Intel Core 3 N355 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H records an average benchmark score of 40518, while the Intel Core 3 N355 records 13492. The Ultra X7 368H also sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 68th percentile for the Core 3 N355.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra X7 368H scores 28221 versus 5262 for the Core 3 N355, a delta of -81.4% from the perspective of the Core 3 N355. The gap is similar in Cinebench R20 multi-core, with scores of 11852 and 3612 respectively.

Q: What is the difference in single-thread performance?

A: The Ultra X7 368H leads in PassMark single-thread with 4005 points against 2153 for the Core 3 N355, a delta of -46.2%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra X7 368H scores 3984 versus 1039 for the Core 3 N355, a delta of -73.9%.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 3 N355 has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 3 N355 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory with a single-channel bus and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra X7 368H supports LPDDR5X memory with a dual-channel bus and 153.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the integrated graphics compare?

A: The Core 3 N355 uses Intel UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra X7 368H uses Intel Arc B390. The database does not include separate graphics benchmark scores for either.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 3 N355 and the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H come from different architectural lineages. The Core 3 N355 uses the Twin Lake architecture, which the database classifies under the Core 3 (Alder Lake-N) generation. It is built on Intel's 10 nm process node. The Ultra X7 368H uses the Panther Lake architecture, part of the Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H) generation, and is manufactured on a 3 nm process node. Both chips are produced by Intel Foundry.

Core count and cache layout differ substantially. The Core 3 N355 has 8 cores and 8 threads, with 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads, with 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 allocation on the Ultra X7 368H is particularly notable, as it gives each core significantly more dedicated cache.

Memory architecture also diverges. The Core 3 N355 uses a single-channel memory bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth and supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5. The Ultra X7 368H uses a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth and supports only LPDDR5X. The bandwidth difference is a direct result of the channel count and memory type.

PCIe support differs as well. The Core 3 N355 provides PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra X7 368H provides PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The newer generation on the Ultra X7 368H offers higher per-lane bandwidth, though the Core 3 N355 has more lanes available.

Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers. The Core 3 N355 uses the Intel BGA 1264 socket, while the Ultra X7 368H uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket. The TDP ratings are 15 W for the Core 3 N355 and 25 W for the Ultra X7 368H. The release dates are January 6, 2025 for the Core 3 N355 and January 4, 2026 for the Ultra X7 368H. Both are listed as Active production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The smallest margin comes in PassMark single-thread tests, where the Ultra X7 368H scores 4005 against 2153 for the Core 3 N355, a delta of -46.2%. This indicates that even in lightly threaded workloads, the newer architecture and higher boost clock provide a clear advantage.

The largest margin appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra X7 368H scores 321 versus 27 for the Core 3 N355, a delta of -91.6%. This test is highly sensitive to integer throughput and cache behavior, areas where the Ultra X7 368H's 16 cores and larger cache hierarchy dominate.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra X7 368H scores 28221 against 5262 for the Core 3 N355, a delta of -81.4%. This is the largest multi-threaded gap in the Cinebench suite. The Cinebench R20 multi-core result shows 11852 versus 3612, a delta of -69.5%. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 2844 versus 822, a delta of -71.1%.

Single-core Cinebench results follow a similar pattern. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra X7 368H scores 3984 against 1039 for the Core 3 N355, a delta of -73.9%. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1673 versus 509, a delta of -69.6%. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 401 versus 168, a delta of -58.1%.

PassMark results across various workloads reinforce the gap. Data compression scores are 312927 for the Ultra X7 368H and 117435 for the Core 3 N355, a delta of -62.5%. Data encryption scores are 25228 versus 8121, a delta of -67.8%. Extended instructions scores are 25669 versus 5968, a delta of -76.8%. Floating point math scores are 105681 versus 22695, a delta of -78.5%. Integer math scores are 88083 versus 33894, a delta of -61.5%. Multithread scores are 32956 versus 10174, a delta of -69.1%. Physics scores are 2857 versus 625, a delta of -78.1%. Random string sorting scores are 38093 versus 14706, a delta of -61.4%.

The consistent deltas across all tests indicate that the Ultra X7 368H does not merely win in specific niches; it delivers a uniform performance advantage across every measured workload.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 8 (Core 3 N355) vs 16 (Ultra X7 368H)
• Threads: 8 vs 16
• Base clock: 1.90 GHz vs 2.00 GHz
• Boost clock: 3.90 GHz vs 5.00 GHz
• TDP: 15 W vs 25 W
• Socket: Intel BGA 1264 vs Intel BGA 2540
• Architecture: Twin Lake vs Panther Lake
• Codename: Twin Lake vs Panther Lake
• Generation: Core 3 (Alder Lake-N) vs Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H)
• Process node: 10 nm vs 3 nm
• L1 cache: 96 KB (per core) vs 192 KB (per core)
• L2 cache: 2 MB (shared) vs 2.5 MB (per core)
• L3 cache: 6 MB (shared) vs 18 MB (shared)
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 vs LPDDR5X
• Memory bus: Single-channel vs Dual-channel
• Memory bandwidth: 38.4 GB/s vs 153.6 GB/s
• PCIe: Gen 3, 9 Lanes (CPU only) vs Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only)
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 770 vs Arc B390
• Release date: 2025-01-06 vs 2026-01-04
• Part number: SRPNT vs SA4R7Q9EJ

Fields that are identical include manufacturer (Intel), ECC memory support (false), multiplier unlock status (false), and production status (Active). Neither processor has a launch MSRP listed in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins every benchmark category in the database. There is no test where the Intel Core 3 N355 records a higher score.

For multi-threaded workloads, the Ultra X7 368H is the clear choice. Its 16 cores and 16 threads, combined with 18 MB of L3 cache, deliver Cinebench R23 multi-core scores that are more than five times higher than the Core 3 N355. The PassMark multithread score of 32956 versus 10174 further confirms this advantage. Workloads such as video rendering, 3D modeling, batch compression, and scientific computation will see substantial gains on the Ultra X7 368H.

For single-threaded tasks, the Ultra X7 368H also leads, though by a smaller margin. The PassMark single-thread score of 4005 versus 2153 represents a 46.2% advantage. The boost clock difference, 5.00 GHz versus 3.90 GHz, contributes to this result. Applications that rely on responsive single-core performance, such as general desktop use, web browsing, and light productivity, will benefit from the Ultra X7 368H's higher clock ceiling.

Memory bandwidth is another area where the Ultra X7 368H dominates. The dual-channel LPDDR5X configuration provides 153.6 GB/s, four times the 38.4 GB/s of the single-channel DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5 setup on the Core 3 N355. This matters for memory-sensitive workloads like data analysis, virtual machines, and integrated graphics performance.

The Core 3 N355 does have advantages in specific dimensions, though not in performance. Its 15 W TDP is lower than the 25 W TDP of the Ultra X7 368H, which suggests it may suit more power-constrained designs. It also uses PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes versus Gen 5 with 4 lanes, which could be relevant for systems requiring more physical connectivity rather than raw per-lane bandwidth. The earlier release date of January 6, 2025 gives it a time-to-market advantage over the Ultra X7 368H, which launched on January 4, 2026.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents an unambiguous picture. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H outperforms the Intel Core 3 N355 in every single recorded test, with deltas ranging from -46.2% in PassMark single-thread to -91.6% in PassMark find prime numbers. The average benchmark score of 40518 for the Ultra X7 368H is roughly three times the 13492 of the Core 3 N355.

The Ultra X7 368H sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, with nearest rivals including the Intel Core 7 253PE (delta -0.1%), Intel Core 5 223PE (delta -0.2%), AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (delta 0.2%), and Intel Xeon 6507P (delta 0.2%). The Core 3 N355 sits in the 68th percentile, with nearest rivals including the Intel Core i3-12100F (delta 0%), Intel Core i5-9500 (delta 0.3%), Intel Core 5 120UL (delta -0.8%), and Intel Core i7-1250U (delta 1.1%).

For users selecting a processor for a mobile system where performance is the primary criterion, the Ultra X7 368H is the data-backed choice. Its 16 cores, 5.00 GHz boost clock, 18 MB L3 cache, and 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth combine to deliver leading results across every workload category in the database. The 3 nm process node and Panther Lake architecture provide the foundation for these results.

The Core 3 N355 serves a different purpose. Its 15 W TDP, 8 cores, and lower bandwidth requirements make it suitable for lightweight mobile designs where power efficiency and cost constraints take precedence over raw performance. The data does not show any performance scenario where the Core 3 N355 wins, so its selection should be based on system design goals rather than benchmark expectations.

The comparison is straightforward: the Ultra X7 368H delivers approximately three times the average benchmark score, wins all 17 head-to-head tests, and ranks nearly 20 percentile points higher among all CPUs. The Core 3 N355 offers a lower-power alternative with a significantly earlier release date, but the performance gap is consistent and substantial across every measured metric.