Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 125HL Comparison

Intel Core 7 350 and Intel Core Ultra 5 125HL are two current Intel processors aimed at different market segments. The Core 7 350 is a mobile chip built on a newer process node, while the Core Ultra 5 125HL is a desktop processor from the Meteor Lake generation. The database contains benchmark scores for the Core 7 350, but the Core Ultra 5 125HL has no recorded benchmark scores, so direct performance comparisons rely on architectural and specification differences rather than measured results.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database lists no head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Core 7 350 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 125HL. The Core Ultra 5 125HL has an empty benchmark array, meaning no Cinebench, PassMark, or other test scores are recorded for it. The Core 7 350, however, has a full set of benchmark results.

For the Core 7 350, Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 8030 points, while single-core scores 2046 points. Cinebench R20 results show 5373 multi-core and 758 single-core. Cinebench R15 records 1220 multi-core and 292 single-core. PassMark tests show a single-thread score of 4100, multi-thread score of 15170, integer math at 33734, floating point math at 42809, extended instructions at 12045, data encryption at 10933, data compression at 143123, physics at 1173, random string sorting at 17238, and find prime numbers at 107.

The Core 7 350 sits at the 71st percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score is 17779. The nearest rivals include the Intel Core 5 221TE with an average score of 17860, which is 0.5% ahead of the Core 7 350. The AMD EPYC 9374F scores 17693, placing it 0.5% behind. The AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT scores 17891, 0.6% ahead. The Intel Core 5 120U scores 17898, 0.7% ahead. These deltas are small, indicating the Core 7 350 performs within a narrow band around these processors.

Because the Core Ultra 5 125HL has no scores, the data cannot show any wins for either processor in direct comparison. The Core 7 350 has 0 recorded wins and the Core Ultra 5 125HL also has 0 recorded wins in the head-to-head section. The lack of benchmark data for the Core Ultra 5 125HL means any performance judgment must come from specifications, which are discussed in later sections.

Architecture Differences

The Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, part of the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. It is built on a 3 nm process node at Intel's foundry. The Core Ultra 5 125HL uses the Meteor Lake-PS codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 1, with a Meteor Lake architecture. It is built on a 7 nm process node, also at Intel. The 3 nm node on the Core 7 350 is denser and more power-efficient than the 7 nm node on the Core Ultra 5 125HL, though the database provides no performance-per-watt measurements.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 5 125HL has 14 cores and 18 threads, which indicates a hybrid layout with 4 extra threads over the core count, likely from a mix of performance and efficiency cores. The Core 7 350's 6 threads match its core count exactly.

Cache configurations also diverge. 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 Core Ultra 5 125HL has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 125HL has triple the L3 cache of the Core 7 350, which can benefit workloads with large working sets. The Core 7 350 has a larger per-core L1 and L2 allocation.

Clock speeds show the Core 7 350 with a base clock of 1.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 125HL has a base clock of 1.20 GHz and boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The Core 7 350 has a higher base and boost frequency, which helps single-thread responsiveness.

Memory support differs. The Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 125HL supports DDR5 memory, with the type depending on the motherboard, and uses a dual-channel memory bus with 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 125HL offers significantly higher memory bandwidth, which matters for memory-intensive applications.

PCIe connectivity shows the Core 7 350 with Gen 4 and 6 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 5 125HL has Gen 4 and 8 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 5 125HL provides two additional PCIe lanes.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 7 350 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 5 125HL includes Arc Xe-LPG with 112 execution units. The Arc GPU has a much larger execution unit count, suggesting more capable integrated graphics for gaming or general GPU acceleration.

The Core 7 350 uses Intel BGA 1516 socket, a mobile package. The Core Ultra 5 125HL uses Intel Socket 1851, a desktop socket. The market segment for the Core 7 350 is mobile, while the Core Ultra 5 125HL is desktop. Both are active production parts.

The Core 7 350 has a thermal design power of 15 watts. The Core Ultra 5 125HL has a TDP of 45 watts. The Core 7 350 uses considerably less power, which is typical for a mobile processor. The Core Ultra 5 125HL has a higher power envelope, allowing more sustained performance in desktop systems.

ECC memory support is false for both processors. Neither multiplier is unlocked. The Core 7 350 has a launch MSRP of $469. The Core Ultra 5 125HL has a launch MSRP of $325.

Release dates differ. The Core 7 350 released on 2026-04-15. The Core Ultra 5 125HL released on 2024-04-07. The Core Ultra 5 125HL is roughly two years older in the market.

The Verdict

The data shows the Core 7 350 is a mobile processor with a newer 3 nm process, higher clock speeds, and a lower TDP of 15 watts. Its benchmark scores place it at the 71st percentile among all CPUs, with an average score of 17779. The Core Ultra 5 125HL is a desktop processor with more cores, more threads, more L3 cache, dual-channel memory support, higher memory bandwidth, and a larger integrated GPU. It has no recorded benchmark scores, so its percentile is 50 and its average score is 0 in the database.

For workloads that rely on multi-core throughput, the Core Ultra 5 125HL has a structural advantage from its 14 cores and 18 threads versus the Core 7 350's 6 cores and 6 threads. The 18 MB shared L3 cache and dual-channel 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth support that core count. The Core 7 350 cannot match this parallel capability on paper.

For single-thread performance, the Core 7 350 has a higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 4.50 GHz, plus a newer 3 nm node. Its single-thread PassMark score of 4100 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2046 reflect that strength. The Core Ultra 5 125HL has no measured single-thread score, but its lower clock speed suggests it is likely slower in this metric.

Power consumption is a clear differentiator. The Core 7 350 uses 15 watts, which suits laptops and compact mobile systems. The Core Ultra 5 125HL uses 45 watts, which fits desktop builds with adequate cooling. The 30-watt difference is significant for thermal management.

The integrated GPU favors the Core Ultra 5 125HL. Its Arc Xe-LPG with 112 execution units is a more substantial graphics processor than the Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores in the Core 7 350. Desktop users who need casual gaming or GPU compute without a discrete card would prefer the Core Ultra 5 125HL.

The launch MSRP of the Core 7 350 is $469. The launch MSRP of the Core Ultra 5 125HL is $325. The database does not provide pricing analysis beyond these figures.

The Core 7 350 is the choice for mobile systems where low power and high single-thread clocks matter. The Core Ultra 5 125HL is the choice for desktop systems where core count, memory bandwidth, and integrated graphics matter more.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 125HL has 14 cores and 18 threads. The Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Core Ultra 5 125HL has 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth with a dual-channel bus. The Core 7 350 has 59.7 GB/s with a single-channel bus. The Core Ultra 5 125HL provides about 50% more memory bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core 7 350 has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 125HL has a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The Core 7 350 is 0.30 GHz higher.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The Core Ultra 5 125HL has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 350 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 125HL has three times the L3 cache.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The Core 7 350 has a TDP of 15 watts. The Core Ultra 5 125HL has a TDP of 45 watts. The Core 7 350 uses one-third the power of the Core Ultra 5 125HL.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the Core 7 350 and the Core Ultra 5 125HL have ECC memory support set to false.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 7 350 wins in scenarios where power efficiency is critical. Its 15 watt TDP allows deployment in thin-and-light laptops and fanless or low-noise designs. The higher base clock of 1.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.80 GHz give it an edge in lightly threaded tasks such as web browsing, document editing, and single-threaded legacy applications. The newer 3 nm process node indicates better transistor density, which typically improves efficiency per clock. The Core 7 350 also has a larger per-core L2 cache at 2.5 MB per core, which can speed up access to frequently used data in single-thread workloads.

The Core Ultra 5 125HL wins in multi-threaded desktop workloads. Its 14 cores and 18 threads provide 8 more cores and 12 more threads than the Core 7 350. The 18 MB L3 cache is triple the size, reducing cache misses in data-heavy tasks like video encoding, 3D rendering, compilation, and scientific computing. The dual-channel memory bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth feeds those cores more effectively than the Core 7 350's single-channel 59.7 GB/s path. The integrated Arc Xe-LPG GPU with 112 execution units is far more capable than the Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, giving the Core Ultra 5 125HL an advantage in GPU-accelerated workloads and casual gaming without a discrete card.

The Core 7 350 wins on physical footprint and socket flexibility. It uses Intel BGA 1516, a soldered mobile package, which is standard for laptops. The Core Ultra 5 125HL uses Intel Socket 1851, a desktop socket that allows for upgradeability and standard cooling solutions. The Core Ultra 5 125HL also has 8 PCIe Gen 4 lanes versus 6 lanes on the Core 7 350, offering more bandwidth for add-in cards or NVMe storage.

The Core 7 350 wins on clock speed. Its 4.80 GHz boost is 0.30 GHz higher than the Core Ultra 5 125HL's 4.50 GHz boost. For tasks that cannot use many cores, the Core 7 350 should complete them faster, assuming the same architecture efficiency. The database records a single-thread PassMark score of 4100 for the Core 7 350, confirming strong single-core capability.

The Core Ultra 5 125HL wins on memory parallelism. Dual-channel memory doubles the available bandwidth paths compared to single-channel. This matters for integrated graphics performance, as the GPU shares system memory. The Arc Xe-LPG GPU with 112 EUs will be bandwidth-limited without dual-channel, so the 89.6 GB/s figure is a practical advantage.

The Core 7 350 wins on process technology. The 3 nm node is denser than the 7 nm node used by the Core Ultra 5 125HL. This usually translates to better performance per watt and higher transistor count per area, though the database does not list transistor counts or die sizes for either part.

The Core Ultra 5 125HL wins on raw core count and cache capacity. The 14-core, 18-thread configuration with 18 MB L3 cache is a desktop-class configuration. The Core 7 350's 6 cores and 6 MB L3 cache place it in the low-power mobile tier.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in every major specification category. Core count: the Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 125HL has 14 cores and 18 threads. Base clock: 1.50 GHz versus 1.20 GHz. Boost clock: 4.80 GHz versus 4.50 GHz. TDP: 15 watts versus 45 watts. Socket: Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel Socket 1851.

Process node: 3 nm for the Core 7 350, 7 nm for the Core Ultra 5 125HL. Codename: Wildcat Lake versus Meteor Lake-PS. Architecture: the Core Ultra 5 125HL uses Meteor Lake, while the Core 7 350 has no architecture field listed but belongs to the Wildcat Lake generation.

Cache: L1 per core is 192 KB for the Core 7 350 and 112 KB for the Core Ultra 5 125HL. L2 per core is 2.5 MB versus 2 MB. L3 shared is 6 MB versus 18 MB. Memory support: DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Core 7 350, DDR5 (depends on motherboard) for the Core Ultra 5 125HL. Memory bus: single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s.

PCIe: Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the Core 7 350, Gen 4 with 8 lanes for the Core Ultra 5 125HL. Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores versus Arc Xe-LPG with 112 execution units. Market segment: mobile versus desktop. Socket and form factor align with those segments.

Release date: 2026-04-15 for the Core 7 350, 2024-04-07 for the Core Ultra 5 125HL. Launch MSRP: $469 for the Core 7 350, $325 for the Core Ultra 5 125HL. Both have locked multipliers and no ECC support. Both are active production parts. The Core 7 350 has part number SAE3F, and the Core Ultra 5 125HL has part number SRN9D.