OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core 3 N350 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£110PassMark multi-core score:7353N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:3.9 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1264TDP (Thermal design power):7 W

Intel Core 3 N350 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.4/10

Overall score

Score
6.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Score components

40%

5.1

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 58% of processors
7.5

Value for money

Value for money
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 60% of models
Score components

70%

6.4

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

â–²Better than 60%
5.1

Technical score

Technical score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
Score components

60%

4.9

Performance

18%

4.8

Architecture

10%

4.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

6.7

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 59%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £110
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core 3 N350

Technical score
Technical score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
Score components:

60%

4.9

Performance

18%

4.8

Architecture

10%

4.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

6.7

Integrated graphics

5.1
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 60% of models
Score components:

70%

6.4

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

7.5
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1264
This processor uses the FCBGA1264 CPU socket, which is older than that of 93.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 88.2% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
8
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 8 CPU cores, which is more than 61.2% of processors and equal to 13.9% of processors.
CPU threads
8
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 33.4% of processors and equal to 18.8% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.9 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.9 GHz which is lower than that of 67% of processors and equal to that of 3.2% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 0.1 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x0.1 GHz which is lower than that of 99.9% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
7,353
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 7,353 in PassMark, which is lower than 61.6% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 50.8% of processors and equal to that of 19.5% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 7
This processor is built on the Intel 7 foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 64.8% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
L3 cache
6 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 6 MB which is smaller than that of 62.3% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
L2 cache
2 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 52.9% of processors and equal to that of 10.8% of processors.
L1 cache
768 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 768 KB which is larger than that of 77.6% of processors and equal to that of 3.3% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5, which is newer than that of 95.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
4,800 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 4,800 MHz, which is higher than that of 64.6% of processors and equal to 6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5-4800 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5-4800 MHz, which is higher than that of 61.9% of processors and equal to 0.3% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 16 GB of memory, which is less than 92.2% of processors and equal to 6.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 770
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 770 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 57.8% of processors and equal to that in 4.7% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
32
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 32 GPU execution units, which is more than 70.1% of processors and equal to 10.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode)
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 61.3% of processors and equal to 10.3% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
7 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 7 W which is lower than that of 96.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
7 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 7 W which is lower than that of 96.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core 3 N350 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    8 vs 4
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5 vs DDR4
  • 84.4% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (7 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    7 W vs 45 W
  • 3.15x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,071 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,071 vs 340.075
  • 2 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • 5 °C higher temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 84.4% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (7 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    7 W vs 45 W
  • 2x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (768 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    768 KB vs 384 KB
  • 5 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    January 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • 4 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    8 vs 4
  • 3.15x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,071 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,071 vs 340.075
  • 2 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • 2 wider front-end design
    This processor has a higher front-end width than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
    6 vs 4
  • 2x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (768 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    768 KB vs 384 KB
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5 vs DDR4
  • 50% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (4,800 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    4,800 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 84.4% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (7 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    7 W vs 45 W
  • 84.4% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (7 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    7 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C higher temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Twin Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Twin Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 24.9% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1920 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,920 vs 2,558
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (8x0.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x0.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 59.5% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (0.8 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    0.75 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 11.4% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 35.9% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,353 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,353 vs 11,469
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1264 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1264 vs FP5
  • 24.9% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1920 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,920 vs 2,558
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (8x0.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x0.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 11.4% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 35.9% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,353 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,353 vs 11,469
  • 23.1% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,181 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,181 vs 1,535
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 8.8% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (4,749 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    4,749 vs 5,209
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Twin Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Twin Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 59.5% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (0.8 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    0.75 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 33.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    2 MB vs 3 MB
  • 33.3% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    6 MB vs 9 MB
  • 7 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (9 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    9 vs 16
  • 75% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (16 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    16 GB vs 64 GB
  • 18.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 1 fewer memory channels
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    1 vs 2
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core 3 N350

  • Extremely low power consumption with a 7W TDP, making it ideal for fanless, silent devices.
  • Feature-rich for an entry-level chip, supporting modern standards like Wi-Fi 7 and DDR5-4800 RAM.
  • Decent multitasking for daily office work and school thanks to its 8-core architecture.
  • Significant performance upgrade compared to older low-power series like the Intel N200 or Celeron N4020.
  • Supports AVX2 and hardware virtualization, improving performance for specific calculation-heavy apps and virtual machines.

What customers don't like about Intel Core 3 N350

  • Utilizes older UHD Graphics (32 EUs) which is considered 'anemic' and lacks the power of newer Intel Arc or AMD iGPUs.
  • Artificial hardware limitations such as single-channel memory support, which can throttle overall system and graphics speed.
  • Does not include an NPU, making it ineligible for 'Copilot+' AI branding and limited in AI-driven tasks.
  • Lacks support for high-speed interfaces like Thunderbolt or USB4.
  • Limited longevity for gaming; only suitable for older titles at low resolutions (e.g., 720p/768p).

Verdict

The Intel Core 3 N350 is a mobile processor from the Twin Lake family, launched in early 2025, featuring 8 Gracemont efficient cores (E-cores) and 8 threads with a max turbo frequency of 3.9 GHz. Built on the Intel 7 (10 nm) process, it is characterized by an ultra-low 7W TDP and includes 6 MB of Intel Smart Cache, 32 execution units of Intel UHD Graphics reaching 1.35 GHz, and support for single-channel DDR5-4800 or DDR4-3200 memory. Its main pros include exceptional power efficiency for fanless designs, support for modern Wi-Fi 7 modules, and capable performance for everyday office tasks and 4K video decoding. However, its primary cons are the lack of high-performance P-cores and Hyper-Threading, a single-channel memory limitation that bottlenecks integrated graphics, and the absence of Thunderbolt or a dedicated NPU for advanced AI workloads.

Compare Intel Core 3 N350 with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core 3 N350 and other processors

No results found