Intel Core 7 360 vs Intel Processor N250 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core 7 360 and Intel Processor N250 occupy different performance tiers, and the recorded benchmark data confirms a decisive advantage for the Core 7 360 across every measured workload. The Core 7 360 delivers an average benchmark score of 18,374, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The N250, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile, indicating a mid-pack position based on its specifications rather than measured results.

The Core 7 360's multi-core performance is substantial. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 13,634 points. Its Cinebench R20 multi-core result is 5,726, and Cinebench R15 multi-core comes in at 1,374. These figures reflect a processor capable of sustained parallel workloads. The PassMark multi-thread score of 15,544 reinforces this picture, showing strong throughput in heavily threaded applications.

Single-core performance on the Core 7 360 is equally notable. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,924 and Cinebench R20 single-core score of 808 indicate excellent per-thread responsiveness. The PassMark single-thread score of 4,274 confirms this. The boost clock of 4.80 GHz on the Core 7 360 directly supports these results, allowing short bursts of high-frequency operation when a single thread demands it.

The N250 has no benchmark entries in the database. Its specifications, however, point to a significantly lower performance envelope. With a base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, the N250's peak frequency trails the Core 7 360 by 1.00 GHz. The N250 also uses 4 cores and 4 threads, compared to 6 cores and 6 threads on the Core 7 360. This two-core deficit alone would account for a substantial gap in multi-threaded workloads, even before considering architectural differences.

The nearest rivals for the Core 7 360 provide additional context. The Intel Core i3-13100 scores 18,380, a delta of 0 percent relative to the Core 7 360's 18,374 average. The Intel Core 5 330 scores 18,345, a delta of 0.2 percent. The Intel Core i3-14100 scores 18,318, a delta of 0.3 percent, and the Intel Core 3 305 scores 18,302, a delta of 0.4 percent. These margins are tiny, meaning the Core 7 360 performs essentially on par with these established desktop-class processors in aggregate benchmark terms. That the Core 7 360, a mobile processor with a 15 W TDP, matches these chips is a direct result of its 3 nm process node and high boost clock.

The N250's lack of benchmark data makes direct numerical comparison impossible, but its specification sheet tells a clear story. The N250's memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s on the Core 7 360 means the N250 feeds its cores with less data per second, limiting performance in memory-intensive tasks. The N250's PCIe Gen 3 interface with 9 lanes also lags the Core 7 360's PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes in per-lane bandwidth, though the N250 offers more lanes total.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 7 360 wins in every workload category where measurement exists. For multi-threaded productivity, the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13,634 and PassMark multi-thread score of 15,544 show a processor that handles compilation, rendering, and data processing tasks with ease. The PassMark data compression score of 142,877 and integer math score of 34,238 indicate strong performance in database operations and general computation. The floating point math score of 44,963 further confirms capability in scientific and engineering workloads.

The Core 7 360 also wins in single-threaded responsiveness. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4,274 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,924 make it suitable for interactive applications, web browsing, and office tasks where per-core speed matters most. The extended instructions score of 12,390 suggests robust SIMD and cryptography support, useful for encryption and media processing. The data encryption score of 11,164 and random string sorting score of 17,636 round out a profile that excels across varied tasks.

The N250, lacking recorded benchmarks, cannot claim victory in any measured workload. Its specifications, however, define its intended role. With a 6 W TDP, the N250 is designed for ultra-low-power operation. The Core 7 360's 15 W TDP is higher, but both are mobile parts. The N250's 4 cores at up to 3.80 GHz, paired with 6 MB of shared L3 cache, make it suitable for light productivity, media consumption, and basic system tasks where power draw is the primary constraint. Its DDR4 support alongside DDR5 and LPDDR5 gives system designers flexibility in memory selection, which can lower platform cost in ways that the Core 7 360's DDR5-only and LPDDR5X-only support cannot match.

The architectural split also matters. The N250 uses the Twin Lake architecture on a 10 nm process, while the Core 7 360 uses Wildcat Lake on a 3 nm process. The 3 nm node provides a transistor density and efficiency advantage that explains the Core 7 360's higher performance at a modest TDP increase. The N250's 10 nm node is older and less efficient, but its lower TDP and simpler design make it appropriate for fanless or passively cooled systems.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The Core 7 360 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. It is built on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The N250 uses the Twin Lake architecture and belongs to the Intel Processor (Alder Lake-N) generation. It is built on a 10 nm process, also at Intel.

Core configuration differs sharply. The Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyper-threading. Each core carries 192 KB of L1 cache and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, plus 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The N250 has 4 cores and 4 threads, also without hyper-threading. Each core carries 96 KB of L1 cache, with 2 MB of shared L2 and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core 7 360 thus has double the L1 per core and more than double the L2 per core, while both share the same L3 pool.

Memory support diverges. The Core 7 360 accepts DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory on a single-channel bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The N250 accepts DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 on a single-channel bus, delivering 38.4 GB/s. The N250's broader memory compatibility is offset by lower peak bandwidth. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe capabilities differ in lane count and generation. The Core 7 360 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the N250 provides PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). The Core 7 360's Gen 4 interface doubles per-lane bandwidth relative to Gen 3, but the N250 offers more total lanes for peripheral connectivity.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Core 7 360 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The N250 uses UHD Graphics 730. The Xe3 architecture is newer and, based on the Core 7 360's higher memory bandwidth, would have access to more data for frame rendering. The N250's UHD Graphics 730 is an older design paired with slower memory, limiting its graphical output.

The sockets are not compatible. The Core 7 360 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the N250 uses Intel BGA 1264. This means system boards are not interchangeable between the two. The Core 7 360's part number is SAE3E, and the N250's is SRPNS. The Core 7 360 has a launch MSRP of $426, while the N250 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Release dates differ as well. The N250 was released on 2025-01-06, while the Core 7 360 came later on 2026-04-15. Both are currently marked as Active in production status, meaning both remain available for system integration.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core 7 360 than the Intel Processor N250 in multi-core workloads?

A: Direct comparison is impossible because the N250 has no recorded benchmark scores. The Core 7 360's Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 13,634, and its PassMark multi-thread score is 15,544. The N250's 4 cores versus the Core 7 360's 6 cores, combined with a lower boost clock of 3.80 GHz versus 4.80 GHz, indicates a large performance gap.

Q: Which processor has better single-threaded performance?

A: The Core 7 360, based on its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,924 and PassMark single-thread score of 4,274. Its boost clock of 4.80 GHz exceeds the N250's 3.80 GHz by a full 1.00 GHz, and its 3 nm process node provides an architectural efficiency advantage over the N250's 10 nm node.

Q: Can the Intel Processor N250 be used on the same motherboard as the Intel Core 7 360?

A: No. The Core 7 360 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the N250 uses Intel BGA 1264. These sockets are physically and electrically different, so boards designed for one will not accept the other.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 7 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The N250 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5. Both use a single-channel memory bus. The Core 7 360 provides 59.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the N250 provides 38.4 GB/s.

Q: Which processor consumes less power?

A: The N250 has a TDP of 6 W, while the Core 7 360 has a TDP of 15 W. The N250's lower TDP makes it more suitable for fanless designs and ultra-portable systems, though the Core 7 360's higher TDP enables its substantially higher performance.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each processor?

A: The Core 7 360 ranks in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 18,374. The N250 ranks in the 50th percentile, with no recorded average benchmark score.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 360 | Intel Processor N250 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 6 | 4 |

| Threads | 6 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 0.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 6 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 1264 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Twin Lake |

| Generation | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) | Intel Processor (Alder Lake-N) |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2.5 MB (per core) | 2 MB (shared) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 9 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2025-01-06 |

| Launch MSRP | $426 | None |

| Part Number | SAE3E | SRPNS |

The Verdict

The data directs a clear choice for any workload where performance matters. The Intel Core 7 360 delivers measured results that place it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 18,374 that matches the Intel Core i3-13100 and Intel Core i3-14100 within a 0.3 percent margin. Its 6 cores, 4.80 GHz boost clock, and 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth provide a complete package for multi-threaded productivity, single-threaded responsiveness, and memory-intensive tasks. The PassMark scores across integer math, floating point math, encryption, and data compression confirm broad capability.

The Intel Processor N250 serves a different purpose. With a 6 W TDP, 4 cores, and a 3.80 GHz boost clock, it is built for efficiency rather than throughput. Its support for DDR4 memory and PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes gives system integrators flexibility in low-power designs. The 50th percentile ranking and absence of benchmark scores indicate a processor aimed at basic computing tasks, not demanding applications.

For users who need processing power, the Core 7 360 is the only choice. Its 3 nm process and Wildcat Lake architecture provide a 1.00 GHz boost advantage over the N250, along with more cores, more cache per core, and higher memory bandwidth. The 15 W TDP, while higher than the N250's 6 W, remains within mobile-class bounds.

For ultra-low-power systems where battery life and thermal output are paramount, the N250's 6 W TDP and DDR4 compatibility make it a sensible integration option. The data, however, does not support any performance-based preference for the N250. Every recorded metric favors the Core 7 360, and the N250's specifications indicate a fundamentally lower ceiling. The verdict is straightforward: the Core 7 360 wins on performance, the N250 wins on power efficiency, and the choice depends entirely on which constraint matters more.