Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core 7 350, which wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL claims only 2 wins. The most dramatic single-core result appears in Cinebench R15, where the Core 7 350 scores 292 against 124 for the Ultra 3 105UL, a 135.5% advantage. This gap narrows in Cinebench R20 single-core, but the Core 7 350 still leads by 46.3% with 758 points versus 518.

The Core 7 350 also dominates in Cinebench R23 single-core testing, posting 2046 points against 1234 for the Ultra 3 105UL, a 65.8% margin. PassMark single-thread results follow the same pattern: 4100 versus 3382, a 21.2% lead for the Core 7 350. Multi-core results are more mixed. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core 7 350 scores 1220 against 881, a 38.5% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 46.4% advantage for the Core 7 350, with scores of 5373 versus 3671. PassMark multi-thread testing confirms the trend, with the Core 7 350 at 15170 and the Ultra 3 105UL at 10285, a 47.5% difference.

The two Ultra 3 105UL wins are notable. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 3 105UL scores 8742 against 8030 for the Core 7 350, an 8.1% advantage. PassMark integer math also favors the Ultra 3 105UL, which scores 41171 versus 33734, an 18.1% lead. These two victories suggest the Ultra 3 105UL has specific strengths in sustained multi-threaded integer workloads, but they do not offset the broader pattern.

Other PassMark subtests show consistent Core 7 350 dominance. Data compression scores 143123 versus 93961, a 52.3% lead. Data encryption shows 10933 versus 6354, a 72.1% margin. Extended instructions testing reveals a 113.8% advantage for the Core 7 350, with 12045 points against 5634. Prime number finding results in a 143.2% lead for the Core 7 350, scoring 107 versus 44. Floating-point math favors the Core 7 350 at 42809 versus 30750, a 39.2% gap. Physics testing shows 1173 versus 718, a 63.4% advantage. Random string sorting completes the picture with 17238 versus 11179, a 54.2% lead.

The average benchmark scores reflect this overall trend. The Core 7 350 averages 17779 across all recorded benchmarks, while the Ultra 3 105UL averages 13061. In the database percentile rankings, the Core 7 350 sits at the 71st percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 3 105UL sits at the 68th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 7 350 include the Intel Core 5 221TE at 17860 average score and 0.5% below, the AMD EPYC 9374F at 17693 and 0.5% above, and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT at 17891 and 0.6% below. The Ultra 3 105UL sits near the Intel Core i5-9400F at 13041, the Intel Core i7-10750H at 13024, and the Intel Core i7-7700K at 13291.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design generations. The Intel Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is built on a 3 nm process node at Intel's foundry. The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL uses the Meteor Lake-PS codename and the Meteor Lake architecture, built on a 7 nm process node, also at Intel. The Core 7 350 belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation, while the Ultra 3 105UL belongs to the Ultra 3 (Meteor Lake-PS) generation.

Core and thread counts differ significantly. The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning it does not support simultaneous multithreading. The Ultra 3 105UL has 8 cores and 10 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement with some cores capable of additional threading. Despite having fewer cores, the Core 7 350 achieves higher benchmark scores in most tests, which indicates substantially higher per-core throughput.

Cache layouts diverge as well. The Core 7 350 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 3 105UL has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 10 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger L3 on the Ultra 3 105UL may contribute to its Cinebench R23 multi-core win, but the Core 7 350's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches likely support its single-core advantages.

Memory support differs by channel configuration. The Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory on a single-channel bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Ultra 3 105UL supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Ultra 3 105UL therefore has access to substantially more memory bandwidth, which may explain its integer math advantage. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 7 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes, while the Ultra 3 105UL provides Gen 4 with 8 CPU-only lanes. The integrated graphics differ: the Core 7 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Ultra 3 105UL uses Arc Xe-LPG with 48 execution units. The market segments differ, with the Core 7 350 classified as Mobile and the Ultra 3 105UL classified as Desktop. The Core 7 350 uses Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the Ultra 3 105UL uses Intel Socket 1851.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL boosts to 4.20 GHz. Both have a base clock of 1.50 GHz.

Q: Why does the Core Ultra 3 105UL win in Cinebench R23 multi-core despite losing most other tests?

A: The Ultra 3 105UL has 8 cores and 10 threads with 10 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory at 89.6 GB/s. These resources appear to favor the R23 multi-core workload, where it scores 8742 versus 8030 for the Core 7 350.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap between the two processors?

A: The gap varies by test. The largest margin is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Core 7 350 leads by 135.5%. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 65.8% lead, and PassMark single-thread shows a 21.2% lead for the Core 7 350.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores?

A: The Core 7 350 averages 17779 points, while the Ultra 3 105UL averages 13061 points. The Core 7 350 also ranks at the 71st percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 68th percentile for the Ultra 3 105UL.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the Core 7 350 and the Ultra 3 105UL have ECC memory support set to false.

Q: What process nodes do these processors use?

A: The Core 7 350 is built on a 3 nm process node, while the Ultra 3 105UL is built on a 7 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 350 | Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 6 | 8 |

| Threads | 6 | 10 |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Wildcat Lake | Meteor Lake |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Meteor Lake-PS |

| Generation | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra 3 (Meteor Lake-PS) |

| Process node | 3 nm | 7 nm |

| L1 cache | 192 KB (per core) | 112 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 2.5 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 10 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

| Memory bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 89.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 lanes | Gen 4, 8 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 (2 Xe) | Arc Xe-LPG 48EU |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Launch MSRP | $469 | $295 |

| Part number | SAE3F | SRN9D |

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates the Intel Core 7 350 is the stronger processor for most workloads. Its 15 wins out of 17 head-to-head comparisons, combined with a higher average benchmark score of 17779 versus 13061, establishes clear overall superiority. The Core 7 350 delivers substantial advantages in single-core performance, floating-point math, encryption, compression, and physics simulations. Its 71st percentile ranking versus the 68th percentile for the Ultra 3 105UL confirms this ordering in the broader database context.

The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL has specific strengths that the data supports. Its 8-core, 10-thread configuration with 10 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel memory at 89.6 GB/s enables it to win in Cinebench R23 multi-core and PassMark integer math. For workloads that rely heavily on integer operations or the specific R23 multi-threaded render pattern, the Ultra 3 105UL demonstrates measurable capability.

The Core 7 350 uses a more advanced 3 nm process node, which likely contributes to its higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz and its per-core cache advantages. The Ultra 3 105UL, built on 7 nm, offers more cores and threads but lower clock speeds. The Core 7 350's single-channel memory bus at 59.7 GB/s does not prevent it from winning most memory-sensitive tests, though the Ultra 3 105UL's dual-channel configuration at 89.6 GB/s appears relevant to its integer math result.

The market segments differ, with the Core 7 350 aimed at mobile platforms and the Ultra 3 105UL at desktop platforms. Buyers in the mobile space should prefer the Core 7 350 based on its benchmark dominance. Desktop users who prioritize integer throughput or the specific Cinebench R23 multi-core workload may find the Ultra 3 105UL acceptable, but the broader benchmark record favors the Core 7 350. The Core 7 350 also carries a launch MSRP of $469, while the Ultra 3 105UL has a launch MSRP of $295, which reflects their different positions in the database.