Intel Core 3 N355 vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison
Intel Core 3 N355
Core Ultra X9 388H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 3 N355 vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?
A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads, double the 8 cores and 8 threads of the Intel Core 3 N355.
Q: How much faster is the Core Ultra X9 388H in single-threaded workloads?
A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the X9 388H scores 2200.5 versus 1039 for the N355, a 52.8% lead. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 4280 versus 2153, a 49.7% lead.
Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores?
A: The Core Ultra X9 388H records an average benchmark score of 44466, placing it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 N355 averages 13492, placing it in the 68th percentile.
Q: Do these CPUs support the same memory types?
A: No. The N355 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 over a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The X9 388H supports only LPDDR5X, but runs dual-channel with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth.
Q: Which chip has the larger L3 cache?
A: The Core Ultra X9 388H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, three times the 6 MB shared L3 cache on the Core 3 N355.
Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?
A: No. Both the N355 and the X9 388H have a locked multiplier.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The Intel Core 3 N355 uses the Twin Lake architecture, belongs to the Core 3 (Alder Lake-N) generation, and is built on Intel's 10 nm process. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses the Panther Lake architecture, belongs to the Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H) generation, and is built on a 3 nm process.
Core counts differ substantially. The N355 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Cache hierarchies also diverge. The N355 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The X9 388H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3.
Memory architecture is another major split. The N355 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 over a single-channel interface, delivering 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The X9 388H supports LPDDR5X only, but uses a dual-channel interface delivering 153.6 GB/s, exactly four times the bandwidth of the N355.
PCIe support differs as well. The N355 offers Gen 3 with 9 CPU lanes, while the X9 388H offers Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are also different: the N355 uses UHD Graphics 770, while the X9 388H uses Arc B390.
Both chips are mobile parts, both are active in production, and neither supports ECC memory. Clock speeds favor the X9 388H: base clock of 2.10 GHz versus 1.90 GHz, and boost clock of 5.10 GHz versus 3.90 GHz. The package changes too, from Intel BGA 1264 on the N355 to Intel BGA 2540 on the X9 388H.
The Verdict
The benchmark data points to a clear split in intended use. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core 3 N355 does not win a single one. For workloads that stress multi-threaded rendering, encryption, compression, or floating-point math, the X9 388H is the only choice between these two. Its average benchmark score of 44466 versus 13492, and its 88th percentile ranking versus 68th, confirm the gap.
The Core 3 N355 still has a role. It is a 15 W part with 8 cores, a 1.90 GHz base clock, and a 3.90 GHz boost clock. The X9 388H draws 25 W and runs at 2.10 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost. The N355 uses a single-channel memory bus and older Gen 3 PCIe, which keeps its platform simpler and lower-power. Systems built around the N355 are for light mobile workloads where the higher power envelope and newer platform of the X9 388H are unnecessary.
The data does not support any scenario where the N355 outperforms the X9 388H. It does support a scenario where the N355 is the more restrained, lower-power option. The X9 388H is for users who need the full 16-core throughput, the 153.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and the Gen 5 PCIe connectivity. The N355 is for users who prioritize a minimal power footprint and are willing to accept roughly a quarter of the average benchmark score.
Specification Differences
| Specification | Intel Core 3 N355 | Intel Core Ultra X9 388H |
|---|---|---|
| Cores | 8 | 16 |
| Threads | 8 | 16 |
| Base Clock | 1.90 GHz | 2.10 GHz |
| Boost Clock | 3.90 GHz | 5.10 GHz |
| TDP | 15 W | 25 W |
| Socket | Intel BGA 1264 | Intel BGA 2540 |
| Architecture | Twin Lake | Panther Lake |
| Generation | Core 3 (Alder Lake-N) | Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H) |
| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB (shared) | 3 MB (per core) |
| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |
| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 | LPDDR5X |
| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |
| Memory Bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |
| PCIe | Gen 3, 9 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |
| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Arc B390 |
| Release Date | 2025-01-06 | 2026-01-04 |
| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Core Ultra X9 388H dominates every recorded benchmark. The largest margins appear in integer and floating-point math. In PassMark find prime numbers, the X9 388H scores 358 versus 27, a 92.5% lead. PassMark extended instructions shows an 80.1% lead, with scores of 29943 versus 5968. PassMark floating-point math gives the X9 388H the edge at 112550 versus 22695, a 79.8% gap. PassMark physics follows closely: 3226 versus 625, an 80.6% lead.
Multi-threaded rendering follows the same pattern. Cinebench R23 multicore scores 18911 for the X9 388H versus 5262 for the N355, a 72.2% difference. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 13101 versus 3612, a 72.4% lead. Cinebench R15 multicore shows 2955 versus 822, also 72.2%. The data confirms that the 16-core part scales almost linearly in these threaded tests.
Single-thread performance is closer but still decisively in favor of the X9 388H. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2200.5 versus 1039, a 52.8% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1849 versus 509, a 72.5% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 309.5 versus 168, a 45.7% lead. PassMark single-thread shows 4280 versus 2153, a 49.7% lead.
Data-centric workloads also favor the X9 388H. PassMark data compression scores 361763 versus 117435, a 67.5% lead. PassMark data encryption scores 28490 versus 8121, a 71.5% lead. PassMark random string sorting scores 44010 versus 14706, a 66.6% lead. PassMark integer math scores 90882 versus 33894, a 62.7% lead. PassMark multithread scores 36811 versus 10174, a 72.4% lead.
The smallest margin in the entire dataset is Cinebench R15 single-core at 45.7%, which still represents a substantial gap. No recorded test shows the N355 ahead.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins in every measured category. It is the stronger part for multi-threaded rendering, as shown by its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 18911 and its Cinebench R20 multicore score of 13101. It is the stronger part for encryption and compression workloads, with PassMark data encryption at 28490 and data compression at 361763. It leads in floating-point math with 112550, integer math with 90882, and physics with 3226. Its single-core scores, 4280 in PassMark single-thread and 2200.5 in Cinebench R23 single-core, also top the N355.
The Intel Core 3 N355 does not win any recorded benchmark, so its advantage is structural rather than performance-based. It uses a 15 W TDP, which is 10 W lower than the X9 388H. It supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, while the X9 388H is limited to LPDDR5X. Its single-channel memory bus and Gen 3 PCIe make for a simpler platform. Its release date of 2025-01-06 also predates the X9 388H, which arrives on 2026-01-04.
For a system where power draw is the primary constraint and memory flexibility matters, the N355 has a place. For any workload measured in the database, from rendering to encryption to math throughput, the X9 388H is the clear winner.