Intel Core 3 N355 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison
Intel Core 3 N355
Core Ultra 5 338H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 3 N355 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H
FAQ
Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H records an average benchmark score of 33989, while the Intel Core 3 N355 records 13492. The Ultra 5 338H sits in the 84th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 68th percentile for the Core 3 N355.
Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?
A: The Core Ultra 5 338H scores 16331 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core 3 N355 scores 5262. The delta is -67.8%, meaning the Core Ultra 5 338H is about 210% faster in this test.
Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?
A: The Intel Core 3 N355 has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads. Neither processor supports additional threads via hyper-threading in the recorded data.
Q: What process nodes are used by these two chips?
A: The Intel Core 3 N355 is built on a 10 nm process node. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses a 3 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel.
Q: What memory types does each processor support?
A: The Core 3 N355 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory. The Core Ultra 5 338H supports LPDDR5X memory only. The Ultra 5 338H uses a dual-channel memory bus with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core 3 N355 uses a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth.
Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H boosts to 4.70 GHz. The Intel Core 3 N355 boosts to 3.90 GHz. Both have the same base clock of 1.90 GHz.
Architecture Differences
The Intel Core 3 N355 and Intel Core Ultra 5 338H represent two distinct architectural generations from Intel. The Core 3 N355 uses the Twin Lake architecture, which belongs to the Alder Lake-N generation. The Core Ultra 5 338H uses the Panther Lake architecture, part of the Panther Lake-H generation. This generational gap is reflected in the process node: the Core 3 N355 is fabricated on a 10 nm node, while the Core Ultra 5 338H uses a 3 nm node.
The core configurations differ substantially. The Core 3 N355 provides 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 338H provides 12 cores and 12 threads. The L1 cache per core is 96 KB for the Core 3 N355 and 192 KB for the Core Ultra 5 338H. The L2 cache configuration is also different: the Core 3 N355 has 2 MB shared L2, while the Core Ultra 5 338H has 2.5 MB per core. The L3 cache is 6 MB shared for the Core 3 N355 and 18 MB shared for the Core Ultra 5 338H.
Memory architecture diverges sharply. The Core 3 N355 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, but only through a single-channel memory bus, yielding 38.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 338H supports LPDDR5X exclusively, through a dual-channel bus, delivering 136.5 GB/s. This is a 3.6x difference in theoretical memory bandwidth, which impacts data-heavy workloads.
PCIe support also differs. The Core 3 N355 provides PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 5 338H provides PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 3 N355 includes UHD Graphics 770, while the Core Ultra 5 338H includes Arc B370. Both processors use different sockets: Intel BGA 1264 for the Core 3 N355 and Intel BGA 2540 for the Core Ultra 5 338H.
The thermal design power differs, with the Core 3 N355 rated at 15 W and the Core Ultra 5 338H rated at 25 W. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The release dates are separated by roughly one year, with the Core 3 N355 released on 2025-01-06 and the Core Ultra 5 338H released on 2026-01-04. Both are listed as active production parts.
The Verdict
The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap between these two processors. The Core Ultra 5 338H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Core 3 N355 records zero wins. The average benchmark score difference is substantial: 33989 for the Core Ultra 5 338H versus 13492 for the Core 3 N355, a delta of approximately 152%.
The Core Ultra 5 338H sits in the 84th percentile of all CPUs, placing it near the high end of mobile processors. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H (average score 34083, delta -0.3%), the Intel Core i7-12800HX (average score 33875, delta 0.3%), and the Intel Xeon 6353P (average score 33844, delta 0.4%). This indicates the Ultra 5 338H performs in the same class as previous-generation high-end mobile H-series chips.
The Core 3 N355 sits in the 68th percentile, with nearest rivals including the Intel Core i3-12100F (average score 13494, delta 0%), the Intel Core i5-9500 (average score 13452, delta 0.3%), and the Intel Core 5 120UL (average score 13594, delta -0.8%). This places the Core 3 N355 in the lower mid-range of desktop and mobile processors.
For users selecting between these two, the data points clearly to the Core Ultra 5 338H for any workload that benefits from multi-threaded performance, memory bandwidth, or single-thread speed. The Core 3 N355, with its lower TDP of 15 W, may suit ultra-low-power systems where the 25 W TDP of the Ultra 5 338H is not acceptable. But in raw performance, the Core 3 N355 trails by margins that range from 44.9% to 91.1% depending on the test.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Core 3 N355 has 8 cores and 8 threads; the Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads. The base clocks are identical at 1.90 GHz, but the boost clocks differ: 3.90 GHz for the Core 3 N355 and 4.70 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 338H.
The TDP ratings differ, with the Core 3 N355 at 15 W and the Core Ultra 5 338H at 25 W. The sockets are different: Intel BGA 1264 for the Core 3 N355 and Intel BGA 2540 for the Core Ultra 5 338H. The architectures are Twin Lake for the Core 3 N355 and Panther Lake for the Core Ultra 5 338H.
Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The Core 3 N355 has 96 KB L1 per core, 2 MB shared L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 338H has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. The L3 cache is three times larger on the Ultra 5 338H.
Memory support is different: the Core 3 N355 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 338H supports only LPDDR5X. The memory bus is single-channel for the Core 3 N355 and dual-channel for the Core Ultra 5 338H. Memory bandwidth is 38.4 GB/s versus 136.5 GB/s, respectively.
PCIe generations and lane counts differ: Gen 3 with 9 lanes for the Core 3 N355, Gen 5 with 4 lanes for the Core Ultra 5 338H. The integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 770 for the Core 3 N355 and Arc B370 for the Core Ultra 5 338H. The process nodes are 10 nm versus 3 nm. The part numbers are SRPNT for the Core 3 N355 and SA4REQ9EW for the Core Ultra 5 338H. Neither processor has ECC memory support nor an unlocked multiplier.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Core Ultra 5 338H dominates every recorded benchmark. The largest margin appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 5 338H scores 304 versus 27 for the Core 3 N355, a delta of -91.1%. This is a test that heavily rewards raw integer throughput and efficient core execution.
The PassMark physics test shows a similar pattern: 2697 for the Ultra 5 338H versus 625 for the Core 3 N355, a delta of -76.8%. This test measures simulation performance, which scales with core count and per-core efficiency. The Core 3 N355's 8 threads cannot match the 12 threads of the Ultra 5 338H.
Floating-point math also favors the Ultra 5 338H heavily: 84067 versus 22695, a delta of -73%. Extended instructions show 23906 versus 5968, a delta of -75%. These results indicate that the Ultra 5 338H's newer architecture and larger cache deliver substantially better computational throughput.
In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 5 338H scores 16331 versus 5262 for the Core 3 N355, a delta of -67.8%. The R20 multi-core test shows 10213 versus 3612, a delta of -64.6%. The R15 multi-core test shows 2504 versus 822, a delta of -67.2%. These consistent multi-core margins suggest the 12-core configuration and higher boost clock provide a clear advantage in heavily threaded workloads.
Single-core performance also favors the Ultra 5 338H, though by smaller margins. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the score is 2044 versus 1039, a delta of -49.2%. In R20 single-core, it is 1441 versus 509, a delta of -64.7%. In R15 single-core, it is 305 versus 168, a delta of -44.9%. The PassMark single-thread test shows 4180 versus 2153, a delta of -48.5%.
Data-centric workloads show large gaps as well. PassMark data compression scores 276539 for the Ultra 5 338H versus 117435 for the Core 3 N355, a delta of -57.5%. Data encryption scores 21367 versus 8121, a delta of -62%. Random string sorting scores 34082 versus 14706, a delta of -56.9%. Integer math scores 64934 versus 33894, a delta of -47.8%.
The smallest margin across all tests is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Ultra 5 338H leads by -44.9%. This still represents a significant single-core advantage. The passmark multithread test shows 28717 versus 10174, a delta of -64.6%, consistent with the Cinebench multi-core results.
Where Each One Wins
The Core Ultra 5 338H wins in every benchmark category recorded. The most pronounced advantages appear in tests that stress heavy computation: prime number finding (-91.1%), physics simulation (-76.8%), extended instructions (-75%), and floating-point math (-73%). These tests indicate the Ultra 5 338H is suited for scientific computing, financial modeling, and other numerically intensive mobile workloads.
Memory bandwidth-sensitive workloads also favor the Ultra 5 338H. The dual-channel LPDDR5X interface with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the single-channel 38.4 GB/s of the Core 3 N355, explains part of the large margins in data compression (-57.5%) and random string sorting (-56.9%). The 18 MB shared L3 cache versus 6 MB also reduces memory stalls in iterative workloads.
The Core Ultra 5 338H also excels in single-threaded responsiveness. The 4.70 GHz boost clock and newer Panther Lake architecture deliver single-core scores that are roughly double those of the Core 3 N355 in PassMark single-thread (4180 versus 2153). This suggests faster application startup, more responsive user interfaces, and better performance in lightly threaded software.
The Core 3 N355 does not win any recorded benchmark. However, its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for fanless or ultra-compact mobile designs where the 25 W TDP of the Ultra 5 338H would require more substantial cooling. The Core 3 N355 also supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, which may offer broader compatibility with existing memory modules, while the Ultra 5 338H is limited to LPDDR5X.
For general productivity, the Core Ultra 5 338H is the clear choice based on the data. Its 84th percentile ranking and average score of 33989 place it in the range of high-performance mobile H-series processors. The nearest rival comparison confirms this: the Ultra 5 338H trades within 0.3% of the Core Ultra 7 165H and within 0.4% of the Xeon 6353P, indicating it belongs to a premium performance tier.
The Core 3 N355, at the 68th percentile with an average score of 13492, performs in the range of desktop i3 and older i5 parts. Its nearest rival, the Core i3-12100F, has an average score of 13494, essentially identical. This positions the Core 3 N355 as an entry-level mobile processor that handles basic tasks but falls far short in demanding applications. Users requiring multi-threaded rendering, heavy code compilation, or data analysis should select the Core Ultra 5 338H without hesitation.