Intel Core 3 N355 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive, one-sided performance landscape. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every single recorded benchmark comparison, taking all 17 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 3 N355 does not record a single victory in any workload category.

The largest margin appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 459 against the Core 3 N355's 27, a delta of -94.1% for the N355. This indicates the Core Ultra 9 285 is vastly more efficient at integer-heavy algorithmic loops. The smallest relative gap is in single-threaded PassMark performance, where the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4881 against 2153 for the Core 3 N355, a delta of -55.9%. Even in this most favorable category for the smaller chip, the Core Ultra 9 285 still maintains a substantial lead.

In Cinebench multi-core workloads, the Core Ultra 9 285 dominates across all versions. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 48945 versus 5262 for the Core 3 N355, a delta of -89.2%. The R20 multicore test shows 20556 against 3612, a delta of -82.4%, and R15 multicore shows 4933 versus 822, a delta of -83.3%. Single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern: R23 single-core shows 6909 versus 1039, a delta of -85%; R20 single-core shows 2901 versus 509, a delta of -82.5%; and R15 single-core shows 696 versus 168, a delta of -75.9%.

PassMark data compression heavily favors the Core Ultra 9 285, which scores 602121 versus 117435 for the Core 3 N355, a delta of -80.5%. Data encryption shows 46949 versus 8121, a delta of -82.7%. Extended instructions score 45357 versus 5968, a delta of -86.8%. Floating point math scores 194988 versus 22695, a delta of -88.4%. Integer math scores 164869 versus 33894, a delta of -79.4%. Multithreaded PassMark scores 56602 versus 10174, a delta of -82%. Physics scores 3598 versus 625, a delta of -82.6%. Random string sorting scores 73651 versus 14706, a delta of -80%.

The average benchmark score reinforces this hierarchy. The Core Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75488, while the Core 3 N355 averages 13492. The Core Ultra 9 285 sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 N355 sits at the 68th percentile. The Core Ultra 9 285's nearest rivals are AMD EPYC 8224P, AMD EPYC 4545P, AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D, and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755, with delta percentages ranging from -0.1% to 0.2%. The Core 3 N355's nearest rivals are the Intel Core i3-12100F, Intel Core i5-9500, Intel Core 5 120UL, and Intel Core i7-1250U, with delta percentages from -0.8% to 1.1%.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design goals and manufacturing approaches. The Core 3 N355 uses the Twin Lake architecture, produced on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It features 8 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture, produced on a 3 nm process at TSMC. It features 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 285 contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The Core 3 N355 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 285's L2 cache is per-core rather than shared, which is a significant structural difference.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 3 N355 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory through a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 only, through a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285 also supports ECC memory, while the Core 3 N355 does not.

PCIe capabilities differ by two generations. The Core 3 N355 uses PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 9 285 uses PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). This gives the Core Ultra 9 285 a substantial advantage in available I/O bandwidth for storage and expansion.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 N355 uses UHD Graphics 770. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The power envelope is notably different: the Core 3 N355 has a TDP of 15, while the Core Ultra 9 285 has a TDP of 65. The Core 3 N355 uses Intel BGA 1264 socket and targets the mobile segment. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851 and targets the desktop segment. Both parts are currently active in production. The Core 3 N355 launched on 2025-01-06, while the Core Ultra 9 285 launched on 2024-12-31. The Core Ultra 9 285 has a launch MSRP of $579; the Core 3 N355 has no recorded launch MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The benchmark data delivers an unambiguous conclusion. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 outperforms the Intel Core 3 N355 in every measured category. The Core Ultra 9 285's 24 cores, higher clock speeds, larger cache, faster memory bus, and newer process node combine to produce scores that are between 55.9% and 94.1% higher across all tests. The Core 3 N355 holds no advantage in any recorded benchmark.

The Core Ultra 9 285's 95th percentile ranking places it among the top-tier desktop processors, with nearest rivals in the AMD EPYC server and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO workstation classes. The Core 3 N355's 68th percentile ranking places it in the mid-range mobile segment, with nearest rivals among older Intel Core i3 and Core i5 desktop parts. The performance gap is so large that the Core 3 N355 cannot be considered a competitor to the Core Ultra 9 285 in any workload represented by the data.

The Core 3 N355's lower TDP of 15 indicates a fundamentally different usage profile: low-power mobile computing. The Core Ultra 9 285's TDP of 65 indicates a desktop processor designed for sustained high performance. The data does not suggest any scenario where the Core 3 N355 would be the preferable choice on performance grounds. The Core Ultra 9 285 is the superior processor by every benchmark measurement recorded.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ across nearly every specification field.

Cores and Threads: The Core 3 N355 has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads.

Clock Speeds: The Core 3 N355 has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 285 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz.

TDP: The Core 3 N355 has a TDP of 15. The Core Ultra 9 285 has a TDP of 65.

Socket: The Core 3 N355 uses Intel BGA 1264. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851.

Architecture and Process: The Core 3 N355 uses Twin Lake architecture on a 10 nm process at Intel. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm process at TSMC.

Transistors and Die Size: The Core 3 N355 has no recorded transistor count or die size. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die.

Cache: The Core 3 N355 has 96 KB L1 per core, 2 MB shared L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3.

Memory: The Core 3 N355 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 over a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

ECC: The Core 3 N355 does not support ECC memory. The Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory.

PCIe: The Core 3 N355 uses PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 9 285 uses PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated Graphics: The Core 3 N355 uses UHD Graphics 770. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

Market Segment: The Core 3 N355 is a mobile processor. The Core Ultra 9 285 is a desktop processor.

Release Date: The Core 3 N355 launched on 2025-01-06. The Core Ultra 9 285 launched on 2024-12-31.

Part Number: The Core 3 N355 has part number SRPNT. The Core Ultra 9 285 has part number SRQD4.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 3 N355 has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48945, while the Core 3 N355 scores 5262. This represents a delta of -89.2% for the Core 3 N355.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, compared to 3.90 GHz for the Core 3 N355.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory. The Core 3 N355 does not.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Core 3 N355 is manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel. The Core Ultra 9 285 is manufactured on a 3 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75488. The Core 3 N355 has an average benchmark score of 13492.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins in every recorded benchmark category. There are no benchmark wins for the Intel Core 3 N355 in the database.

For the Core Ultra 9 285, the strongest relative advantages appear in compute-heavy integer workloads. The PassMark find prime numbers test shows the largest margin, with the Core Ultra 9 285 scoring 459 versus 27 for the Core 3 N355, a delta of -94.1%. Floating point math also shows a very large gap: 194988 versus 22695, a delta of -88.4%. Extended instructions show 45357 versus 5968, a delta of -86.8%. These results indicate the Core Ultra 9 285 is particularly well-suited to scientific computing, financial modeling, and other workloads that rely on sustained mathematical throughput.

Multi-core rendering workloads also strongly favor the Core Ultra 9 285. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 48945 versus 5262, a delta of -89.2%. This suggests the Core Ultra 9 285 is far more capable in 3D rendering, video encoding, and other content creation tasks that scale across many cores. The 24-core configuration provides a clear advantage over the 8-core Core 3 N355.

The smallest relative gaps appear in single-threaded tests, though the Core Ultra 9 285 still wins comfortably. PassMark single-thread shows 4881 versus 2153, a delta of -55.9%. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 696 versus 168, a delta of -75.9%. Even in workloads that depend less on core count, the Core Ultra 9 285's higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz and newer architecture provide a decisive edge.

Data-centric workloads also favor the Core Ultra 9 285. Data compression scores 602121 versus 117435, a delta of -80.5%. Data encryption scores 46949 versus 8121, a delta of -82.7%. Random string sorting scores 73651 versus 14706, a delta of -80%. These results indicate the Core Ultra 9 285 handles database workloads, file compression, and encryption tasks substantially faster.

The Core 3 N355's only potential advantage lies outside the benchmark data: its TDP of 15 versus 65, its support for DDR4 and LPDDR5 memory in addition to DDR5, and its mobile BGA 1264 socket. These attributes point to low-power mobile use cases, but the recorded benchmark data does not show any performance category where the Core 3 N355 comes out ahead. The Core Ultra 9 285 is the clear performance leader across the entire benchmark suite.