Intel Core 7 160UL vs Intel Core 7 350 Comparison

Intel Core 7 160UL and Intel Core 7 350 are two active Intel processors that target different segments. The 160UL is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700, while the 350 is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 1516. The recorded benchmark data shows 15 wins for the Core 7 350 and 2 wins for the Core 7 160UL across the head-to-head suite. The average benchmark score for the 160UL is 14232, placing it in the 69th percentile of all CPUs. The 350 posts an average score of 17779, which puts it in the 71st percentile. The 350’s nearest rival is the Intel Core 5 221TE with a delta of -0.5 percent, meaning the 350 trails that chip by half a percent. The 160UL’s closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C, where the Intel chip is 0.3 percent behind.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 7 350 dominates most compute-heavy workloads. It wins in Cinebench R15 multicore, R15 singlecore, R20 multicore, R20 singlecore, and R23 singlecore. It also wins in PassMark data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, find prime numbers, floating point math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread tests. That is a broad sweep across rendering, encryption, sorting, and physics simulations.

The Core 7 160UL wins in exactly two benchmarks: Cinebench R23 multicore and PassMark integer math. In R23 multicore, the 160UL scores 9386 against the 350’s 8030, a 16.9 percent advantage. In PassMark integer math, the 160UL scores 47515 versus 33734, a 40.9 percent lead. These two wins point to workloads that scale with core count and with integer arithmetic throughput. The 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The 160UL also carries a larger L3 cache of 12 MB shared, compared to 6 MB on the 350.

The 350 wins in all other recorded tests, but the margins vary. The largest single-core gap appears in Cinebench R15 singlecore, where the 350 scores 292 and the 160UL scores 133, a 54.5 percent difference. The smallest win for the 350 is in PassMark single-thread, where it scores 4100 versus 3391, a 17.3 percent edge. The 350 also wins PassMark multithread with 15170 versus 11043, a 27.2 percent margin, despite having fewer cores and no multithreading. That result indicates that the 350’s architecture delivers much higher per-core throughput.

For workloads like Cinebench R23 multicore, where sustained multi-core rendering is the main stressor, the 160UL’s combination of 10 cores, 12 threads, and 12 MB L3 cache provides a measurable benefit. For nearly every other measured task, including single-core rendering, encryption, compression, and floating-point math, the 350 is clearly faster.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design families. The Core 7 160UL is built on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS codename. It uses the Intel 10 nm process node. The Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is manufactured on a 3 nm process node. Both are produced by Intel, but the process difference is significant. The 350’s smaller node allows for higher transistor density and better power efficiency per clock.

The 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. The 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The 160UL supports simultaneous multithreading, while the 350 does not. The 160UL’s base clock is 1.80 GHz and its boost clock reaches 5.20 GHz. The 350’s base clock is 1.50 GHz with a boost of 4.80 GHz. Despite the lower boost frequency, the 350 outscores the 160UL in most benchmarks, which suggests the architectural efficiency of Wildcat Lake outweighs the raw clock difference.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The 160UL has an L1 cache of 80 KB per core, L2 of 1.25 MB per core, and L3 of 12 MB shared. The 350 has L1 of 192 KB per core, L2 of 2.5 MB per core, and L3 of 6 MB shared. The 350’s larger per-core L1 and L2 caches likely contribute to its strong single-thread performance. The 160UL’s larger shared L3 cache helps in multi-threaded workloads that share data across cores.

Memory support also differs. The 160UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel memory bus. The 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The 160UL has no memory bandwidth figure in the database. PCIe connectivity shows the 160UL with Gen 4 and 8 lanes (CPU only), while the 350 has Gen 4 and 6 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ as well. The 160UL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores.

The market segments are opposite. The 160UL is a desktop processor, while the 350 is a mobile processor. The sockets reflect that: Intel Socket 1700 for the 160UL and Intel BGA 1516 for the 350. The 350 has a launch MSRP of $469. The 160UL has no MSRP recorded. The 350’s release date is 2026-04-15, while the 160UL was released on 2024-04-07.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest delta in the head-to-head results belongs to Cinebench R15 singlecore. The 350 scores 292, the 160UL scores 133, and the delta is -54.5 percent from the perspective of the 160UL. That is a massive single-core performance gap, consistent with the 350’s newer process node and larger per-core caches.

Cinebench R23 singlecore shows a similar pattern. The 350 scores 2046, the 160UL scores 1325, and the delta is -35.2 percent. In Cinebench R20 singlecore, the 350 scores 758 and the 160UL scores 556, a -26.6 percent delta. These results confirm that the 350’s single-core advantage persists across different Cinebench versions.

In multicore tests, the picture is mixed. Cinebench R15 multicore has the 350 at 1220 and the 160UL at 946, a -22.5 percent delta. Cinebench R20 multicore has the 350 at 5373 and the 160UL at 3942, a -26.6 percent delta. But Cinebench R23 multicore flips. The 160UL scores 9386 and the 350 scores 8030, giving the 160UL a 16.9 percent win. The inconsistency between R20 and R23 multicore results reflects different scaling behavior under longer rendering loads. The 160UL’s 12 threads and 12 MB L3 cache likely help in the extended R23 workload.

PassMark results heavily favor the 350. In extended instructions, the 350 scores 12045 and the 160UL scores 5832, a -51.6 percent delta. Find prime numbers shows the 350 at 107 and the 160UL at 50, a -53.3 percent delta. Floating point math has the 350 at 42809 and the 160UL at 25670, a -40 percent delta. Data encryption shows the 350 at 10933 and the 160UL at 7146, a -34.6 percent delta. Data compression has the 350 at 143123 and the 160UL at 108953, a -23.9 percent delta.

The 160UL’s only other win is PassMark integer math. The 160UL scores 47515 and the 350 scores 33734, a 40.9 percent advantage. This is a large margin. Integer math workloads often respond to core count and wider integer execution resources. The 160UL’s 10 cores and 12 threads appear to give it a clear edge in this specific test.

PassMark multithread goes to the 350: 15170 versus 11043, a -27.2 percent delta. PassMark physics also goes to the 350: 1173 versus 819, a -30.2 percent delta. Random string sorting has the 350 at 17238 and the 160UL at 11843, a -31.3 percent delta. Single-thread tests show the 350 at 4100 and the 160UL at 3391, a -17.3 percent delta.

The overall head-to-head record stands at 15 wins for the 350 and 2 wins for the 160UL. The 350’s wins span both single-core and multi-core PassMark tests, while the 160UL’s wins are confined to R23 multicore and integer math.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

The Intel Core 7 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The 160UL also supports multithreading, while the 350 does not.

Q: Why does the Core 7 350 win most benchmarks despite having fewer cores?

The 350 is built on a 3 nm process node with the Wildcat Lake architecture. It has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches: 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2 per core, compared to 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 on the 160UL. These architectural advantages lead to higher per-core performance, which shows in the benchmark scores.

Q: In which benchmarks does the Core 7 160UL outperform the Core 7 350?

The 160UL wins in Cinebench R23 multicore with a score of 9386 versus 8030, and in PassMark integer math with 47515 versus 33734. These are the only two wins out of 17 head-to-head tests.

Q: What is the difference in memory support?

The 160UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus. The 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The 160UL has no memory bandwidth figure in the database.

Q: What are the process nodes for these two processors?

The 160UL uses the Intel 10 nm process node. The 350 uses a 3 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Q: What is the difference in integrated graphics?

The 160UL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several core specifications. The 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The 160UL’s base clock is 1.80 GHz and its boost clock is 5.20 GHz. The 350’s base clock is 1.50 GHz and its boost clock is 4.80 GHz. Both have a TDP of 15.

The socket is a key difference. The 160UL uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop platform. The 350 uses Intel BGA 1516, a mobile platform. The 160UL is based on Raptor Lake with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, while the 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename. The process node differs: 10 nm for the 160UL and 3 nm for the 350.

Cache configurations are not equal. The 160UL has L1 of 80 KB per core, L2 of 1.25 MB per core, and L3 of 12 MB shared. The 350 has L1 of 192 KB per core, L2 of 2.5 MB per core, and L3 of 6 MB shared.

Memory support differs. The 160UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus. The 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. PCIe lanes also differ: Gen 4 with 8 lanes for the 160UL, Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the 350.

Integrated graphics differ. The 160UL has Iris Xe Graphics with 96EU. The 350 has Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The market segment is desktop for the 160UL and mobile for the 350. The release dates are 2024-04-07 for the 160UL and 2026-04-15 for the 350. The 350 has a launch MSRP of $469; the 160UL has no recorded MSRP. The 350 has a part number of SAE3F, while the 160UL’s part number is unknown. Both processors have locked multipliers. Both lack ECC memory support.