Intel Core 7 251E vs Intel Core 7 350 Comparison

Intel Core 7 251E vs Intel Core 7 350

The Intel Core 7 251E and Intel Core 7 350 serve entirely different market segments: the former is a desktop processor built for high-core-count throughput, while the latter is a low-power mobile chip optimized for efficiency. The database contains benchmark results for the Core 7 350 across Cinebench and Passmark suites, but no recorded scores for the Core 7 251E. Consequently, the analysis below relies on architectural specifications and the Core 7 350’s measured performance relative to its nearest rivals.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core 7 350 delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 8030 and a single-core score of 2046. In Cinebench R20, it reaches 5373 multi-core and 758 single-core. The R15 results show 1220 multi-core and 292 single-core. These scores place the Core 7 350 at the 71st percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 17779.

Passmark results for the Core 7 350 show a multi-thread score of 15170, a single-thread score of 4100, integer math at 33734, and floating-point math at 42809. Data compression scores 143123, data encryption 10933, extended instructions 12045, find prime numbers 107, physics 1173, and random string sorting 17238.

The Core 7 251E has no benchmark entries in the database, so its head-to-head performance cannot be quantified. The recorded data shows zero wins for either processor in direct comparisons, because no paired benchmark runs exist. For the Core 7 350, nearest rivals include the Intel Core 5 221TE with an average score of 17860, a delta of -0.5 percent; the AMD EPYC 9374F at 17693, a delta of 0.5 percent; the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT at 17891, a delta of -0.6 percent; and the Intel Core 5 120U at 17898, a delta of -0.7 percent. These small deltas indicate the Core 7 350 performs within a narrow band of comparable mid-range processors, sitting slightly below the Core 5 221TE, Ryzen 5 3600XT, and Core 5 120U, while marginally above the EPYC 9374F.

Architecture Differences

The Core 7 251E uses a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel, with a die size of 257 mm². It features 24 cores and 32 threads, a base clock of 2.10 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The processor supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, delivering 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. It also supports ECC memory, uses PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, and integrates UHD Graphics 770. The socket is Intel Socket 1700, and the thermal design power is 65 watts. The codename is Bartlett Lake, and the release date in the database is 2025-01-12.

The Core 7 350 uses a 3 nm process node, also fabricated by Intel. It has 6 cores and 6 threads, a base clock of 1.50 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. Its cache includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. Memory support covers DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus, with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is not supported. PCIe is Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The socket is Intel BGA 1516, and the thermal design power is 15 watts. The codename is Wildcat Lake, with a release date of 2026-04-15.

The architectural split is stark: the 251E offers four times the core count, over five times the thread count, six times the L3 cache, a higher boost clock, and nearly double the memory bandwidth. The 350 counters with a much smaller process node (3 nm versus 10 nm), higher per-core L1 and L2 cache, a single-channel memory bus for lower power, and a drastically lower TDP of 15 watts versus 65 watts. The 251E supports ECC and PCIe Gen 5; the 350 does not support ECC and uses PCIe Gen 4. These differences reflect distinct design goals: raw parallel throughput versus compact efficiency.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 7 251E wins in scenarios demanding high core counts and memory throughput. With 24 cores and 32 threads, it is suited for multi-threaded workloads such as video rendering, compilation, and scientific computing. The 36 MB of shared L3 cache and 89.6 GB/s dual-channel memory bandwidth support large datasets. Its 5.60 GHz boost clock provides strong single-thread bursts, and PCIe Gen 5 lanes allow fast connectivity to discrete accelerators or storage. The ECC memory support makes it viable for error-sensitive tasks. The 65 watt TDP, while higher than the 350, is still within desktop air-cooling limits.

The Core 7 350 wins in power-constrained mobile environments. Its 15 watt TDP and single-channel memory bus reduce energy consumption, making it suitable for thin laptops or fanless designs. The 3 nm process node contributes to efficiency, and the integrated Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores offers more modern iGPU capabilities than the UHD Graphics 770. The higher per-core L1 (192 KB) and L2 (2.5 MB) caches can benefit latency-sensitive single-threaded tasks, despite the lower overall core count. The single-core Cinebench R23 score of 2046 and Passmark single-thread score of 4100 indicate competitive per-core performance, which helps in everyday responsiveness and lightly threaded applications.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: What is the thermal design power for each CPU?

A: The Core 7 251E has a TDP of 65 watts, and the Core 7 350 has a TDP of 15 watts.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: The Core 7 251E supports ECC memory, but the Core 7 350 does not.

Q: What integrated graphics do they use?

A: The Core 7 251E uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Core 7 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores.

Q: How does the Core 7 350 compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The Core 7 350 has an average benchmark score of 17779, which is 0.5 percent below the Intel Core 5 221TE, 0.5 percent above the AMD EPYC 9374F, 0.6 percent below the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT, and 0.7 percent below the Intel Core 5 120U.

Q: What memory types are supported by each processor?

A: The Core 7 251E supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, while the Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus.

The Verdict

The data presents two processors with no overlapping use cases. The Intel Core 7 251E, with 24 cores, 32 threads, 36 MB of L3 cache, dual-channel memory, and PCIe Gen 5, is positioned for desktop workloads that scale across many threads. Its 65 watt TDP and Intel Socket 1700 form factor target traditional towers. The Core 7 350, with 6 cores, 6 threads, 6 MB of L3, single-channel memory, and PCIe Gen 4, is designed for mobile systems where 15 watts of power and a BGA 1516 socket are the constraints. The 350’s benchmark scores place it in the 71st percentile, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 8030 and a Passmark multi-thread score of 15170, which is respectable for its low-power class. The 251E lacks recorded benchmarks, so its performance percentile cannot be stated from the database. Based on architecture alone, the 251E should outperform the 350 in multi-threaded tasks due to its quadruple core count and larger cache, while the 350 should win on efficiency and integrated graphics modernity. Buyers requiring high-throughput desktop computing should select the 251E; buyers prioritizing low power consumption and portability should select the 350. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a factor in the decision.