Intel Core 3 N355 vs Intel Xeon Gold 6348 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data leaves little room for ambiguity: the Intel Xeon Gold 6348 wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core 3 N355. The largest margin appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Xeon scores 44,066 against the Core 3 N355's 5,262, a delta of -88.1%. That means the Core 3 N355 trails by roughly 88% in that workload, a gap that reflects far more than clock speed differences.

Single-core results tell a similar story, though the margins are slightly narrower. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Xeon Gold 6348 records 626 points versus 168 for the Core 3 N355, a delta of -73.2%. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2,612 versus 509, also -80.5%. The Xeon's advantage in single-threaded work is consistent across every Cinebench generation recorded, ranging from 73.2% to 83.3% in R23.

Multi-core deltas are even more pronounced. Cinebench R15 multi-core: 4,441 versus 822, a -81.5% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core: 18,507 versus 3,612, -80.5%. The R23 multi-core result, with its 88.1% gap, is the single largest deficit for the Core 3 N355 in the entire head-to-head set. The Xeon's 28 cores and 56 threads simply overwhelm the 8-core, 8-thread Core 3 N355 in heavily parallel workloads.

The Core 3 N355 records zero wins across the six comparisons. Its best relative performance appears in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the delta is -73.2%, still a decisive loss. The data suggests the Core 3 N355 is not competitive with the Xeon Gold 6348 in any Cinebench metric recorded, whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6348 scores 44,066, while the Intel Core 3 N355 scores 5,262. The Xeon leads by 88.1%.

Q: Is the Core 3 N355 closer to the Xeon in single-core performance than in multi-core?

A: Yes. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the delta is -73.2%, while in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the delta is -88.1%. Single-core gaps are slightly smaller across all recorded Cinebench versions.

Q: How many Cinebench tests does the Core 3 N355 win?

A: Zero. The Xeon Gold 6348 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons in the database.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Core 3 N355 has an average benchmark score of 13,492, and the Xeon Gold 6348 has an average of 12,746. Note that the Core 3 N355's average is higher despite losing every head-to-head Cinebench test, because the averages include different benchmark suites beyond Cinebench.

Q: Which processor sits higher in the percentile ranking?

A: The Core 3 N355 ranks in the 68th percentile, while the Xeon Gold 6348 ranks in the 67th percentile. They are essentially adjacent in overall standing.

Q: What is the Xeon's nearest rival by average score?

A: The Xeon Gold 6348's nearest rival is the Intel Core i5-8400, with a delta of -0.2%. The Core 3 N355's nearest rival is the Intel Core i3-12100F, with a delta of 0%.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for anyone choosing between these two for raw computational throughput. The Intel Xeon Gold 6348 is the dominant performer in every recorded Cinebench test. Multi-core workloads, such as rendering or scientific simulation, will see an 80% to 88% advantage for the Xeon. Even single-core tasks, where the Core 3 N355 might be expected to close the gap given its higher 3.90 GHz boost clock, show a 73% to 83% deficit.

The Core 3 N355 does have a higher average benchmark score (13,492 versus 12,746) and a slightly higher percentile ranking (68th versus 67th), but that average includes PassMark tests not shared in the head-to-head set. For Cinebench specifically, the Xeon wins outright. A buyer whose workload is dominated by multi-threaded processing should select the Xeon Gold 6348 without hesitation. A buyer whose workload is light, single-threaded, or power-constrained might consider the Core 3 N355, but the benchmark data shows it loses even single-core Cinebench tests by wide margins.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. The Core 3 N355 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Xeon Gold 6348 has 28 cores and 56 threads. Base clocks are 1.90 GHz for the Core 3 N355 and 2.60 GHz for the Xeon. Boost clocks are 3.90 GHz for the Core 3 N355 and 3.50 GHz for the Xeon. The thermal design power is 15 watts for the Core 3 N355 and 235 watts for the Xeon.

Sockets differ entirely: the Core 3 N355 uses Intel BGA 1264, while the Xeon Gold 6348 uses Intel Socket 4189. Memory support also diverges. The Core 3 N355 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 with a single-channel memory bus and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon supports only DDR4 but uses an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 3 N355 does not support ECC memory; the Xeon does.

PCIe connectivity is another major split. The Core 3 N355 has Gen 3 with 9 lanes, while the Xeon has Gen 4 with 64 lanes. The Core 3 N355 includes integrated UHD Graphics 770; the Xeon has no integrated graphics. Market segments differ as well: the Core 3 N355 is classified as Mobile, the Xeon as Server/Workstation. Release dates are also distinct, with the Core 3 N355 launching on 2025-01-06 and the Xeon on 2021-04-05.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide starts with codenames and process nodes. The Core 3 N355 uses Twin Lake architecture, also listed under the Alder Lake-N generation, while the Xeon Gold 6348 uses Ice Lake-SP architecture. Both are fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel, but the designs diverge sharply from there.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Core 3 N355 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 42 MB of shared L3. The Xeon's larger L3 cache, at 42 MB versus 6 MB, is part of why it sustains such high multi-threaded throughput.

The Core 3 N355's integrated graphics, UHD Graphics 770, are a feature the Xeon entirely lacks, since the Xeon targets server workloads where a discrete GPU is assumed. The Xeon's eight-channel memory architecture and PCIe Gen 4 with 64 lanes are server-class features that enable high-bandwidth data movement, while the Core 3 N355's single-channel memory and Gen 3 lanes reflect its mobile, low-power positioning.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon Gold 6348 wins in every scenario that demands sustained multi-threaded compute. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows an 88.1% advantage, meaning rendering, video encoding, and database workloads that scale across many cores will heavily favor the Xeon. Its 28 cores, 56 threads, 42 MB L3 cache, and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth are built for exactly these tasks. Server or workstation deployments with high core counts and memory throughput requirements will see the Xeon as the clear choice.

The Core 3 N355 wins in scenarios where power consumption and physical footprint matter more than raw throughput. Its 15 watt TDP, versus 235 watts for the Xeon, makes it suitable for fanless or battery-powered mobile devices. Its integrated UHD Graphics 770 means no separate GPU is needed for basic display output. The Core 3 N355 also supports DDR5 and LPDDR5 memory, which the Xeon does not, making it more flexible for compact systems.

However, the benchmark data does not show a single test where the Core 3 N355 outperforms the Xeon. Even in single-core Cinebench R15, where the Core 3 N355's boost clock of 3.90 GHz exceeds the Xeon's 3.50 GHz, the Xeon still wins by 73.2%. The Core 3 N355's higher average benchmark score (13,492 versus 12,746) and percentile ranking (68th versus 67th) suggest it sits slightly higher in overall database standings, but that is driven by PassMark results that are not part of the head-to-head comparison. For anyone relying on Cinebench as a proxy for general compute performance, the Xeon Gold 6348 is the dominant part. The Core 3 N355 is best reserved for mobile or embedded use cases where the Xeon's power and socket requirements are simply not viable.