Intel Core 3 N355 vs Intel Core Ultra 3 205 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a decisive result: the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core 3 N355. The largest margins appear in compute-heavy workloads. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core Ultra 3 205 scores 19,856 versus 5,262 for the Core 3 N355, a delta of -73.5% from the perspective of the slower chip. The single-core gap is similarly pronounced: Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2,803 against 1,039, a -62.9% delta.

The Passmark suite reinforces this pattern across every category. In integer math, the Core Ultra 3 205 scores 54,755 compared to 33,894, a -38.1% delta, which is the narrowest margin in the entire comparison. Floating point math shows a wider split: 75,136 versus 22,695, a -69.8% delta. Extended instructions deliver 22,578 versus 5,968, a -73.6% delta, nearly matching the multicore Cinebench gap.

Prime number searching exposes the most extreme difference. The Core Ultra 3 205 records 268 in Passmark find prime numbers, while the Core 3 N355 manages only 27, a -89.9% delta. This workload appears highly sensitive to the architectural and clock differences between the two parts.

Memory and data handling tasks also favor the Core Ultra 3 205 substantially. Data compression scores 260,651 versus 117,435, a -54.9% delta. Data encryption shows 18,772 versus 8,121, a -56.7% delta. Random string sorting delivers 31,083 versus 14,706, a -52.7% delta.

The multithreaded Passmark score lands at 26,167 for the Core Ultra 3 205 versus 10,174 for the Core 3 N355, a -61.1% delta. Physics calculations follow at 2,016 versus 625, a -69% delta. Single-thread Passmark results show 4,575 versus 2,153, a -52.9% delta, with the duplicate singlethread entry confirming the same figures.

Cinebench R15 and R20 results align with the newer benchmark versions. R15 multicore shows 2,001 versus 822, a -58.9% delta. R15 single-core shows 282 versus 168, a -40.4% delta. R20 multicore shows 8,339 versus 3,612, a -56.7% delta. R20 single-core shows 1,177 versus 509, a -56.8% delta.

The aggregate data confirms the hierarchy. The Core Ultra 3 205 holds an average benchmark score of 31,473 and sits in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 N355 averages 13,492 and sits in the 68th percentile. The nearest rivals for each chip reflect their respective performance tiers. The Core 3 N355 matches the Intel Core i3-12100F at 13,494 average score with a 0% delta, and sits 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i5-9500 at 13,452. The Core Ultra 3 205 matches the Intel Core 7 240H at 31,483 average score with a 0% delta, and trails the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX by 0.1% at 31,495.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows no benchmark category where the Core 3 N355 takes the lead. Every recorded test, from single-thread to multicore, from integer to floating point, from compression to encryption, favors the Core Ultra 3 205.

The Core 3 N355 does hold one structural advantage: power consumption. Its thermal design power is 15 watts, while the Core Ultra 3 205 draws 57 watts. For systems where the thermal envelope is constrained, the Core 3 N355 delivers its scores within a much lower power budget. Its base clock of 1.90 GHz and boost clock of 3.90 GHz run far below the Core Ultra 3 205's 3.80 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost, which explains the reduced power draw.

The Core Ultra 3 205 wins on every performance axis. Its strength is most pronounced in multicore rendering, where the Cinebench R23 delta reaches -73.5%, and in prime number calculations, where the delta reaches -89.9%. These results indicate that workloads involving sustained parallel execution and heavy integer loops benefit disproportionately from the Core Ultra 3 205's higher clocks, larger cache, and newer architecture.

Single-thread performance also favors the Core Ultra 3 205 decisively. The Passmark single-thread score of 4,575 versus 2,153 represents a 112.5% improvement. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2,803 versus 1,039, a 169.8% improvement. These margins suggest that even lightly threaded applications, such as typical desktop productivity tasks, will run noticeably faster on the Core Ultra 3 205.

Memory bandwidth contributes to the performance gap. The Core Ultra 3 205 supports dual-channel memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core 3 N355 uses single-channel memory at 38.4 GB/s. This 2.67x bandwidth advantage appears directly in the data compression and encryption results, where memory throughput plays a significant role.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates a clear choice for performance-oriented buyers. The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons, delivers an average benchmark score of 31,473 versus 13,492, and ranks in the 82nd percentile versus the 68th percentile. The Core 3 N355 cannot match it in any measured workload.

The Core 3 N355 suits scenarios where power consumption takes priority over raw performance. Its 15-watt TDP, single-channel memory, and mobile BGA 1264 socket position it for low-power portable devices, fanless designs, or embedded systems where the 57-watt Core Ultra 3 205 would require more substantial cooling and power delivery. The Core 3 N355's launch date of January 6, 2025 also precedes the Core Ultra 3 205's July 31, 2025 release, making it an earlier option in the product cycle.

The Core Ultra 3 205 targets desktop systems with its Intel Socket 1851, dual-channel DDR5 memory, and PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Its 3 nm process node from TSMC, compared to the Core 3 N355's 10 nm Intel process, contributes to the performance difference. The Core Ultra 3 205 also carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 3 N355 has no recorded transistor or die size data.

The launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 3 205 is $140, stated once here for reference. No pricing data exists for the Core 3 N355 in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 wins with a score of 19,856 versus 5,262 for the Intel Core 3 N355, a delta of -73.5% from the slower chip's perspective.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: In Passmark single-thread, the Core Ultra 3 205 scores 4,575 against 2,153, a -52.9% delta. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the scores are 2,803 versus 1,039, a -62.9% delta.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The Core 3 N355 has a thermal design power of 15 watts, while the Core Ultra 3 205 has a TDP of 57 watts.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 3 N355 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 with single-channel memory at 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 3 205 supports only DDR5 with dual-channel memory at 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do these CPUs rank among all processors?

A: The Core Ultra 3 205 sits in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 31,473. The Core 3 N355 sits in the 68th percentile with an average score of 13,492.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each chip?

A: The Core 3 N355's nearest rival is the Intel Core i3-12100F with an average score of 13,494 and a 0% delta. The Core Ultra 3 205's nearest rival is the Intel Core 7 240H with an average score of 31,483 and a 0% delta.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use fundamentally different architectures. The Core 3 N355 is built on Twin Lake, part of the Core 3 (Alder Lake-N) generation, using a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The Core Ultra 3 205 uses Arrow Lake, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, on a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC.

Core counts match at 8 cores and 8 threads for both parts, but the cache hierarchy differs substantially. The Core 3 N355 provides 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 3 205 doubles the L1 to 192 KB per core, raises the L2 to 3 MB per core, and increases the shared L3 to 15 MB.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 N355 uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Core Ultra 3 205 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU. Neither chip has a 3D V-Cache option recorded.

PCIe capabilities diverge sharply. The Core 3 N355 supports PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra 3 205 supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, offering both higher bandwidth and more connectivity.

Memory architecture follows the PCIe split. The Core 3 N355 runs single-channel memory with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth across DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 support. The Core Ultra 3 205 runs dual-channel DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. Neither chip supports ECC memory.

Transistor count and die size are recorded only for the Core Ultra 3 205: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 3 N355 has no transistor or die size data in the database.

Specification Differences

The socket types differ completely. The Core 3 N355 uses Intel BGA 1264, a soldered mobile socket, while the Core Ultra 3 205 uses Intel Socket 1851, a desktop socket.

Clock speeds favor the Core Ultra 3 205. Its base clock is 3.80 GHz and boost clock is 4.90 GHz. The Core 3 N355 runs at 1.90 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost.

Power delivery differs by 42 watts: 15 watts for the Core 3 N355 versus 57 watts for the Core Ultra 3 205.

The production status for both is listed as Active. The Core 3 N355 was released on January 6, 2025, with part number SRPNT. The Core Ultra 3 205 was released on July 31, 2025, with part number SRVFC. The Core Ultra 3 205 has a launch MSRP of $140; the Core 3 N355 has no launch MSRP recorded.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The market segment for the Core 3 N355 is Mobile, while the Core Ultra 3 205 targets Desktop. The foundry differs: Intel fabricates the Core 3 N355, TSMC fabricates the Core Ultra 3 205.