Intel Core 5 210H vs Intel Core 7 350 Comparison

Intel Core 5 210H and Intel Core 7 350 are two mobile processors aimed at different segments of the laptop market, and benchmark data confirms they have distinct performance profiles. The Core 5 210H dominates multi-threaded workloads with 11 benchmark wins, while the Core 7 350 counters with 6 wins focused on single-threaded performance and efficiency. The Core 5 210H delivers an average benchmark score of 24872, placing it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Core 7 350 scores 17779 on average, landing in the 71st percentile. These averages translate into a head-to-head advantage of approximately 40% for the Core 5 210H, driven by its larger core count and higher power envelope, though the Core 7 350's newer 3 nm architecture provides superior per-core efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 210H records an average benchmark score of 24872, which is significantly higher than the Intel Core 7 350's average of 17779. This places the Core 5 210H in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 350 sits in the 71st percentile.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: The Core 5 210H wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 11830 against the Core 7 350's 8030, a 47.3% lead. The gap is even larger in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the Core 5 210H scores 1757 versus 1220, a 44% advantage.

Q: Does the Core 7 350 win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes, the Core 7 350 wins all single-threaded tests. It leads in Cinebench R23 single-core with 2046 versus 1771 (a 13.4% margin), in PassMark single-thread with 4100 versus 3539 (a 13.7% margin), and in Cinebench R15 single-core with 292 versus 247 (a 15.4% margin). It also wins PassMark find prime numbers and PassMark physics.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Core 5 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads, while the Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads. This means the Core 5 210H supports simultaneous multithreading, whereas the Core 7 350 does not.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock speed?

A: Both processors share the same maximum boost clock speed of 4.80 GHz. However, their base clocks differ significantly: the Core 5 210H runs at 2.20 GHz, while the Core 7 350 runs at a lower 1.50 GHz.

Q: How do the integrated graphics compare between the two?

A: The Core 5 210H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 48 execution units, while the Core 7 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The database does not provide benchmark scores for these iGPU configurations, so no direct performance comparison is available.

Architecture Differences

The Core 5 210H and Core 7 350 are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Core 5 210H uses Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-H variant, on Intel's 10 nm process node. In contrast, the Core 7 350 is based on Wildcat Lake, manufactured on a 3 nm process node. This process node difference is substantial: the 3 nm node is three generations ahead in density and efficiency compared to the 10 nm node, which explains the Core 7 350's lower power consumption despite its higher single-thread performance.

The core configurations diverge sharply. The Core 5 210H offers 8 cores and 12 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement with performance and efficiency cores, while the Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads, a simpler layout without hyper-threading. Cache hierarchies also differ considerably. The Core 5 210H provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 350 counters with 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 6 MB of shared L3. This means the Core 5 210H has twice the total L3 capacity, which benefits multi-threaded workloads that rely on shared data.

Memory support and PCIe connectivity also separate the two. The Core 5 210H supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, whereas the Core 7 350 supports only DDR5 and LPDDR5X in a single-channel configuration. The Core 7 350 does include a rated memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, which the Core 5 210H lacks in the recorded data. For PCIe, the Core 5 210H uses Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes, while the Core 7 350 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. This gives the Core 5 210H a bandwidth advantage for discrete GPUs and NVMe storage.

The Core 5 210H carries a 45 W TDP and uses the Intel BGA 1744 socket, while the Core 7 350 has a 15 W TDP and uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket. The 30 W TDP difference is the primary driver behind the Core 5 210H's higher sustained multi-core performance. The Core 7 350's integrated graphics, Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, represents a newer generation than the Iris Xe Graphics 48EU in the Core 5 210H, though the database does not quantify their relative performance.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear split: the Intel Core 5 210H is the choice for multi-threaded and content-creation workloads, while the Intel Core 7 350 suits single-threaded and power-sensitive applications. The Core 5 210H wins 11 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, with decisive margins in integer math (82.3% ahead), data compression (52.2% ahead), and Cinebench R23 multi-core (47.3% ahead). Its 8-core, 12-thread configuration and 45 W TDP provide the parallel throughput needed for video rendering, software compilation, and heavy multitasking.

The Core 7 350, despite its 6-core, 6-thread layout and 15 W TDP, wins every single-threaded test. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2046 exceeds the Core 5 210H's 1771 by 13.4%, and its PassMark single-thread score of 4100 is 13.7% higher. This makes it the better fit for lightly threaded applications, office productivity, and tasks where battery life takes priority. The Core 7 350 also wins PassMark find prime numbers by 50.5% and PassMark physics by 11.3%, indicating strengths in integer-heavy single-thread operations.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this division. The Core 5 210H's average of 24872 places it near rivals like the Intel Core i7-13620H (24911, a 0.2% deficit) and AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX (24822, a 0.2% lead). The Core 7 350's average of 17779 sits close to the Intel Core 5 221TE (17860, a 0.5% deficit) and AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (17891, a 0.6% deficit). Users who need raw multi-core muscle should select the Core 5 210H, while those prioritizing single-thread responsiveness and lower power draw should choose the Core 7 350.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The Core 5 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads, while the Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clock speeds are 2.20 GHz for the Core 5 210H and 1.50 GHz for the Core 7 350, though both boost to 4.80 GHz. TDP ratings are 45 W for the Core 5 210H and 15 W for the Core 7 350. Sockets differ: Intel BGA 1744 for the Core 5 210H versus Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 7 350.

Cache configurations are distinct. The Core 5 210H has 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core, with 12 MB shared L3. The Core 7 350 has 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2 per core, with 6 MB shared L3. Memory support differs, with the Core 5 210H handling DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode, while the Core 7 350 uses DDR5 and LPDDR5X in single-channel mode. The Core 7 350 lists a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, which is absent for the Core 5 210H. PCIe lanes also differ: Gen 5 with 8 lanes for the Core 5 210H versus Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the Core 7 350.

Integrated graphics are different generations: Iris Xe Graphics 48EU for the Core 5 210H and Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) for the Core 7 350. Process nodes are 10 nm for the Core 5 210H and 3 nm for the Core 7 350. Release dates are December 17, 2024 for the Core 5 210H and April 15, 2026 for the Core 7 350. Both processors are active in production and have locked multipliers. The launch MSRP is $342 for the Core 5 210H and $469 for the Core 7 350.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core 5 210H dominates multi-core workloads with commanding margins. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 11830 against 8030, a 47.3% lead. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 44% advantage with scores of 1757 versus 1220. Cinebench R20 multi-core yields 6504 versus 5373, a 21% margin. PassMark integer math delivers the largest single-test gap: 61503 versus 33734, an 82.3% advantage. PassMark data compression follows with 217805 versus 143123, a 52.2% lead. PassMark random string sorting shows 23451 versus 17238, a 36% margin. The Core 5 210H also wins PassMark multithread (18252 versus 15170, 20.3% ahead), Cinebench R20 single-core (918 versus 758, 21.1% ahead), PassMark data encryption (12187 versus 10933, 11.5% ahead), PassMark extended instructions (13370 versus 12045, 11% ahead), and PassMark floating point math (45057 versus 42809, 5.3% ahead).

The Core 7 350 counters in single-threaded and efficiency-focused tests. PassMark find prime numbers shows a 50.5% win with 107 versus 53. Cinebench R15 single-core gives a 15.4% margin with 292 versus 247. PassMark single-thread scores 4100 versus 3539, a 13.7% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core delivers 2046 versus 1771, a 13.4% lead. PassMark physics shows 1173 versus 1040, an 11.3% margin. The Core 7 350 also wins PassMark single-thread (duplicate test) with the same 13.7% margin.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core 5 210H wins in: Multi-threaded rendering (Cinebench R15/R20/R23 multi-core), data compression and encryption, integer and floating-point math, extended instruction sets, random string sorting, and overall multithread performance. Its 45 W TDP and 8-core/12-thread design provide the parallel resources needed for video editing, 3D modeling, and batch processing. The 12 MB L3 cache and dual-channel memory further support these workloads, and the PCIe Gen 5 interface allows for faster peripheral connectivity.

Intel Core 7 350 wins in: Single-threaded benchmarks (all Cinebench single-core tests, PassMark single-thread), prime number calculations, and physics simulations. The 3 nm process node delivers superior per-core efficiency, which is why it achieves higher single-thread scores despite a lower 1.50 GHz base clock. Its 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth and larger L1/L2 per-core caches contribute to these wins. The 15 W TDP makes it the more suitable option for thin-and-light laptops where thermal constraints and battery life are critical, and where applications rely on a few fast cores rather than many slower ones.