Intel Core 3 N355 vs Intel Core 5 330 Comparison

The Verdict

The data separates these two mobile processors clearly. The Intel Core 5 330 wins 16 of 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and its average benchmark score of 18345 places it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, compared to the Core 3 N355's 13492 average and 68th percentile. The Core 5 330 also sits alongside substantially faster company in the database: its nearest rivals include the Core i3-14100 (18318, 0.1% behind), Core 7 360 (18374, 0.2% ahead), and Core i3-13100 (18380, 0.2% ahead). The Core 3 N355, by contrast, matches the Core i3-12100F (13494, 0% delta) and trails the Core 5 120UL (13594, 0.8% behind).

For workloads built around integer math only, the Core 3 N355 holds a narrow edge, scoring 33894 against 33258 in Passmark integer math, a 1.9% lead. But that single win does little to offset the Core 5 330's dominance elsewhere. The Core 5 330 is the pick for users who need extended instructions, floating-point work, encryption, compression, physics simulation, or any Cinebench rendering task. The Core 3 N355 makes sense only for a very specific use case where integer throughput is the sole concern and the performance gap elsewhere is tolerable.

The Core 5 330 also launches with a stated launch MSRP of $309, while the Core 3 N355 has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different design families. The Core 3 N355 uses the Twin Lake architecture, listed under the Core 3 (Alder Lake-N) generation, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. The Core 5 330 uses the Wildcat Lake codename under the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation, built on a 3 nm process, also at Intel's foundry. The process difference is substantial and shows up in the benchmark deltas.

Core counts differ. The Core 3 N355 has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the Core 5 330 wins every multicore benchmark in the head-to-head set, which points to a much stronger per-core design and a higher boost clock.

Clock speeds reinforce that. The Core 3 N355 runs a 1.90 GHz base clock with a 3.90 GHz boost. The Core 5 330 runs a 1.50 GHz base clock with a 4.60 GHz boost. The Core 5 330's boost advantage of 0.70 GHz helps explain its single-core leads, while the higher base clock on the Core 3 N355 does not translate into multicore victories.

Cache layouts differ. The Core 3 N355 has 96 KB L1 per core, 2 MB shared L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Core 5 330 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Core 5 330 carries more L1 and L2, while L3 capacity matches.

Memory support separates them. The Core 3 N355 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, while the Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X only. Both run single-channel memory. Memory bandwidth favors the Core 5 330 at 59.7 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s, a meaningful difference for memory-bound tasks.

PCIe capabilities differ as well. The Core 3 N355 provides Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 5 330 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The Core 5 330's PCIe is newer and faster per lane, though it has fewer lanes.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 3 N355 uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Core 5 330 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Xe3 part is from a newer graphics generation, though the database does not include graphics benchmarks for either chip.

Both chips use different sockets. The Core 3 N355 sits on Intel BGA 1264, the Core 5 330 on Intel BGA 1516. Both are mobile segments, both are active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 3 N355 released on 2025-01-06, while the Core 5 330 released later on 2026-04-15.

FAQ

Q: Which chip has more cores?

A: The Core 3 N355 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core 5 330 still wins all multicore benchmarks despite having fewer cores.

Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core 5 330 boosts to 4.60 GHz, compared to the Core 3 N355's 3.90 GHz. The Core 3 N355 has a higher base clock at 1.90 GHz versus 1.50 GHz.

Q: Do both chips support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 3 N355 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5. The Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth also differs: 38.4 GB/s for the Core 3 N355, 59.7 GB/s for the Core 5 330.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark gap between the two?

A: The largest delta is in Passmark find prime numbers, where the Core 5 330 scores 114 versus the Core 3 N355's 27, a 76.3% advantage. The next largest is Cinebench R23 multicore, where the Core 5 330 scores 13150 versus 5262, a 60% lead.

Q: Does the Core 3 N355 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, one. In Passmark integer math, the Core 3 N355 scores 33894 against the Core 5 330's 33258, a 1.9% win. Every other head-to-head benchmark goes to the Core 5 330.

Q: How do the two chips rank against all CPUs in the database?

A: The Core 3 N355 sits in the 68th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 13492. The Core 5 330 sits in the 72nd percentile with an average benchmark score of 18345.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two processors differ, based on recorded data.

| Field | Core 3 N355 | Core 5 330 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 6 |

| Threads | 8 | 6 |

| Base clock | 1.90 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.90 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1264 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Codename | Twin Lake | Wildcat Lake |

| Generation | Core 3 (Alder Lake-N) | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| L1 cache | 96 KB (per core) | 192 KB |

| L2 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 2.5 MB |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 9 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) |

| Release date | 2025-01-06 | 2026-04-15 |

| Part number | SRPNT | SAE3G |

| Launch MSRP | None recorded | $309 |

Both chips share a 15 W TDP, 6 MB shared L3 cache, no ECC memory support, mobile market segment, active production status, and locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core 5 330 dominates the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 1325 against 822, a 38% lead. Single-core R15 shows a smaller gap: 186 versus 168, a 9.7% lead. Cinebench R20 multicore widens the gap: 5523 against 3612, a 34.6% lead, and R20 single-core shows 779 versus 509, a 34.7% lead. The largest Cinebench gap appears in R23 multicore, where the Core 5 330 scores 13150 against 5262, a 60% lead. R23 single-core also favors the Core 5 330 at 1856 versus 1039, a 44% lead.

Passmark tests show a similar pattern. In floating-point math, the Core 5 330 scores 43885 against 22695, a 48.3% lead. Extended instructions go to the Core 5 330 at 12808 versus 5968, a 53.4% lead. Data encryption favors the Core 5 330 at 11076 versus 8121, a 26.7% lead. Data compression shows the Core 5 330 at 145287 versus 117435, a 19.2% lead. Random string sorting goes to the Core 5 330 at 17771 versus 14706, a 17.2% lead. Physics simulation strongly favors the Core 5 330 at 1201 versus 625, a 48% lead. Passmark multithread shows the Core 5 330 at 15471 versus 10174, a 34.2% lead. Passmark single-thread (reported twice in the data, under both naming conventions) shows the Core 5 330 at 4088 versus 2153, a 47.3% lead.

The only Core 3 N355 win is Passmark integer math: 33894 versus 33258, a 1.9% lead. That is a narrow margin and the only benchmark where the older chip outperforms. The single largest gap anywhere is Passmark find prime numbers, where the Core 5 330 scores 114 versus 27, a 76.3% lead.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 330 wins in every major workload category except one. Rendering workloads, represented by all three Cinebench versions, go decisively to the Core 5 330, with multicore leads ranging from 34.6% to 60% and single-core leads from 9.7% to 44%. Users running 3D rendering, video encoding, or any CPU-heavy creative task should favor the Core 5 330 based on this data.

The Core 5 330 also wins in memory-sensitive and instruction-heavy tasks. Data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, floating-point math, physics simulation, and random string sorting all show double-digit leads for the Core 5 330, ranging from 17.2% to 53.4%. Its higher memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s and its faster boost clock of 4.60 GHz versus 3.90 GHz support these results.

Prime number calculation, a heavily integer-bound and latency-sensitive workload, shows the largest gap of all: the Core 5 330 leads by 76.3%. This suggests the Core 5 330's per-core efficiency and higher boost clock matter greatly for tight loop work.

The Core 3 N355's single win in integer math (33894 versus 33258, 1.9%) is real but small. It indicates that for pure integer arithmetic without heavy memory traffic, the 8-core design can edge out the 6-core design. However, the margin is within a couple of percent and does not generalize to other integer-adjacent workloads, since data compression, encryption, and random string sorting all favor the Core 5 330.

The Core 3 N355's higher base clock of 1.90 GHz versus 1.50 GHz may help in sustained low-load scenarios, but the benchmark data does not show a corresponding advantage in any recorded test except integer math. The Core 5 330's 3 nm process, larger L1 and L2 caches, and higher boost clock overcome the core-count deficit.

For users choosing between these two mobile processors, the data points to the Core 5 330 for almost all tasks. The Core 3 N355 remains a viable option only for integer-math-focused workloads where its 1.9% edge matters, and even then the rest of the performance envelope is substantially weaker. The Core 5 330's 72nd percentile ranking and its proximity to the Core i3-14100 and Core i3-13100 in average score confirm that it performs like a modern desktop-class part in a mobile package.