Intel Core 7 240H vs Intel Core 7 350 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data splits these two mobile processors into distinct roles. The Intel Core 7 240H wins 12 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, while the Intel Core 7 350 takes 5. The 240H is the multi-threaded workhorse, delivering massive leads in Cinebench multi-core tests and PassMark integer math. The 350 is the efficiency-oriented single-thread specialist, winning every single-core race by a meaningful margin.

For workloads that scale across cores, the 240H is the clear choice. Its 10 cores and 16 threads overwhelm the 350's 6 cores and 6 threads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 240H scores 15764 against 8030, a 96.3% advantage. The 240H also holds the higher percentile ranking, sitting at 82 versus 71 for the 350. The 350 counters with a 16% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core (2046 versus 1719) and a 7.8% win in PassMark single-thread (4100 versus 3782). Users prioritizing snappy single-threaded response over parallel throughput would favor the 350.

The 240H targets heavier mobile workloads: content creation, compilation, simulation. The 350 targets ultra-portable, low-power designs where the 15W TDP and single-channel memory are acceptable trade-offs for battery life and lighter thermals. The data does not support the 350 as a general-purpose replacement for the 240H in multi-threaded tasks, but it does show a genuine single-core advantage that could matter for specific interactive or lightly threaded applications.

Where Each One Wins

The 240H dominates in every multi-core and throughput-oriented test. PassMark integer math shows its largest margin: 80396 versus 33734, a 138.3% lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core follows at 96.3% (15764 versus 8030), and Cinebench R15 multi-core is close behind at 93.4% (2360 versus 1220). Data compression also favors the 240H heavily, 271774 versus 143123, a 89.9% gap. The 240H wins PassMark multithread (23975 versus 15170, up 58%), random string sorting (28866 versus 17238, up 67.5%), physics (1723 versus 1173, up 46.9%), floating-point math (58905 versus 42809, up 37.6%), extended instructions (16897 versus 12045, up 40.3%), and data encryption (15155 versus 10933, up 38.6%). Cinebench R20 multi-core gives the 240H a 59.4% win (8562 versus 5373), and its single-core R20 score also wins at 1208 versus 758, the same 59.4% delta.

The 350 wins the remaining single-thread tests. Cinebench R15 single-core: 292 versus 249, a 14.7% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core: 2046 versus 1719, a 16% advantage. PassMark single-thread and singlethread (both recorded at 4100 versus 3782) show a 7.8% edge. The 350 also edges out the 240H in PassMark find prime numbers, 107 versus 102, a 4.7% lead. These wins are consistent: the 350's newer architecture and higher per-core efficiency deliver better single-thread performance despite far lower power limits.

The pattern is unambiguous. The 240H wins where thread count and sustained multi-core throughput matter. The 350 wins where a single thread dominates and power draw is constrained.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design families. The 240H is built on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-H codename, and belongs to the Core 7 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. The 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, listed under Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. The 240H uses a 10 nm process node, while the 350 uses a 3 nm node. Both are fabricated by Intel.

Core and thread counts differ sharply. The 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads, implying hyper-threading on some cores. The 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no thread doubling. Base clocks reflect different design targets: 2.50 GHz for the 240H versus 1.50 GHz for the 350. Boost clocks run 5.20 GHz on the 240H and 4.80 GHz on the 350. The 240H carries a 45W TDP; the 350 carries a 15W TDP.

Cache hierarchies are structurally different. The 240H has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The 350 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and only 6 MB of shared L3. The 350's larger per-core L1 and L2 may contribute to its single-thread advantage, while the 240H's much larger L3 pool serves its many-core workloads.

Memory support diverges as well. The 240H 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. PCIe connectivity differs: the 240H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). Neither supports ECC memory.

Integrated graphics differ. The 240H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 64 execution units. The 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. Sockets are incompatible: the 240H uses Intel BGA 1744, the 350 uses Intel BGA 1516. The 240H launched in December 2024 with a launch MSRP of $502. The 350 launched in April 2026 with a launch MSRP of $469. Both parts are currently Active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The 240H's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 (average score 31473, 0% delta), AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX (31495, 0%), Intel Core Ultra 5 225H (31508, -0.1%), and Intel Core i5-13500 (31510, -0.1%). The 350's nearest rivals include the Intel Core 5 221TE (17860, -0.5%), AMD EPYC 9374F (17693, 0.5%), AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (17891, -0.6%), and Intel Core 5 120U (17898, -0.7%). These groupings reinforce the performance tier gap between the two chips: the 240H averages 31483 across its benchmark suite, the 350 averages 17779.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: Does the newer 3 nm process give the Core 7 350 a performance advantage?

A: Yes, but only in single-threaded tests. The 350 wins Cinebench R15 single-core (292 versus 249, up 14.7%), Cinebench R23 single-core (2046 versus 1719, up 16%), and PassMark single-thread (4100 versus 3782, up 7.8%). In multi-threaded tests, the 240H wins by large margins.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The 240H has a 45W TDP. The 350 has a 15W TDP. The 350's lower TDP aligns with its single-channel memory bus and smaller L3 cache.

Q: Which chip supports faster PCIe?

A: The 240H supports PCIe Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The 350 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only).

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The 240H has an average benchmark score of 31483 and sits at the 82nd percentile of all CPUs. The 350 has an average benchmark score of 17779 and sits at the 71st percentile.

Q: Do they use the same memory types?

A: No. The 240H supports DDR4 and DDR5 over dual-channel. The 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over single-channel, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the 240H comes in PassMark integer math, where its 80396 score beats the 350's 33734 by 138.3%. This workload stresses parallel integer execution across many cores, and the 240H's 16 threads provide more than double the throughput. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 96.3% lead (15764 versus 8030), and Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 93.4% (2360 versus 1220). PassMark data compression also favors the 240H, 271774 versus 143123, a 89.9% gap. These four tests illustrate the core-count-driven advantage most clearly.

The 240H continues its sweep in Cinebench R20 multi-core with 8562 versus 5373, a 59.4% margin. PassMark random string sorting gives the 240H a 67.5% win (28866 versus 17238). PassMark multithread shows 23975 versus 15170, up 58%. PassMark physics delivers 1723 versus 1173, a 46.9% advantage. Extended instructions run 16897 versus 12045, up 40.3%. Data encryption lands at 15155 versus 10933, up 38.6%. Floating-point math closes the 240H's multi-core set at 58905 versus 42809, a 37.6% lead. Even Cinebench R20 single-core goes to the 240H, 1208 versus 758, a 59.4% margin that stands out because the 350 wins every other single-core test.

The 350's wins are concentrated in single-thread workloads. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the largest gap: 2046 versus 1719, a 16% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core follows at 292 versus 249, up 14.7%. PassMark single-thread and singlethread both record 4100 versus 3782, a 7.8% edge. PassMark find prime numbers gives the 350 a narrow 107 versus 102 win, up 4.7%. These results indicate that the 350's per-core efficiency, aided by the 3 nm node and larger per-core caches, translates into measurable single-thread superiority despite its much lower TDP and clock speed.

The overall head-to-head tally is 12 wins for the 240H and 5 for the 350. The 240H's average benchmark score of 31483 places it far above the 350's 17779, and its 82nd percentile ranking versus the 350's 71st confirms the tier separation. The 350's nearest rivals in the database, such as the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT and Intel Core 5 120U, sit in a lower performance band than the 240H's nearest rivals, which include the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H and Intel Core i5-13500. The architecture split is clear: the 240H leverages Raptor Lake's many-core design for throughput, while the 350 leverages Wildcat Lake's efficient single-core design for low-power responsiveness.