Intel Core 3 N350 vs Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 and Intel Core 3 N350 are close in overall benchmark averages, but they achieve that parity through wildly different strengths. The Xeon leads in five of the seventeen head-to-head tests, while the Core 3 N350 wins twelve. However, the margins tell the real story: the Xeon’s victories are often substantial, while the Core 3’s wins are mostly narrow.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon E3-1565L v5 dominates in several specialized workloads. Its most dramatic win is in PassMark’s find prime numbers test, where it scores 43 versus the Core 3 N350’s 20, a 115% advantage. That is the single largest delta in the entire comparison. The Xeon also crushes the Core 3 in extended instructions, scoring 6031 against 3981, a 51.5% lead. Data compression heavily favors the Xeon as well, with a score of 94771 compared to 80444, a 17.8% margin. The Xeon’s physics score of 794 beats the Core 3’s 446 by 78%, and random string sorting goes to the Xeon at 11543 versus 10102, a 14.3% edge.

The Core 3 N350 answers with a different profile. Its biggest win is in data encryption, where it scores 5693 against the Xeon’s 2314, a massive 59.4% advantage. In floating point math, the Core 3 leads 17781 to 14547, an 18.2% margin. Integer math also favors the Core 3, scoring 27669 versus 23335, a 15.7% lead. Every Cinebench test goes to the Core 3, but by tiny margins: R15 multi-core is 632 versus 627 (-0.8%), R15 single-core is 89 versus 88 (-1.1%), R20 multi-core is 2635 versus 2614 (-0.8%), R20 single-core is 371 versus 369 (-0.5%), R23 multi-core is 6274 versus 6226 (-0.8%), and R23 single-core is 885 versus 879 (-0.7%). PassMark multi-thread and single-thread scores also go to the Core 3, but by less than 1%.

The overall benchmark averages reflect this split. The Xeon E3-1565L v5 has an average benchmark score of 10320, while the Core 3 N350 sits at 9903. Both processors land in the 66th percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon’s nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon Gold 6338N (0.3% lower average), Intel Xeon Gold 6312U (0.3% higher), Intel Xeon W-3175X (0.5% lower), and Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 (0.9% lower). The Core 3 N350’s nearest rivals are the Intel Core i7-3770 (2% lower), Intel Core i5-1035G1 (2.3% lower), AMD EPYC 7F52 (2.5% higher), and Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 (3.2% higher).

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different eras and design philosophies. The Xeon E3-1565L v5 uses the Skylake architecture (Skylake-H codename) on a 14 nm process, built on a die of 171 mm² with 2,300 million transistors. The Core 3 N350 uses the Twin Lake architecture (Alder Lake-N codename) on a 10 nm process. The Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads; the Core 3 has 8 cores and 8 threads, meaning it lacks simultaneous multithreading.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The Xeon provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Core 3 N350 offers 96 KB of L1 per core, but only 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Xeon’s larger L3 and per-core L2 design favors workloads that depend on repeated access to moderate-sized datasets, which likely explains its compression and prime-number advantages.

Memory architecture is another major split. The Xeon supports DDR3 and DDR4 in a dual-channel configuration, with 34.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core 3 N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, but only in a single-channel configuration, yet it achieves 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Xeon supports ECC memory; the Core 3 does not. The Xeon also provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the Core 3 offers 9 PCIe Gen 3 lanes.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Xeon features Iris Pro Graphics P580, while the Core 3 N350 has UHD Graphics 770. The Xeon is marked for the Server/Workstation segment, while the Core 3 is a Mobile part. The Xeon’s socket is Intel BGA 1440, and the Core 3 uses Intel BGA 1264.

Power and thermal characteristics are starkly different. The Xeon has a 35 W TDP, while the Core 3 N350 draws just 7 W. The Core 3’s base clock is listed as 0.10 GHz, but its boost clock reaches 3.90 GHz. The Xeon’s base clock is 2.50 GHz with a 3.50 GHz boost. The Core 3 boosts higher, but the Xeon maintains a much higher floor.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench multi-core tests?

A: The Intel Core 3 N350 wins all three Cinebench multi-core tests, but by less than 1%: R15 multi-core is 632 versus 627, R20 multi-core is 2635 versus 2614, and R23 multi-core is 6274 versus 6226.

Q: Where does the Xeon E3-1565L v5 have its biggest advantage?

A: The Xeon’s largest win is in PassMark’s find prime numbers test, where it scores 43 versus the Core 3’s 20, a 115% lead. It also leads by 51.5% in extended instructions and by 78% in physics.

Q: Does the Core 3 N350 win any test by a large margin?

A: Yes, the Core 3 N350 wins PassMark data encryption by 59.4%, scoring 5693 versus the Xeon’s 2314. It also leads floating point math by 18.2% and integer math by 15.7%.

Q: How do their overall average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon E3-1565L v5 has an average benchmark score of 10320, which is higher than the Core 3 N350’s 9903. Both are in the 66th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What are the memory support differences?

A: The Xeon supports DDR3 and DDR4 in dual-channel mode with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory. The Core 3 N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 in single-channel mode with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Core 3 N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Xeon E3-1565L v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon uses hyper-threading to reach 8 threads, while the Core 3 does not.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 | Intel Core 3 N350 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 8 |

| Threads | 8 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 0.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 7 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1440 | Intel BGA 1264 |

| Architecture | Skylake | Twin Lake |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 10 nm |

| Transistors | 2,300 million | Not specified |

| Die Size | 171 mm² | Not specified |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 2 MB (shared) |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3, DDR4 | DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 34.1 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes | Gen 3, 9 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Pro Graphics P580 | UHD Graphics 770 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2016-05-30 | 2025-01-06 |

| Launch MSRP | $417 | Not specified |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload type. The Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 is the stronger choice for tasks that stress integer-heavy, compression-heavy, or physics-based computations. Its 115% lead in find prime numbers and 51.5% lead in extended instructions are not marginal; they reflect a fundamental advantage in certain algorithmic patterns. The Xeon also wins data compression by 17.8% and physics by 78%, making it the pick for scientific or server-side workloads that rely on those operations.

The Intel Core 3 N350 is the better choice for encryption, floating-point math, and general multi-core throughput. Its 59.4% win in data encryption is decisive, and its leads in floating point (18.2%) and integer math (15.7%) are substantial. The Core 3 also wins every Cinebench test, though by margins under 1.1%, suggesting that in synthetic rendering workloads, the two are effectively tied.

Given that the Core 3 N350 wins 12 of 17 head-to-head tests and the Xeon wins 5, the Core 3 has broader utility. However, the Xeon’s wins are often by much larger percentages, meaning that in its favored applications, the gap is far more meaningful than the Core 3’s narrow Cinebench victories. The Xeon’s average benchmark score of 10320 versus the Core 3’s 9903 also indicates that the Xeon holds a slight overall edge despite losing more individual tests.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E3-1565L v5 wins in scenarios where its 8 MB of shared L3 cache and per-core L2 design can be exploited. Prime number calculations (43 versus 20), extended instruction sets (6031 versus 3981), and physics simulations (794 versus 446) are its domain. Data compression (94771 versus 80444) and random string sorting (11543 versus 10102) also favor the Xeon. These are workloads typical of server-side processing, database operations, and scientific computing.

The Core 3 N350 wins in encryption-heavy tasks, where its score of 5693 dwarfs the Xeon’s 2314. It also excels in floating-point math (17781 versus 14547) and integer math (27669 versus 23335), which are common in general-purpose computing and media processing. The Core 3 takes every Cinebench rendering test, albeit by tiny margins, and edges out the Xeon in PassMark multi-thread (7382 versus 7325) and single-thread (1974 versus 1970) scores.

For a mobile or low-power deployment, the Core 3 N350’s 7 W TDP versus the Xeon’s 35 W makes it the obvious candidate. For a server or workstation environment where ECC memory and higher sustained base clocks matter, the Xeon E3-1565L v5 remains competitive despite being end-of-life. The Core 3’s single-channel memory bus is a limitation, but its higher memory bandwidth (38.4 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s) partially compensates. The Xeon’s dual-channel support and ECC capability make it the safer choice for data integrity–sensitive workloads, even as the Core 3 wins on raw encryption speed and energy efficiency.