Intel Core 3 N355 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data leaves no ambiguity: the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core 3 N355. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is 66,855, while the Core 3 N355 averages 13,492. This places the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, versus the 68th percentile for the Core 3 N355.

The largest margin comes in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 486 against 27, a 94.4% advantage. This extreme gap reflects the fundamental differences in core count and architecture between the two parts. Floating point math shows an 86.1% deficit for the Core 3 N355 (22,695 versus 162,692), and extended instructions trail by 86.6% (5,968 versus 44,565). Data encryption performance is similarly lopsided: 8,121 versus 42,144, an 80.7% difference.

Multi-threaded workloads consistently show roughly 80% deficits for the Core 3 N355. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 30,867 against 5,262, an 83% gap. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows an 80.4% deficit (3,612 versus 18,442), while Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 822 versus 4,640, an 82.3% difference. PassMark multithread results indicate 10,174 versus 51,596, an 80.3% gap.

Single-thread performance narrows the divide but does not change the outcome. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus leads by 54.7% in PassMark single thread (4,757 versus 2,153) and by 54% in Cinebench R23 single-core (2,261 versus 1,039). Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 80.4% deficit for the Core 3 N355 (509 versus 2,603), while Cinebench R15 single-core shows 168 versus 328, a 48.8% gap.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus also wins in integer math (125,091 versus 33,894, a 72.9% gap), data compression (568,721 versus 117,435, a 79.4% gap), random string sorting (69,090 versus 14,706, a 78.7% gap), and physics (3,494 versus 625, an 82.1% gap). Across every recorded metric, the Core 3 N355 trails by at least 48.8%, and in most multi-threaded tests the gap exceeds 80%.

FAQ

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an average benchmark score of 66,855, while the Intel Core 3 N355 averages 13,492. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, versus the 68th percentile for the Core 3 N355.

Q: Which processor has better single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins every single-threaded benchmark. In PassMark single thread, it scores 4,757 versus 2,153, a 54.7% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2,261 versus 1,039, a 54% gap. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2,603 versus 509, an 80.4% deficit for the Core 3 N355.

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

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 486 versus 27 for the Core 3 N355, a 94.4% difference. This test heavily favors the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus's higher core count and newer architecture.

Q: Does the Core 3 N355 win any benchmark comparisons?

A: No. The recorded data shows 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins all 17. The Core 3 N355 records zero wins.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is within 0.1% of the AMD EPYC 4465P (66,925 average score) and 0.2% of the Intel Xeon 6515P (67,006). It trails the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX by 0.9% (67,469) and leads the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus by 1.1% (66,159).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports dual-channel memory with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core 3 N355 uses single-channel memory with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus also supports ECC memory, which the Core 3 N355 does not.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design points. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture on a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. It contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Intel Core 3 N355 uses the Twin Lake architecture on a 10 nm Intel process node.

Core counts differ dramatically: the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Core 3 N355 has 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading, but the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has more than double the physical cores.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus provides 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 3 N355 offers 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The L3 cache difference is particularly pronounced: 30 MB versus 6 MB.

Memory support follows the performance split. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports DDR5 memory exclusively, with a dual-channel memory bus and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 3 N355 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, but only over a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus additionally supports ECC memory; the Core 3 N355 does not.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 3 N355 provides Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics also differ: the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the Core 3 N355 uses UHD Graphics 770.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking. The Core 3 N355 does not. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1851, while the Core 3 N355 is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 1264. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a 125 W TDP versus 15 W for the Core 3 N355. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus released on 2026-03-10 with a launch MSRP of $199; the Core 3 N355 released on 2025-01-06 with no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the clear choice for any workload that benefits from raw processing power. It wins every recorded benchmark, leads by more than 80% in most multi-threaded tests, and sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. Its 18 cores, 30 MB L3 cache, dual-channel memory with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, and 5.30 GHz boost clock provide a decisive performance advantage across rendering, encryption, compression, and math workloads.

The Intel Core 3 N355, by contrast, targets a fundamentally different usage profile. Its 15 W TDP, single-channel memory, and mobile BGA 1264 socket place it in the low-power mobile segment. Its 68th percentile ranking and average score of 13,492 place it near the Intel Core i3-12100F (13,494, 0% delta), the Intel Core i5-9500 (13,452, 0.3% ahead), the Intel Core 5 120UL (13,594, 0.8% ahead), and the Intel Core i7-1250U (13,351, 1.1% behind). The Core 3 N355 is competitive within its efficiency-oriented class, but it cannot match the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus in any measured metric.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus also compares favorably to its own nearest rivals. It sits within 0.1% of the AMD EPYC 4465P, 0.2% of the Intel Xeon 6515P, and 0.9% of the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX, while leading the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus by 1.1%. This places the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at the upper boundary of its performance tier.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 N355 | Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus |

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

| Cores | 8 | 18 |

| Threads | 8 | 18 |

| Base clock | 1.90 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.90 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 125 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1264 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Twin Lake | Arrow Lake Refresh |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die size | Not recorded | 243 mm² |

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

| L2 cache | 2 MB shared | 3 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 6 MB shared | 30 MB shared |

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

| Memory bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 9 lanes | Gen 5, 20 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $199 |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins in every measured category. For multi-threaded productivity, it delivers 30,867 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 5,262, and 18,442 in Cinebench R20 multi-core versus 3,612. PassMark multithread shows 51,596 versus 10,174. These results favor the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus for rendering, video encoding, software compilation, and other parallel workloads.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus leads by 54.7% in PassMark single thread (4,757 versus 2,153) and by 54% in Cinebench R23 single-core (2,261 versus 1,039). Applications that depend on per-core speed, such as legacy code or lightly threaded games, will see substantially better performance on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus also wins in data-intensive tasks: data compression at 568,721 versus 117,435, data encryption at 42,144 versus 8,121, and random string sorting at 69,090 versus 14,706. Its 115.2 GB/s dual-channel memory bandwidth, versus 38.4 GB/s single-channel on the Core 3 N355, provides a structural advantage for these workloads.

The only context where the Core 3 N355 holds an edge is power consumption. Its 15 W TDP versus 125 W suggests suitability for fanless or passively cooled mobile designs, though no efficiency benchmarks are recorded in the database. The Core 3 N355 also supports DDR4 and LPDDR5 memory in addition to DDR5, offering memory flexibility for low-power platforms. For any performance metric recorded, however, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the definitive winner.