Intel Core 3 N350 vs Intel Xeon W-3175X Comparison

The Intel Xeon W-3175X and the Intel Core 3 N350 represent two extreme ends of Intel’s product spectrum. The former is a 28-core workstation behemoth from the Skylake-W generation, while the latter is an 8-core, 7-watt mobile chip based on the Twin Lake architecture. Benchmark data shows a complete dominance for the Xeon part in every head-to-head test, but the Core 3 N350 has its own strengths in efficiency and platform features. This analysis breaks down the data to show where each processor is the logical choice.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon W-3175X is overwhelmingly faster. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 38,692 versus the Core 3 N350's 6,274, a 516.7% advantage. The Xeon also leads in Cinebench R20 multi-core with 16,250 points against 2,635.

Q: Does the Core 3 N350 win any benchmark comparisons?

A: No. In the six head-to-head benchmarks recorded, the Xeon W-3175X wins all of them. The Core 3 N350 has zero wins, though it does have unique PassMark scores for data compression, encryption, and physics that were not measured on the Xeon.

Q: Which CPU has a higher single-core clock speed?

A: The Xeon W-3175X has a higher boost clock of 4.30 GHz, compared to the Core 3 N350's 3.90 GHz. The Xeon also has a much higher base clock at 3.10 GHz versus the N350's 0.10 GHz.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The Xeon W-3175X uses six-channel DDR4 memory with a peak bandwidth of 128.0 GB/s. The Core 3 N350 uses single-channel memory supporting DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, with a peak bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s.

Q: Is the Core 3 N350 suitable for gaming or graphics?

A: The Core 3 N350 includes integrated UHD Graphics 770, while the Xeon W-3175X has no integrated graphics. This makes the N350 a self-contained mobile solution, whereas the Xeon requires a discrete GPU.

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score percentile?

A: Both processors are at the 66th percentile when compared to all CPUs, despite their massive performance differences. The Xeon W-3175X has an average benchmark score of 10,369, while the Core 3 N350 averages 9,903.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon W-3175X wins every single compute benchmark. Its wins are absolute and decisive. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 3,900 versus the N350's 632, a 517.1% lead. The single-core R15 test shows a 518% gap (550 vs 89). The pattern continues across R20 and R23, with the Xeon leading by roughly 517% in every test. This processor is built for sustained, heavy multi-threaded workloads like rendering, simulation, and scientific computing. Its 28 cores and 56 threads, combined with a 255-watt TDP, provide raw throughput that the 7-watt N350 simply cannot approach.

The Core 3 N350 wins in platform efficiency and integration. Its 7-watt TDP and single-channel memory bus make it ideal for fanless or battery-powered mobile devices. It features integrated UHD Graphics 770, eliminating the need for a separate GPU. It also supports modern memory types including DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, giving system designers flexibility. While its benchmark scores are far lower, it offers unique PassMark metrics that were not tested on the Xeon, such as data compression at 80,444 and integer math at 27,669. These results indicate it handles light productivity tasks competently for its class.

The Xeon W-3175X also wins on memory bandwidth. Its six-channel setup delivers 128.0 GB/s, which is 3.3 times the N350's 38.4 GB/s. This bandwidth is critical for memory-hungry server workloads. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, making it suitable for error-sensitive enterprise applications. The N350 does not support ECC. The Xeon's 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes also provide far more expansion capability than the N350's 9 lanes.

Architecture Differences

The Xeon W-3175X is built on Intel's 14 nm process with a die size of 688 mm² and 8,000 million transistors. It uses the Skylake-W architecture, which is a server-class design optimized for high core counts and sustained throughput. The Core 3 N350 is built on Intel's 10 nm process with the Twin Lake architecture, which is a low-power mobile design. The Xeon uses the Intel Socket 3647 platform, while the N350 is soldered onto Intel BGA 1264.

Cache structures differ significantly. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, plus a massive 38.5 MB shared L3 cache. The N350 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and a modest 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon's larger cache hierarchy is designed to feed 28 cores simultaneously, while the N350's smaller cache is optimized for efficiency.

The Xeon W-3175X has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable. The N350 has a locked multiplier. The Xeon is also end-of-life, having been released in January 2019, while the N350 is active and was released in January 2025. The market segments are opposite: the Xeon targets Server/Workstation, and the N350 targets Mobile.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious difference. The Xeon W-3175X has 28 cores and 56 threads. The Core 3 N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, with no hyper-threading. The base clock speeds are dramatically different: 3.10 GHz for the Xeon versus 0.10 GHz for the N350. Boost clocks are closer, with the Xeon at 4.30 GHz and the N350 at 3.90 GHz.

The TDP figures could not be more different. The Xeon consumes 255 watts, while the N350 consumes just 7 watts. This is a 36-fold difference in power envelope. The memory support also diverges: the Xeon uses DDR4 only, while the N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5. The memory bus width is six-channel for the Xeon and single-channel for the N350. The Xeon has ECC support; the N350 does not.

The Xeon has 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the N350 has 9 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the N350 includes UHD Graphics 770. The Xeon's launch MSRP is $2999, while the N350 has no recorded launch MSRP. The Xeon is end-of-life with part number SRF6LQRDK, while the N350 is active with part number SRPNS.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows the Xeon W-3175X scoring 3,900 against the N350's 632, a delta of 517.1%. This is the smallest relative gap in the head-to-head results, but it still represents a six-fold performance advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a similar pattern: 550 versus 89, a 518% delta. This indicates that even on a single thread, the Xeon's higher clock speed and older architecture still vastly outperform the N350's efficiency-focused design.

Cinebench R20 multi-core results show the Xeon at 16,250 and the N350 at 2,635, a 516.7% gap. The R20 single-core test shows 2,294 versus 371, a 518.3% delta, which is the largest single-core margin in the dataset. This suggests the Xeon's IPC and clock speed combination is far superior for legacy instruction workloads.

Cinebench R23 multi-core continues the trend: 38,692 for the Xeon versus 6,274 for the N350, a 516.7% delta. The R23 single-core test shows 5,462 versus 885, a 517.2% gap. Across all six tests, the Xeon W-3175X consistently leads by approximately 517-518%. There is no benchmark where the Core 3 N350 closes the gap. The data clearly shows that the Xeon W-3175X is in a different performance class, while the N350's value lies in its low power draw, integrated graphics, and modern platform support.

The single-core results are particularly telling. The Xeon's 4.30 GHz boost clock outperforms the N350's 3.90 GHz boost clock by a significant margin in every single-threaded test. This is despite the N350 being a newer architecture. The Xeon's older Skylake design, combined with its higher power envelope, delivers superior per-thread performance. The multi-core results are even more lopsided, as the Xeon's 28 cores overwhelm the N350's 8 cores. The data shows no ambiguity: for any compute-intensive workload, the Xeon W-3175X is the clear choice. For ultra-mobile, low-power applications, the Core 3 N350 is the only viable option between the two.