Intel Core 7 150UL vs Intel Core 7 350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core 7 350 holds the clear performance lead in every recorded benchmark category, while the Intel Core 7 150UL has no benchmark scores in the database. This makes the comparison one-sided: the Core 7 350 delivers measurable results across Cinebench and Passmark tests, whereas the Core 7 150UL lacks any recorded performance data. The database shows zero wins for the Core 7 150UL and zero wins for the Core 7 350 in head-to-head comparisons, but the available evidence points entirely to the Core 7 350.

Focusing on the Core 7 350’s recorded scores, the Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 8030 indicates strong parallel processing capability. The single-core score of 2046 in the same test confirms robust per-thread performance. In Cinebench R20, the multi-core score of 5373 and single-core score of 758 follow a similar pattern. The older Cinebench R15 test shows a multi-core score of 1220 and a single-core score of 292. These numbers place the Core 7 350 in the 71st percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning it outperforms roughly 71% of recorded processors.

Passmark results reinforce this picture. The single-thread score of 4100 (recorded twice in the database, under both “passmark_single_thread” and “passmark_singlethread”) shows consistent measurement. Multi-thread performance reaches 15170, while specific workloads include integer math at 33734, floating-point math at 42809, extended instructions at 12045, data compression at 143123, data encryption at 10933, random string sorting at 17238, physics at 1173, and find prime numbers at 107. The average benchmark score for the Core 7 350 is 17779.

Comparing to nearest rivals from the database, the Core 7 350’s average score of 17779 sits within a narrow band. The Intel Core 5 221TE scores 17860, a delta of -0.5% relative to the Core 7 350, meaning the Core 7 350 trails by half a percent. The AMD EPYC 9374F scores 17693, a delta of +0.5%, meaning the Core 7 350 leads by half a percent. The AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT scores 17891, a delta of -0.6%, and the Intel Core 5 120U scores 17898, a delta of -0.7%. These deltas show the Core 7 350 is essentially tied with its closest competitors, within a single percentage point in every case.

The absence of benchmarks for the Core 7 150UL means no direct score comparisons are possible. The database records its percentile as 50, which is the median position, but this percentile is not supported by any actual benchmark entries. The average benchmark score for the Core 7 150UL is listed as 0, confirming the lack of measured performance data. The Core 7 350, by contrast, has a percentile of 71 and an average score of 17779, both derived from the recorded benchmarks.

For workload-specific wins, the Core 7 350 excels in data compression with a Passmark score of 143123, which is the highest single score across all its recorded tests. Floating-point math at 42809 and integer math at 33734 also stand out as strong results. The extended instructions score of 12045 suggests good support for advanced instruction sets. The physics score of 1173 is comparatively modest, but it still contributes to the overall average.

The Core 7 150UL cannot be evaluated on any specific workload because no test results exist. The database lists its core count as 10 and threads as 12, but without benchmark scores, these specifications do not translate into measured performance. The Core 7 350, with 6 cores and 6 threads, delivers all the recorded numbers.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design lineages. The Intel Core 7 150UL uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the codename Raptor Lake-PS, built on a 10 nm process node by Intel. The production status is active, and it belongs to the Core 7 generation under Raptor Lake-PS. The Intel Core 7 350 uses a different approach, with the codename Wildcat Lake and a 3 nm process node, also by Intel. Its generation is listed as Core 5 under Wildcat Lake, which is an unusual mismatch with the product name, but the database records it as such.

The core and thread counts differ substantially. The Core 7 150UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement with some cores supporting additional threads. The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. This architectural choice likely impacts multi-threaded scaling, although the Core 7 350’s recorded multi-core scores suggest it handles parallel tasks competently.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The Core 7 150UL has an L1 cache of 80 KB per core, an L2 cache of 1.25 MB per core, and a shared L3 cache of 12 MB. The Core 7 350 has a larger per-core L1 cache at 192 KB, a larger per-core L2 at 2.5 MB, but a smaller shared L3 at 6 MB. This trade-off favors the Core 7 350 for per-core data locality, while the Core 7 150UL offers more total shared cache across the whole chip.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 7 150UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, but only in a single-channel configuration, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The single-channel limitation is notable for memory-intensive workloads, though the newer memory types may offset some of the bandwidth deficit.

PCIe connectivity also varies. The Core 7 150UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU, while the Core 7 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes. The Core 7 150UL offers more PCIe lanes for expansion, which could matter for desktop builds with multiple devices. The Core 7 350’s fewer lanes suit a mobile form factor.

Integrated graphics differ in capability. The Core 7 150UL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The Core 7 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The database does not provide benchmark scores for either graphics solution, so a direct comparison of graphical performance is not possible from the recorded data.

The socket and market segment highlight their different targets. The Core 7 150UL uses Intel Socket 1700 and is classified as a desktop processor, released in April 2024. The Core 7 350 uses Intel BGA 1516 and is classified as mobile, released in April 2026. The launch MSRP for the Core 7 350 is $469, while the Core 7 150UL has no recorded launch price. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Process node differences are stark: 10 nm for the Core 7 150UL versus 3 nm for the Core 7 350. The smaller node typically allows higher transistor density and improved power efficiency, though the database does not list transistor counts or die sizes for either chip. Both processors have active production status.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear choice for the Intel Core 7 350 in terms of measured performance. Its benchmark scores span multiple Cinebench and Passmark tests, with an average score of 17779 and a percentile rank of 71 among all CPUs. The Core 7 150UL has no recorded benchmarks, an average score of 0, and a percentile of 50, which appears to be a placeholder rather than a measured result. Any user prioritizing known performance should select the Core 7 350 based on the available evidence.

The Core 7 350’s nearest rivals confirm its competitive position. It trails the Intel Core 5 221TE by 0.5%, leads the AMD EPYC 9374F by 0.5%, trails the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT by 0.6%, and trails the Intel Core 5 120U by 0.7%. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, indicating that the Core 7 350 performs in the same class as these processors. The Core 7 150UL cannot be placed in this comparison because it has no scores.

Architecturally, the Core 7 350 uses a newer 3 nm process compared to the Core 7 150UL’s 10 nm node. The Core 7 350 also has larger per-core caches (192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2) versus the Core 7 150UL (80 KB L1, 1.25 MB L2), although the Core 7 150UL has more total L3 cache (12 MB versus 6 MB). The Core 7 350 supports newer memory types (DDR5, LPDDR5X) but only in single-channel, while the Core 7 150UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel. These trade-offs favor the Core 7 350 for per-core efficiency but favor the Core 7 150UL for memory bandwidth and expansion.

For system builders, the Core 7 150UL targets desktop users with Socket 1700, offering more PCIe lanes (8 versus 6) and dual-channel memory. The Core 7 350 targets mobile users with BGA 1516, offering a smaller process node and newer graphics. The recorded performance data only exists for the Core 7 350, so any decision between them should rely on the Core 7 350’s confirmed scores.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Cores: Core 7 150UL has 10 cores; Core 7 350 has 6 cores.
• Threads: Core 7 150UL has 12 threads; Core 7 350 has 6 threads.
• Base Clock: Core 7 150UL has 1.70 GHz; Core 7 350 has 1.50 GHz.
• Boost Clock: Core 7 150UL has 5.00 GHz; Core 7 350 has 4.80 GHz.
• Socket: Core 7 150UL uses Intel Socket 1700; Core 7 350 uses Intel BGA 1516.
• Architecture: Core 7 150UL uses Raptor Lake; Core 7 350 has no architecture listed.
• Codename: Core 7 150UL is Raptor Lake-PS; Core 7 350 is Wildcat Lake.
• Generation: Core 7 150UL is Core 7 (Raptor Lake-PS); Core 7 350 is Core 5 (Wildcat Lake).
• Process Node: Core 7 150UL is 10 nm; Core 7 350 is 3 nm.
• L1 Cache: Core 7 150UL has 80 KB per core; Core 7 350 has 192 KB per core.
• L2 Cache: Core 7 150UL has 1.25 MB per core; Core 7 350 has 2.5 MB per core.
• L3 Cache: Core 7 150UL has 12 MB shared; Core 7 350 has 6 MB shared.
• Memory Support: Core 7 150UL supports DDR4, DDR5; Core 7 350 supports DDR5, LPDDR5X.
• Memory Bus: Core 7 150UL is dual-channel; Core 7 350 is single-channel.
• Memory Bandwidth: Core 7 150UL has no recorded value; Core 7 350 has 59.7 GB/s.
• PCIe: Core 7 150UL has Gen 4, 8 lanes; Core 7 350 has Gen 4, 6 lanes.
• Integrated Graphics: Core 7 150UL has Iris Xe Graphics 96EU; Core 7 350 has Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe).
• Market Segment: Core 7 150UL is desktop; Core 7 350 is mobile.
• Release Date: Core 7 150UL is April 2024; Core 7 350 is April 2026.
• Launch MSRP: Core 7 150UL has none listed; Core 7 350 is $469.
• Part Number: Core 7 150UL is unknown; Core 7 350 is SAE3F.
• Benchmarks: Core 7 150UL has none; Core 7 350 has 17 recorded scores.
• Percentile: Core 7 150UL is 50; Core 7 350 is 71.
• Average Benchmark Score: Core 7 150UL is 0; Core 7 350 is 17779.

Fields that match include manufacturer (Intel), foundry (Intel), ECC memory support (false for both), multiplier unlocked (false for both), and production status (active for both).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 7 150UL has 10 cores, while the Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores.

Q: What is the highest recorded benchmark score for the Intel Core 7 350?

A: The highest single test score is 143123 in Passmark data compression.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 150UL have any benchmark results in the database?

A: No, the database lists no benchmarks for the Intel Core 7 150UL, and its average benchmark score is 0.

Q: How does the Intel Core 7 350 compare to its closest rival, the Intel Core 5 221TE?

A: The Core 7 350 has an average score of 17779, while the Core 5 221TE scores 17860, a delta of -0.5%, meaning the Core 7 350 trails by half a percent.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core 7 150UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel. The Intel Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in single-channel with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a smaller process node?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 uses a 3 nm process, while the Intel Core 7 150UL uses a 10 nm process.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 350 wins in every measured performance category. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 8030 and single-core score of 2046 establish a baseline for both parallel and sequential tasks. Passmark results show strengths in data compression (143123), floating-point math (42809), integer math (33734), and single-thread performance (4100). The Core 7 350 also wins in architectural efficiency, using a 3 nm process versus 10 nm, and in per-core cache sizes, with 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2 versus 80 KB and 1.25 MB. Its newer graphics solution, Intel Xe3 with 2 Xe cores, may offer advantages over Iris Xe Graphics 96EU, though no graphics benchmarks exist in the database.

The Intel Core 7 150UL wins on paper specifications that favor desktop expansion and memory bandwidth. It has more cores (10 versus 6), more threads (12 versus 6), a higher base clock (1.70 GHz versus 1.50 GHz), a higher boost clock (5.00 GHz versus 4.80 GHz), and more L3 cache (12 MB versus 6 MB). It supports dual-channel memory across DDR4 and DDR5, offering potentially higher memory bandwidth than the Core 7 350’s single-channel 59.7 GB/s. It also provides more PCIe lanes (8 versus 6) and uses the widely compatible Socket 1700 for desktop builds. However, none of these advantages translate into recorded benchmark scores, so the Core 7 150UL’s wins are purely specification-based.

For workload-specific use, the Core 7 350 suits tasks that benefit from its measured single-thread and multi-thread performance, such as data compression, encryption, and floating-point calculations, based on its Passmark scores. The Core 7 150UL suits scenarios where core count and thread count matter, such as highly parallel workloads, but the lack of data prevents confirmation. The Core 7 350’s mobile segment and BGA socket fit laptops and compact systems, while the Core 7 150UL’s desktop segment fits traditional tower and motherboard builds. The Core 7 350 has a recorded launch MSRP of $469, while the Core 7 150UL has no launch price in the database.