
Core 3 N355

Xeon E5-1650 v3
Core 3 N355 vs Xeon E5-1650 v3 Performance Spectrum
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
Core 3 N355 vs Xeon E5-1650 v3 FPS Benchmarks
Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.
Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Core 3 N355 vs Xeon E5-1650 v3: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
Core 3 N355
2025Why buy it
- β +1.1% higher PassMark.
- β Costs $283 less on MSRP ($300 MSRP vs $583 MSRP).
- β Delivers 96.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 35.0 vs 17.8 PassMark/$ ($300 MSRP vs $583 MSRP).
- β Draws 15W instead of 140W, a 125W reduction.
- β Newer platform on FCBGA1264 with DDR5 support instead of LGA2011 and DDR4.
Trade-offs
- βWorse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-1650 v3 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- βSmaller total L3 cache (6 MB vs 15 MB).
- βLess compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-1650 v3, which brings 6 cores / 12 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.
Xeon E5-1650 v3
2014Why buy it
- β Better for gaming: +8.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- β +150% larger total L3 cache (15 MB vs 6 MB).
- β Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 6 cores / 12 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 0.
- β 100+% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- βLower PassMark (10,387 vs 10,502).
- βLower PassMark per dollar, at 17.8 vs 35.0 PassMark/$ ($583 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
- β833.3% higher power demand at 140W vs 15W.
- βOlder platform position on LGA2011 with DDR4, while Core 3 N355 moves to FCBGA1264 and DDR5.
Quick Answers
So, is Core 3 N355 better than Xeon E5-1650 v3?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Core 3 N355 vs Xeon E5-1650 v3 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core 3 N355
The Core 3 N355 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 7 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Twin Lake (2024β2025) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 0.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (total). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1264. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR4, DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 10,502 points. Launch price was $149.

Xeon E5-1650 v3
The Xeon E5-1650 v3 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Haswell-EP (2014β2015) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 15 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 140 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1333, DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 10,387 points. Launch price was $800.
Processing Power
The Core 3 N355 packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the Xeon E5-1650 v3 offers 6 cores / 12 threads β the Core 3 N355 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.9 GHz on the Core 3 N355 versus 3.8 GHz on the Xeon E5-1650 v3 β a 2.6% clock advantage for the Core 3 N355 (base: 0.1 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Core 3 N355 uses the Twin Lake (2024β2025) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Xeon E5-1650 v3 uses Haswell-EP (2014β2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Core 3 N355 scores 10,502 against the Xeon E5-1650 v3's 10,387 β a 1.1% lead for the Core 3 N355. L3 cache: 6 MB (total) on the Core 3 N355 vs 15 MB (total) on the Xeon E5-1650 v3.
| Feature | Core 3 N355 | Xeon E5-1650 v3 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 8 / 8+33% | 6 / 12 |
| Boost Clock | 3.9 GHz+3% | 3.8 GHz |
| Base Clock | 0.1 GHz | 3.5 GHz+3400% |
| L3 Cache | 6 MB (total) | 15 MB (total)+150% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB (total) | 256K (per core)+12700% |
| Process | Intel 7 nm-68% | 22 nm |
| Architecture | Twin Lake (2024β2025) | Haswell-EP (2014β2015) |
| PassMark | 10,502+1% | 10,387 |
Memory & Platform
The Core 3 N355 uses the FCBGA1264 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon E5-1650 v3 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 5.0) β making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core 3 N355 | Xeon E5-1650 v3 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FCBGA1264 | LGA2011 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 4.0 | PCIe 5.0+25% |
| Max RAM Speed | β | DDR4-2133 |
| Max RAM Capacity | β | 768 GB |
| RAM Channels | β | 4 |
| ECC Support | β | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | β | 40 |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Core 3 N355 was priced at $300, while the Xeon E5-1650 v3 came in at $583. On launch pricing ($300 vs $583), Core 3 N355 was $283 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core 3 N355 delivers 35.0 pts/$ vs 17.8 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-1650 v3 β making the Core 3 N355 the 65.1% better value option.
| Feature | Core 3 N355 | Xeon E5-1650 v3 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $300-49% | $583 |
| Performance per Dollar | 35.0+97% | 17.8 |
| Release Date | 2025 | 2014 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.














