Intel Core 7 250H vs Intel Core 7 350 Comparison
Intel Core 7 250H
Core 7 350
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 7 250H vs Intel Core 7 350
The Intel Core 7 250H and Intel Core 7 350 represent two very different approaches to mobile processing from the same manufacturer. The 250H is a high-power, multi-core part built on a mature process, while the 350 is a low-power, efficiency-focused design on a newer node. Benchmark data from the database shows a clear split: the 250H dominates in multi-threaded workloads, while the 350 manages to claim a narrow victory in a couple of single-threaded tests. This comparison relies exclusively on recorded measurements and specification fields.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?
A: The Intel Core 7 250H has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads.
Q: What is the difference in their boost clock speeds?
A: The Intel Core 7 250H boosts to 5.40 GHz, while the Intel Core 7 350 boosts to 4.80 GHz. Their base clocks are 2.50 GHz and 1.50 GHz, respectively.
Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?
A: The Intel Core 7 250H has an average benchmark score of 35728, placing it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 7 350 has an average score of 17779, placing it in the 71st percentile.
Q: Which chip has a larger L3 cache?
A: The Intel Core 7 250H features 24 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core 7 350 features 6 MB of shared L3 cache.
Q: What are the process nodes for these two processors?
A: The Intel Core 7 250H uses a 10 nm process, while the Intel Core 7 350 uses a 3 nm process.
Q: What is the memory bus configuration on each?
A: The Intel Core 7 250H supports dual-channel memory, while the Intel Core 7 350 uses a single-channel bus.
Architecture Differences
The two processors diverge sharply in their underlying design. The Intel Core 7 250H is based on the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-H codename, and belongs to the Core 7 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. It is built on Intel's 10 nm process node. In contrast, the Intel Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, part of the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation, and is fabricated on a 3 nm process node.
Core configuration highlights the performance versus efficiency split. The 250H packs 14 cores and 20 threads, a configuration designed for heavy parallel workloads. The 350 uses only 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyper-threading, indicating a focus on lower power consumption and simpler scheduling. The 250H also has a significantly higher thermal design power at 45 watts, compared to 15 watts for the 350.
Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The 250H allocates 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, with a shared 24 MB L3 pool. The 350 allocates 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but its shared L3 cache is just 6 MB. While the 350 has larger per-core caches, the 250H provides far more total cache capacity for multi-threaded workloads.
Memory support also separates the two. The 250H supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus. The 350 supports only DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the 250H offers Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the 350 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only).
Integrated graphics are distinct. The 250H carries Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the 350 carries Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The 250H uses the Intel BGA 1744 socket, and the 350 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket. Both processors have locked multipliers and are marked as Active in production status.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The recorded head-to-head data shows a decisive advantage for the Intel Core 7 250H in most tests, but the Intel Core 7 350 claims two specific wins. Out of 17 benchmark comparisons, the 250H wins 15, while the 350 wins 2.
The largest victory for the 250H comes in PassMark integer math, where it scores 99100 against 33734 for the 350, a delta of 193.8%. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a similar gap: the 250H scores 3147 versus 1220, a 158% lead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 250H delivers 16561 points compared to 8030 for the 350, a 106.2% advantage. PassMark data compression also favors the 250H heavily, with a score of 303269 versus 143123, a 111.9% delta.
Other multi-threaded workloads confirm the pattern. PassMark multithread shows the 250H at 27030 versus 15170, a 78.2% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core gives the 250H a 80.5% advantage, scoring 9697 against 5373. PassMark random string sorting has the 250H ahead by 98%, with scores of 34136 and 17238. PassMark floating point math shows a 52.1% lead for the 250H, scoring 65094 versus 42809.
The 250H also wins in several other categories. PassMark extended instructions show a 43.8% lead, with scores of 17318 and 12045. PassMark physics has the 250H at 1824 versus 1173, a 55.5% delta. PassMark data encryption favors the 250H by 66.5%, scoring 18206 against 10933. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a surprising 80.5% lead for the 250H, with scores of 1368 and 758.
The Intel Core 7 350 claims its wins in single-threaded tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2046 against 1931 for the 250H, a delta of -5.6%. In PassMark find prime numbers, the 350 scores 107 versus 106, a very narrow 0.9% edge. In PassMark single-thread and single-thread (recorded as identical tests), the 250H wins by 1.2%, scoring 4148 against 4100. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the 250H wins by 2.1%, scoring 298 versus 292.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The Intel Core 7 250H has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clocks are 2.50 GHz for the 250H and 1.50 GHz for the 350. Boost clocks are 5.40 GHz and 4.80 GHz, respectively.
Thermal design power is a major differentiator: the 250H is rated at 45 watts, the 350 at 15 watts. The 250H uses the Intel BGA 1744 socket, while the 350 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket. Process nodes are 10 nm for the 250H and 3 nm for the 350.
Cache specifications show a clear divergence. The 250H 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 6 MB of shared L3. Memory support differs: the 250H supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The 250H uses a dual-channel memory bus, while the 350 uses a single-channel bus; the 350 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, while no such figure is recorded for the 250H.
PCIe configuration also differs. The 250H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are different: the 250H uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU, and the 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe). Release dates are 2024-12-17 for the 250H and 2026-04-15 for the 350. The launch MSRP for the 250H is $502, and for the 350 it is $469. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.
The average benchmark score for the 250H is 35728, placing it in the 85th percentile. The 350 has an average score of 17779, placing it in the 71st percentile. The 250H has a part number of SRQ6UQ5MK, while the 350 has a part number of SAE3F.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Core 7 250H is the clear choice for multi-threaded and throughput-intensive tasks. Its 14-core, 20-thread configuration, combined with 24 MB of L3 cache and a 45-watt TDP, delivers dominant performance in rendering, compression, and mathematical workloads. The benchmark data shows leads of over 100% in Cinebench R15 and R23 multi-core tests, and a 193.8% advantage in PassMark integer math. For users running parallel workloads such as video encoding, 3D rendering, or data processing, the 250H is the stronger part by a wide margin.
The Intel Core 7 350 wins in two narrow single-threaded scenarios. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2046 versus 1931, a 5.6% advantage. In PassMark find prime numbers, it scores 107 versus 106, a 0.9% edge. These wins suggest a slight efficiency advantage in lightly threaded, latency-sensitive tasks where the newer 3 nm process and higher per-core L1 and L2 caches (192 KB and 2.5 MB per core, respectively) can help. The 350 also has a much lower TDP of 15 watts, which points to suitability for fanless or ultra-portable designs where thermal constraints are paramount.
The 250H also holds a narrow lead in PassMark single-thread, scoring 4148 versus 4100, a 1.2% delta, and in Cinebench R15 single-core, scoring 298 versus 292, a 2.1% delta. The 350's single-thread win in Cinebench R23 is its most significant benchmark achievement, but it does not offset the 250H's overwhelming multi-core dominance. The data indicates that for general-purpose computing with occasional single-threaded bursts, the 250H remains the more capable processor overall, while the 350 offers a specific advantage in power-constrained, single-threaded workloads.