Intel Core 7 160HL vs Intel Core 7 350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for this comparison is one-sided: only the Intel Core 7 350 has benchmark scores in the database, while the Intel Core 7 160HL has no recorded benchmark results at all. Consequently, every measured score in this section belongs to the Core 7 350, and the analysis of relative performance relies on the Core 7 350's nearest rivals rather than a direct test against the 160HL.

The Core 7 350 posts a respectable average benchmark score of 17779. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core 5 221TE, scores 17860, which puts the Core 7 350 0.5% behind that chip. Meanwhile, the AMD EPYC 9374F scores 17693, and the Core 7 350 leads it by 0.5%. The AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT scores 17891, making the Core 7 350 0.6% slower, and the Intel Core 5 120U scores 17898, a 0.7% gap in favor of that rival. These are marginal deltas, all within a single percentage point, indicating that the Core 7 350 sits in a tightly contested performance band.

In single-threaded workloads, the Core 7 350 delivers a PassMark single-thread score of 4100. Its Cinebench R23 single-core result is 2046, the R20 single-core score is 758, and the R15 single-core result is 292. For multi-threaded tasks, the chip records a PassMark multithread score of 15170, with Cinebench R23 multi-core at 8030, R20 multi-core at 5373, and R15 multi-core at 1220. The gap between its single-core and multi-core Cinebench R23 scores is roughly a 3.9x multiplier, which reflects the modest thread scaling of a 6-core, 6-thread design.

Specialized workloads show distinct strengths. The PassMark data compression test returns 143123, a strong absolute number, while data encryption scores 10933. Extended instructions hit 12045, floating point math reaches 42809, and integer math scores 33734. The find prime numbers test is notably low at 107, and random string sorting produces 17238. Physics simulation scores 1173. The database places the Core 7 350 at the 71st percentile among all CPUs, a solid position for a mobile processor.

Because the Core 7 160HL has no benchmark entries, there are no direct wins to assign to either processor. The head-to-head comparison is therefore defined by the absence of data for one side, not by a set of measured victories. The wins counter shows 0 for both parts.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different manufacturing nodes and design families. The Intel Core 7 160HL uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS codename, built on Intel's 10 nm process. The Intel Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, built on a 3 nm process, also by Intel as the foundry. The process node difference is substantial: 10 nm versus 3 nm, which typically implies significant differences in transistor density and power efficiency, though the database does not provide transistor counts or die sizes for either chip.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads. That means the 160HL offers more than double the core count and more than triple the thread count, which generally favors heavily parallel workloads. The 350 has no hyper-threading, as evidenced by its equal core and thread counts.

Cache organization differs as well. The 160HL provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The 350 provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and only 6 MB of shared L3. The 350 has larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations, but its total L3 is a quarter of the 160HL's capacity. The larger per-core caches on the 350 may help single-threaded latency, while the 160HL's larger shared L3 benefits multi-core data sharing.

Clock speeds also differ. The 160HL has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The 350 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The 160HL runs higher at both ends, with a 1.0 GHz base advantage and a 0.4 GHz boost advantage. Power envelopes are distinctly different: the 160HL has a 45 W TDP, while the 350 has a 15 W TDP, a threefold difference that aligns with their market segments.

Memory support and bus width separate the two further. The 160HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but only in a single-channel configuration, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The 160HL has no recorded memory bandwidth figure in the database. PCIe connectivity also differs: the 160HL provides Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes, while the 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes.

The integrated graphics are different generations. The 160HL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The database does not include benchmark scores for either GPU, so a direct graphics performance comparison is not possible from the recorded data.

Packaging and sockets reflect their intended platforms. The 160HL uses Intel Socket 1700 and is classified as a desktop part. The 350 uses Intel BGA 1516 and is classified as mobile. The 160HL's release date is April 7, 2024, while the 350's release date is April 15, 2026. Both parts are listed as active in production. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 160HL wins on raw core and thread resources. Its 14 cores and 20 threads, combined with a 24 MB shared L3 cache and a 5.20 GHz boost clock, position it strongly for multi-threaded desktop workloads such as rendering, compilation, and content creation. The 45 W TDP indicates a higher power budget, which supports sustained multi-core performance. Its dual-channel memory support and 8 PCIe Gen 4 lanes also suggest a design aimed at a broader desktop platform.

The Intel Core 7 350 wins on efficiency and per-core cache. Its 3 nm process node, 15 W TDP, and mobile socket point to low-power designs where thermal and battery constraints matter. The larger per-core L1 (192 KB versus 80 KB) and L2 (2.5 MB versus 2 MB) caches may reduce memory latency for single-threaded tasks. Its 6 MB shared L3 is small, but the chip's single-channel memory with a recorded 59.7 GB/s bandwidth suits lightweight mobile workloads. The 350 also supports LPDDR5X, a memory type not listed for the 160HL, which is typical for mobile platforms.

The benchmark data only covers the 350, so its wins in measured performance are clear: the 71st percentile ranking and an average score of 17779 place it competitively against the Intel Core 5 221TE, AMD EPYC 9374F, AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT, and Intel Core 5 120U, all within 0.7% of its score. Those results confirm that a 6-core mobile chip can hold its own against older desktop and server parts in the database's aggregate scoring.

The 160HL has no recorded benchmark scores, so its wins are structural rather than measured. The data cannot confirm that the 160HL outperforms the 350 in any specific test, despite its superior core count and clock speeds. The recorded data supports the 350's measured competitiveness, while the 160HL's advantages remain theoretical until benchmark entries are added.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: What are the benchmark scores for the Intel Core 7 350?

A: The Core 7 350 has an average benchmark score of 17779 and ranks at the 71st percentile. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 8030 and single-core is 2046. PassMark multithread is 15170 and single-thread is 4100.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 160HL have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The database lists no benchmark entries for the Intel Core 7 160HL, so its average score is 0 and its percentile is 50.

Q: How does the Intel Core 7 350 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It is 0.5% behind the Intel Core 5 221TE, 0.5% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9374F, 0.6% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT, and 0.7% behind the Intel Core 5 120U.

Q: What memory types do the two processors support?

A: The Intel Core 7 160HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The Intel Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in a single-channel configuration, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

Q: What are the process nodes for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 7 160HL is built on a 10 nm process. The Intel Core 7 350 is built on a 3 nm process.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Intel Core 7 350?

A: The launch MSRP is $469. The Intel Core 7 160HL has no listed launch MSRP.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 160HL | Intel Core 7 350 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 14 | 6 |

| Threads | 20 | 6 |

| Base clock | 2.50 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.20 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 15 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-PS | Wildcat Lake |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 2 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 24 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | Not recorded | 59.7 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 8 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 6 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 96EU | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release date | 2024-04-07 | 2026-04-15 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $469 |

| Part number | unknown | SAE3F |

The two processors share the same manufacturer, Intel, and neither supports ECC memory nor has an unlocked multiplier. Both are listed as active in production. The 160HL's generation is listed as Core 7 (Raptor Lake-PS), while the 350's generation is listed as Core 5 (Wildcat Lake), despite its Core 7 branding. The 350 uses a 3 nm process, while the 160HL uses 10 nm. The 350 has a higher per-core L1 and L2 cache allocation, but the 160HL has a much larger shared L3 cache and a higher boost clock.