on multi-threaded throughput, the Core Ultra 9 386H is the clear choice. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 with a delta of 0.3 percent, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 at 0.5 percent, and the Intel Core i9-12900 at 0.7 percent, meaning it trades blows with desktop-class parts from the previous generation.

The Core 3 N350, by contrast, sits near the Intel Core i7-3770 with a 2 percent delta and the Intel Core i5-1035G1 at 2.3 percent, while trailing the AMD EPYC 7F52 by 2.5 percent and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 by 3.2 percent. This places it in the company of older desktop and low-power mobile processors. Its 66th percentile ranking reflects a part that handles everyday tasks competently but lacks the headroom for demanding compute.

The head-to-head deltas show the Core Ultra 9 386H winning every test by at least 53.2 percent, with most margins falling between 68 and 94 percent. The smallest advantage appears in single-thread PassMark, where the Ultra part's boost clock of 4.90 GHz versus 3.90 GHz for the Core 3 N350, combined with its newer architecture, explains the edge. The largest advantage appears in prime number finding, where the Ultra part's 16 threads and higher per-core efficiency dominate.

Users who require sustained multi-core performance, such as rendering, compilation, or simulation workloads, should select the Core Ultra 9 386H without hesitation based on the recorded data. Users who prioritize low power consumption and minimal thermal output, where the Core 3 N350's 7 W TDP against 25 W for the Ultra part becomes relevant, may find the smaller processor sufficient for light productivity and media consumption. The data does not support any scenario where the Core 3 N350 outperforms the Core Ultra 9 386H in raw compute.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural families and process nodes. The Intel Core 3 N350 uses the Twin Lake architecture, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses Panther Lake, fabricated on a 3 nm process, also at Intel. The process node difference alone accounts for significant efficiency and density improvements in the Ultra part.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 3 N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 386H doubles that to 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor supports hyper-threading, so thread counts equal core counts for both. The cache hierarchy reflects the architectural gap. 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 9 386H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The per-core L2 allocation in the Ultra part is particularly notable, as 2.5 MB per core versus 2 MB shared across all eight cores in the N350 represents a massive difference in fast-access storage.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 3 N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The memory bus differs: single-channel for the N350, dual-channel for the Ultra part. Peak memory bandwidth reflects this: 38.4 GB/s for the N350 versus 115.2 GB/s for the Ultra part. The threefold bandwidth advantage of the Core Ultra 9 386H directly feeds its multi-core performance in memory-sensitive workloads like data compression and random string sorting.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 3 N350 provides Gen 3 with 9 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 9 386H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes. This affects external device throughput, with the Ultra part offering both newer generations and more lanes. Integrated graphics differ: the N350 uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra part uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, so the comparison here remains qualitative.

The Core Ultra 9 386H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 family and the Panther Lake-H generation, while the Core 3 N350 belongs to the Core 3 generation derived from Alder Lake-N. The generation naming reflects the design lineage, with Panther Lake representing a newer architecture than the Alder Lake-N base of the N350. Both processors are currently marked as Active in production status. The N350 released on 2025-01-06, and the Ultra part followed on 2026-01-04, a full year later in the database's recorded timeline.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field in the database. Core count: 8 for the Core 3 N350, 16 for the Core Ultra 9 386H. Thread count mirrors cores: 8 and 16 respectively. Base clock: 0.10 GHz for the N350 versus 2.10 GHz for the Ultra part. Boost clock: 3.90 GHz versus 4.90 GHz. TDP: 7 W versus 25 W. Socket: Intel BGA 1264 for the N350, Intel BGA 2540 for the Ultra part.

Process node: 10 nm for the N350, 3 nm for the Ultra part. Cache: L1 of 96 KB per core versus 192 KB per core, L2 of 2 MB shared versus 2.5 MB per core, L3 of 6 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory support: DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 for the N350 versus DDR5, LPDDR5X for the Ultra part. 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. Part numbers also differ: SRPNS for the N350, SA4R5Q9EH for the Ultra part.

Both processors share several fields: manufacturer Intel, mobile market segment, no ECC memory support, locked multipliers, and no launch MSRP recorded in the database. Both are Active in production. Neither has recorded transistor counts or die sizes. The release dates differ by roughly one year, with the N350 launching first.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has an average benchmark score of 43210, while the Intel Core 3 N350 has an average of 9903.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The PassMark find prime numbers test shows the largest delta at 94.1 percent, with the Core Ultra 9 386H scoring 341 against 20 for the Core 3 N350.

Q: How do the core counts compare between the two processors?

A: The Core 3 N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Core 3 N350 has a single-channel memory bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 9 386H has a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 9 386H boosts to 4.90 GHz, compared to 3.90 GHz for the Core 3 N350.

Q: How do the TDP ratings compare?

A: The Core 3 N350 has a TDP of 7 W, while the Core Ultra 9 386H has a TDP of 25 W.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split comes down to workload suitability and power constraints rather than performance advantages for the Core 3 N350. The Ultra part dominates multi-threaded compute: Cinebench R23 multi-core at 20547 points, PassMark multi-thread at 35399, and PassMark physics at 3028 all indicate strong parallel scaling. Data compression and encryption workloads, which benefit from both high core counts and memory bandwidth, show the Ultra part at 352365 and 27150 respectively, both far ahead of the N350.

Single-threaded workloads also favor the Core Ultra 9 386H, with a 53.2 percent advantage in PassMark single-thread and a 57.3 percent advantage in Cinebench R23 single-core. The higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz and newer 3 nm architecture contribute to this lead. For integer-heavy tasks like prime number finding, the Ultra part's 94.1 percent advantage demonstrates superior branch handling and arithmetic throughput.

The Core 3 N350's advantages are not performance-based but rather efficiency-based. Its 7 W TDP against 25 W for the Ultra part makes it suitable for fanless or passively cooled designs, low-power embedded systems, and battery-sensitive mobile devices. Its support for DDR4 memory allows integration into older platform designs, and its Gen 3 PCIe with 9 lanes matches modest peripheral requirements. The N350's 66th percentile ranking still places it above the median CPU in the database, so it handles typical office productivity, web browsing, and media playback without issue.

The use-case split, therefore, is clear: the Core Ultra 9 386H for any task requiring compute throughput, whether single-threaded responsiveness or multi-threaded rendering, and the Core 3 N350 for scenarios where the 7 W power envelope and older memory compatibility take precedence over raw performance. The database shows no workload category where the N350 outperforms the Ultra part, so the choice hinges entirely on power and platform constraints rather than benchmark wins.