OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Core 3 N355 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£220PassMark benchmark result:10363N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:3.9 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1264TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Core 3 N355 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.3

Overall score

Score
5.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
Score components

90%

5.3

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 56% of processors
5.3

Technical score

Technical score
5.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components

60%

5.0

Performance

18%

5.1

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.1

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 54% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £220

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 N355

Technical score
Technical score
5.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components:

60%

5.0

Performance

18%

5.1

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.1

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated Graphics

5.3
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core 3 N355 has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
6.5/ 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–¼ Worse than 55% of models
Score components:

60%

5.3

Overall score

40%

9.4

Price

6.5
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1264
CPU socket
FCBGA1264
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1264 CPU socket, which is older than that of 93.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
8
N. of physical cores
8
â–² Better than 63% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 8 CPU cores, which is more than 63.4% of processors and equal to 13.6% of processors.
CPU threads
8
CPU threads
8
â–¼ Worse than 46% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 35.2% of processors and equal to 19.1% of processors.
Threads per core
1
Threads per core
1
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 1 threads per core, which is fewer than 69.8% of processors and equal to 30.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.9 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.9 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.9 GHz which is lower than that of 64.9% of processors and equal to that of 3.5% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 3.0 GHz
CPU base clock speed
8x 3.0 GHz
â–² Better than 75% of models
This processor has a base clock of 8x3.0 GHz which is higher than that of 75% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Semiconductor size
10 nm
â–² Better than 52% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 52.4% of processors and equal to that of 19.1% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 7
Foundry
Intel 7
â–² Better than 66% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 7 foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 66.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.9% of processors.
L3 cache
6 MB
L3 cache
6 MB
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 6 MB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
L2 cache
4 MB
L2 cache
4 MB
â–² Better than 55% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 4 MB which is larger than that of 55.4% of processors and equal to that of 9.3% of processors.
L1 cache
768 KB
L1 cache
768 KB
â–² Better than 78% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 768 KB which is larger than that of 78.1% of processors and equal to that of 3.4% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5
★ Better than 95% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5, which is newer than that of 95.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
4,800 MHz
Maximum memory speed
4,800 MHz
â–² Better than 67% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 4,800 MHz, which is higher than that of 66.7% of processors and equal to 5.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5-4800 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5-4800 MHz
â–² Better than 64% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5-4800 MHz, which is higher than that of 63.6% of processors and equal to 0.3% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 16 GB of memory, which is less than 91.7% of processors and equal to 6.4% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Intel UHD Graphics
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 32EU
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 32EU
â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 32EU integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 62% of processors and equal to that in 0.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
32
Integrated GPU execution units
32
â–² Better than 71% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 32 GPU execution units, which is more than 70.9% of processors and equal to 9.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 58.1% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
â–² Better than 85% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 85% of processors and equal to 5.6% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
â–² Better than 78% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 78% of processors and equal to that of 16% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Base power (PL1)
15 W
â–² Better than 77% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 77.2% of processors and equal to that of 16.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
15 W
Boost power (PL2)
15 W
★ Better than 93% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 15 W which is lower than that of 93.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
â–¼ Worse than 10% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 3.4% of processors and equal to that of 86.1% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
cTDP: 9 W
Show more

Intel Core 3 N355 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5 vs DDR4
  • 75% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    15 W
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    15 W vs 60 W
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    8 x 3.0 GHz
    â–² Better than 75% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    8x3.0 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 2 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    8
    â–² Better than 63% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    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 TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 2x larger L1 cache
    L1 cache
    768 KB
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    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
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, SMAP, SMEP
    â–² Better than 73% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, SMAP, SMEP
    â–² Better than 73% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 5 years newer release date
    Release date
    2025
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    January 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, VAES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, VAES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    8 x 3.0 GHz
    â–² Better than 75% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    8x3.0 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 2 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    8
    â–² Better than 63% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • 11 higher clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    39
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (39 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    39 vs 28
  • 2x larger L1 cache
    L1 cache
    768 KB
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    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
    Foundry
    Intel 7
    â–² Better than 66% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm
  • 60% larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    4 MB
    â–² Better than 55% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    4 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 16.7% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    10 nm
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (10 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    10 nm vs 12 nm
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5 vs DDR4
  • 63.7% higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    4,800 MHz
    â–² Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (4800 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    4,800 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 75% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    15 W
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    15 W vs 60 W
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C higher TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Twin Lake
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Twin Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Twin Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 56.2% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    0.75 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (0.8 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    0.75 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    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).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 19.6% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    393
    â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (393 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    393 vs 489
  • 9.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.9 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • 7 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    9
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (9 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    9 vs 16
  • 11.6% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2,209
    â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,209 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,209 vs 2,500
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    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).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1264
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1264 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1264 vs FP4
  • 19.6% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    393
    â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (393 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    393 vs 489
  • 9.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.9 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • 11.6% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2,209
    â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,209 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,209 vs 2,500
  • 8.6% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,344
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,344 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,344 vs 1,471
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
    1 vs 2
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Twin Lake
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Twin Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Twin Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 56.2% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    0.75 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (0.8 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    0.75 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 25% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    6 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    6 MB vs 8 MB
  • 7 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    9
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    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
    Maximum memory capacity
    16 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    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
  • 16.2% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    38.4 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    38.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 1 fewer memory channels
    Memory channels
    1
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    1 vs 2
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    105 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    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

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

C
cpubenchmark.net
01/01/2025
Summary of the review
Intel Core 3 N355 - CPU Benchmarks Would you like to compare these performance results with the previous generation N305?
L
laptopmedia.com
22/10/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core 3 N355 - LaptopMedia
S
servethehome.com
23/06/2025
Summary of the review
The Intel Core 3 N355 Update Over the Core i3-N305
N
nascompares.com
21/03/2025
Summary of the review
CWWK N355 DIY NAS Review
L
laptopmedia.com
30/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core 3 N355 - LaptopMedia
S
servethehome.com
23/06/2025
Summary of the review
The Intel Core 3 N355 Update Over the Core i3-N305
V
valid.x86.fr
01/03/2026
Summary of the review
CPU-Z Benchmark for Intel Core 3 N355 (1T)
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core 3 N355

  • Efficient power consumption with a low 15W TDP, making it ideal for fanless or quiet mini PCs.
  • Solid performance for everyday productivity tasks like web browsing, office work, and video streaming.
  • Improved multitasking over previous 4-core N-series chips thanks to its 8-core, 8-thread architecture.
  • Strong media capabilities with Quick Sync, supporting hardware-decoding for AV1 and smooth 4K video transcoding/streaming.
  • Good value for budget-oriented devices, often found in affordable laptops and entry-level NAS systems.

What we don't like about Intel Core 3 N355

  • Very minor performance gains (estimated 1-3%) compared to its predecessor, the Core i3-N305.
  • Weak gaming and 3D performance due to limited execution units and single-channel memory restrictions.
  • Lack of performance cores (P-cores) results in unimpressive single-core speeds compared to standard Core i3 or Ryzen processors.
  • Poor suitability for heavy workloads like video editing, 3D rendering, or complex Photoshop tasks.
  • Perceived by some as a simple 'rebadge' of older silicon rather than a meaningful architectural advancement.

Verdict

The Intel Core 3 N355 is an entry-level mobile processor from the Twin Lake series, featuring 8 Gracemont efficiency cores and 8 threads with a max turbo frequency of 3.9 GHz and 6 MB of Intel Smart Cache. Built on the Intel 7 (10nm) process, it operates with a low thermal design power (TDP) of 15W (configurable down to 9W) and includes integrated Intel UHD Graphics with 32 execution units, supporting modern memory like LPDDR5-4800 and hardware-accelerated AV1 decoding. Its main advantages include high energy efficiency for long battery life in budget laptops and solid multitasking performance for everyday productivity, though it is held back by a lack of hyper-threading, a single-channel memory restriction, and limited suitability for demanding gaming or heavy creative workloads.

Compare Intel Core 3 N355 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 N355 and other processors

No results found