Intel Core 3 N355 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

The Intel Core 3 N355 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus occupy opposite ends of the mobile processor spectrum. The data shows a complete sweep by the Core Ultra 9, with 17 benchmark wins against zero for the Core 3. This is not a close comparison; it is a demonstration of how far the two product lines have diverged. The Core 3 N355 is designed for efficiency and basic computing, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus targets maximum performance in large mobile workstations. The recorded scores confirm that these processors serve fundamentally different purposes, and the analysis below details where each one excels based on the measured data.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 3 N355 wins nowhere in the direct head-to-head comparison. Every single benchmark, from Cinebench to Passmark, records a victory for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus. However, that does not mean the Core 3 lacks a role. The data shows it is a capable processor for specific workloads, just not ones where the Core Ultra 9 is also competing. The Core 3 N355 uses 8 cores and 8 threads, has a base clock of 1.90 GHz, and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. It draws only 15 W of power, making it suitable for thin and light laptops where thermal headroom is minimal. Its 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs indicates it outperforms a majority of processors in the database, which is respectable for a low-power part.

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, in contrast, wins every benchmark category by a wide margin. Its 24 cores and 24 threads, combined with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, deliver scores that place it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The power envelope is 55 W, which allows for sustained high performance in larger chassis with robust cooling. The data shows that the Core Ultra 9 is the clear choice for multi-threaded workloads such as video rendering, 3D modeling, and scientific computation. Its Passmark multi-thread score of 59439 dwarfs the Core 3's 10174, a difference that translates to dramatically faster completion times for parallel tasks.

For single-threaded performance, the Core Ultra 9 also dominates. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2356 is more than double the Core 3's 1039. This means applications that rely on a single core, such as many productivity tools and legacy software, will run noticeably smoother on the Core Ultra 9. The Core 3 N355, however, still delivers a single-thread score that is competitive for its class, and its low power consumption means it can maintain performance without excessive heat generation. The use-case split is clear: the Core 3 suits basic productivity, web browsing, and media consumption, while the Core Ultra 9 handles demanding professional workloads without compromise.

The Verdict

The data leads to a straightforward verdict. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the superior processor in every measured benchmark. Its average benchmark score of 79574 is nearly six times higher than the Core 3 N355's 13492. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 9 include the Intel Core i9-14900KF, with a delta of 0.3 percent, and the AMD EPYC 7413, with a delta of -0.6 percent. This places the Core Ultra 9 in the company of desktop flagship processors, despite being a mobile part. The Core 3 N355, by contrast, sits near the Intel Core i3-12100F and Intel Core i5-9500, with deltas of 0 and 0.3 percent respectively. Those are capable desktop processors, but they are not in the same performance class as the Core Ultra 9.

Who should pick which? The data indicates that the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is for professionals who run heavy multi-threaded applications and need the fastest possible mobile performance. Its 95th percentile ranking and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39684 confirm that it can handle tasks like video encoding, complex simulations, and large-scale data processing. The Core 3 N355 is for users who prioritize battery life and portability over raw speed. Its 15 W TDP and 68th percentile ranking mean it will handle everyday tasks well, but it will struggle with demanding workloads. The choice depends entirely on the intended use case, and the recorded data leaves no ambiguity about which processor is faster.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus occurs in the Passmark find prime numbers test, where it scores 519 against the Core 3's 27, a performance gap of 94.8 percent. This test measures integer-heavy calculation ability, and the result shows the Core Ultra 9's advantage in raw arithmetic throughput. The Core Ultra 9 also wins Passmark extended instructions by 88.4 percent, scoring 51290 versus 5968. This indicates superior support for modern instruction sets, which benefits cryptography, compression, and media codecs.

In multi-core Cinebench tests, the Core Ultra 9 is consistently around 83 to 87 percent faster. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39684 versus 5262 represents an 86.7 percent gap. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows a similar pattern, with the Core Ultra 9 scoring 21198 against 3612, an 83 percent difference. These results reflect the Core Ultra 9's 24 cores versus the Core 3's 8 cores, as well as higher clock speeds and a more advanced architecture.

Single-core performance also favors the Core Ultra 9, though the gap is smaller. The Cinebench R23 single-core score is 2356 versus 1039, a 55.9 percent difference. The Passmark single-thread tests show a 56.5 percent gap, with scores of 4951 versus 2153. The Cinebench R15 single-core test records a 50.6 percent difference, with 340 against 168. These numbers indicate that the Core Ultra 9's architectural advantages extend beyond core count, as even a single core is substantially faster.

Memory-intensive workloads show the same trend. The Passmark data compression test has the Core Ultra 9 scoring 658724 against 117435, an 82.2 percent advantage. Data encryption shows an 83.8 percent gap, with 50008 versus 8121. Floating point math, which is critical for scientific and engineering applications, records a 88.8 percent difference, with 201773 versus 22695. Integer math shows a 79.4 percent gap, with 164839 versus 33894. The smallest multi-threaded gap is in Passmark integer math, but even that is a substantial 79.4 percent. Every benchmark confirms the Core Ultra 9's overwhelming superiority.

FAQ

Q: How many benchmark wins does the Intel Core 3 N355 have over the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus?

A: The Intel Core 3 N355 records zero wins in the head-to-head comparison. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins all 17 benchmarks.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core 3 N355 has an average benchmark score of 13492, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an average score of 79574. The Core Ultra 9's score is approximately 5.9 times higher.

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 2356 in Cinebench R23 single-core, compared to the Intel Core 3 N355's 1039. This represents a 55.9 percent advantage for the Core Ultra 9.

Q: What are the core counts and power consumption figures for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 3 N355 has 8 cores and 8 threads with a 15 W TDP. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads with a 55 W TDP.

Q: How does the Passmark multi-thread score compare between the two?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 59439 in Passmark multi-thread, while the Intel Core 3 N355 scores 10174. The Core Ultra 9 is 82.9 percent faster in this test.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 3 N355 supports single-channel memory with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The architectural differences between the two processors are substantial and explain the performance gap. The Intel Core 3 N355 uses the Twin Lake architecture, which is part of the Alder Lake-N generation. It is manufactured on a 10 nm process by Intel. The processor has 8 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 770, and the processor supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory in a single-channel configuration. The memory bus provides 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The PCIe interface is Gen 3 with 9 lanes available from the CPU.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh architecture, part of the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. It is manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC, a significant difference from the Core 3's Intel 10 nm node. The processor has 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The cache configuration is more generous, with 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The transistor count is 17,800 million, and the die size is 243 mm². The integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. Memory support is limited to DDR5, but it operates in a dual-channel configuration with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The PCIe interface is Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, offering significantly more bandwidth for expansion devices. The Core Ultra 9 also supports ECC memory, which the Core 3 does not, and it has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking.

Specification Differences

The specification differences between the Intel Core 3 N355 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus are extensive. The Core 3 has 8 cores compared to the Core Ultra 9's 24, and both have the same number of threads as cores. The base clock is 1.90 GHz versus 2.70 GHz, and the boost clock is 3.90 GHz versus 5.50 GHz. The TDP is 15 W for the Core 3 and 55 W for the Core Ultra 9. The sockets differ, with the Core 3 using Intel BGA 1264 and the Core Ultra 9 using Intel BGA 2114. The process node is 10 nm for the Core 3 and 3 nm for the Core Ultra 9. The foundry is Intel for the Core 3 and TSMC for the Core Ultra 9. The Core Ultra 9 has 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm², while the Core 3 does not have these details recorded.

Cache specifications differ significantly. The Core 3 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 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support differs, with the Core 3 supporting DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 supports only DDR5. The memory bus is single-channel for the Core 3 and dual-channel for the Core Ultra 9, resulting in memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the Core Ultra 9. The PCIe interface is Gen 3 with 9 lanes on the Core 3, while the Core Ultra 9 has Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well, with the Core 3 using UHD Graphics 770 and the Core Ultra 9 using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Core Ultra 9 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 3 does not. Release dates also differ, with the Core 3 released on January 6, 2025, and the Core Ultra 9 released on March 16, 2026. The part numbers are SRPNT for the Core 3 and SADSS for the Core Ultra 9. Both processors are classified as mobile and remain in active production.