Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core i9-14900HX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a complete sweep for the Intel Core i9-14900HX, which wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core 7 350. The most decisive margin appears in PassMark integer math, where the i9-14900HX scores 157,375 against 33,734, a delta of -78.6%. This is the largest performance gap recorded across the entire benchmark suite.

Multi-core workloads show consistently massive advantages for the i9-14900HX. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i9-14900HX delivers 30,055 points versus 8,030 for the Core 7 350, a -73.3% difference. Cinebench R20 multi-core follows the same pattern: 15,616 against 5,373, a -65.6% delta. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows 4,574 versus 1,220, again -73.3%. These three tests confirm that heavily threaded rendering tasks favor the i9-14900HX by roughly three to four times.

Data compression work amplifies the gap further. PassMark data compression scores 539,965 for the i9-14900HX versus 143,123 for the Core 7 350, a -73.5% delta. Random string sorting shows 60,861 against 17,238, a -71.7% difference. Encryption workloads also lean heavily toward the i9-14900HX: 32,619 versus 10,933, a -66.5% delta. Extended instruction throughput reaches 31,247 on the i9-14900HX compared to 12,045, a -61.5% margin.

The single-core picture narrows considerably. Cinebench R23 single-core gives the i9-14900HX 2,181.5 points against 2,046 for the Core 7 350, a modest -6.2% delta. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 310.5 versus 292, a -6% gap. PassMark single-thread performance is nearly identical: 4,175 versus 4,100, a -1.8% delta. These results indicate that per-thread performance is close, and the Core 7 350's Wildcat Lake architecture competes effectively in lightly threaded scenarios despite losing decisively elsewhere.

PassMark physics shows 2,638 for the i9-14900HX versus 1,173, a -55.5% delta. Floating point math scores 112,273 against 42,809, a -61.9% difference. Prime number finding, the smallest absolute gap in the suite, records 193 versus 107, a -44.6% delta. The i9-14900HX also leads in multithread overall, 43,778 against 15,170, a -65.3% margin.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core i9-14900HX in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The i9-14900HX scores 30,055 versus 8,030 for the Core 7 350, a -73.3% delta, meaning it is roughly 3.7 times faster in this workload.

Q: Is the Core 7 350 competitive in single-threaded tasks?

A: Close, but not ahead. The i9-14900HX leads by -1.8% in PassMark single-thread, -6% in Cinebench R15 single-core, and -6.2% in Cinebench R23 single-core. The core architectures are within a few percentage points per thread.

Q: What is the largest benchmark gap between the two processors?

A: PassMark integer math shows the biggest difference: 157,375 for the i9-14900HX versus 33,734 for the Core 7 350, a -78.6% delta.

Q: Which processor has better data compression performance?

A: The i9-14900HX scores 539,965 in PassMark data compression, compared to 143,123 for the Core 7 350, a -73.5% difference.

Q: How do the two compare in the overall database percentile ranking?

A: The i9-14900HX sits at the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 350 sits at the 71st percentile. The average benchmark score is 56,004 for the i9-14900HX and 17,779 for the Core 7 350.

Q: Does the Core 7 350 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The recorded data shows zero wins for the Core 7 350 across all 17 head-to-head tests.

Where Each One Wins

The i9-14900HX wins every measured category, but the scale of its advantage depends on the workload type. For heavily parallel tasks such as Cinebench multi-core rendering, data compression, encryption, and integer math, the i9-14900HX leads by margins between -61.5% and -78.6%. These workloads exploit its 24 cores and 32 threads, and the results reflect a processor designed for sustained high-throughput mobile workstations.

The Core 7 350's relative strength appears in single-threaded tests, where the gap narrows to single digits. PassMark single-thread shows only -1.8%, and Cinebench R15 single-core shows -6%. This indicates that the Core 7 350's Wildcat Lake architecture, built on a smaller process node, delivers per-core performance close to the larger i9-14900HX. In a light single-threaded task, the user experience difference would be minor.

Prime number finding shows the smallest relative multi-core gap at -44.6%, suggesting that this workload scales less with core count and more with per-core efficiency. Still, the i9-14900HX wins. The Core 7 350 does not establish a winning use case in the data, but its single-thread parity and lower core count position it for efficiency-oriented mobile designs rather than maximum compute throughput.

Specification Differences

The core counts differ substantially. The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the i9-14900HX has 24 cores and 32 threads. Base clock speeds are 1.50 GHz for the Core 7 350 and 2.20 GHz for the i9-14900HX. Boost clocks reach 4.80 GHz on the Core 7 350 and 5.80 GHz on the i9-14900HX.

Thermal design power shows a wide spread: 15 watts for the Core 7 350 versus 55 watts for the i9-14900HX. The sockets differ as well, with the Core 7 350 using Intel BGA 1516 and the i9-14900HX using Intel BGA 1964. Cache configurations diverge: the Core 7 350 has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3, while the i9-14900HX has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3.

Memory support differs in type and channel configuration. The Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The i9-14900HX supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, with no bandwidth figure recorded. ECC memory is not supported on the Core 7 350 but is supported on the i9-14900HX.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 7 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the i9-14900HX provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores on the Core 7 350, versus UHD Graphics 770 on the i9-14900HX. The multiplier is locked on the Core 7 350 and unlocked on the i9-14900HX. The Core 7 350 has a launch MSRP of $469; no launch MSRP is recorded for the i9-14900HX. Release dates are 2026-04-15 for the Core 7 350 and 2024-01-07 for the i9-14900HX.

Architecture Differences

The Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is built on a 3 nm process node at Intel. The i9-14900HX uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-HX codename, built on a 10 nm process node. The i9-14900HX has a recorded die size of 257 mm², while no die size is listed for the Core 7 350.

The transistor counts are not recorded for either processor, but the process node difference is significant. The 3 nm node on the Core 7 350 is two generations ahead of the 10 nm node on the i9-14900HX, which explains how a 6-core, 15-watt chip can approach the single-thread scores of a 24-core, 55-watt part.

Cache architecture reflects the different design goals. The Core 7 350 allocates more L1 and L2 per core, with 192 KB and 2.5 MB respectively, while the i9-14900HX uses 80 KB and 2 MB per core. The i9-14900HX compensates with a much larger shared L3 pool at 36 MB versus 6 MB. This larger L3 serves the 32-thread workload across many cores, while the Core 7 350's per-core cache strategy suits its lower thread count.

The i9-14900HX belongs to the Core 14th Gen series with the Core i9 (Raptor Lake-HX Refresh) generation label. The Core 7 350 carries a Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation label with no series designation. The i9-14900HX supports ECC memory and an unlocked multiplier, features absent on the Core 7 350. PCIe Gen 5 support on the i9-14900HX provides 16 CPU lanes, versus Gen 4 with 6 lanes on the Core 7 350. These architectural choices position the i9-14900HX as a high-core-count platform for maximum throughput, while the Core 7 350 targets a smaller, more power-efficient design with modern per-core performance.