Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records 17 head-to-head comparisons between the Intel Core 7 350 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225, and the result is one-sided. The Core Ultra 5 225 wins all 17 tests. No test in the database shows the Core 7 350 ahead.

The largest gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The Core Ultra 5 225 scores 25,891 against 8,030 for the Core 7 350, a delta of -69%. That is close to three times the throughput. The same test in single-core shows a -44% delta, with 3,655 versus 2,046. The multi-core deficit is far larger than the single-core deficit, which suggests the Core Ultra 5 225 scales much better across its cores.

Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a -53.2% delta, with the Core Ultra 5 225 at 2,609 and the Core 7 350 at 1,220. In R15 single-core, the delta narrows to -20.7%, with scores of 368 and 292. Cinebench R20 shows -14.9% for both multi-core and single-core, with the Core Ultra 5 225 at 6,317 and 891 versus the Core 7 350 at 5,373 and 758. The R20 single-core delta being identical to the multi-core delta is notable, as most other tests show a wider multi-core gap.

PassMark results follow the same pattern. The data compression test shows the Core Ultra 5 225 at 302,811 against 143,123, a -52.7% delta. Data encryption shows 22,285 versus 10,933, a -50.9% delta. Extended instructions show 27,162 versus 12,045, a -55.7% delta. Prime number finding shows the largest PassMark gap at -70.1%, with 358 versus 107. Floating point math shows 92,038 versus 42,809, a -53.5% delta. Integer math shows 65,345 versus 33,734, a -48.4% delta.

The PassMark multi-thread test shows 30,459 versus 15,170, a -50.2% delta. Physics shows 2,342 versus 1,173, a -49.9% delta. Random string sorting shows 36,590 versus 17,238, a -52.9% delta. The smallest gap in the entire set is PassMark single-thread, where the Core Ultra 5 225 scores 4,412 against 4,100, a -7.1% delta. That single-thread result appears twice in the data, once as `passmark_single_thread` and once as `passmark_singlethread`, with identical values.

The average benchmark score tells the same story. The Core Ultra 5 225 averages 36,938 across all recorded benchmarks, while the Core 7 350 averages 17,779. The Core Ultra 5 225 sits at the 85th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 7 350 sits at the 71st percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 5 225 include the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F with a 0% delta, the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D at -0.2%, the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 at -0.4%, and the Intel Core i9-12900T at -0.5%. The Core 7 350's nearest rivals include the Intel Core 5 221TE at -0.5%, the AMD EPYC 9374F at +0.5%, the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT at -0.6%, and the Intel Core 5 120U at -0.7%. The Core Ultra 5 225 competes with much faster parts, while the Core 7 350 sits in a lower performance tier.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel product lines with different target segments. The Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. The Core Ultra 5 225 uses the Arrow Lake-S codename and belongs to the Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) generation. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. The Core 7 350 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 225 is fabricated by TSMC.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 5 225 has 10 cores and 10 threads, also with no hyper-threading. The base clock on the Core 7 350 is 1.50 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 225 runs at 3.30 GHz. Boost clocks are closer: 4.80 GHz for the Core 7 350 and 4.90 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 225. The TDP figures differ significantly: 15 watts for the Core 7 350 versus 65 watts for the Core Ultra 5 225. That TDP gap explains part of the performance difference, as the Core Ultra 5 225 has far more power available.

Cache hierarchies differ as well. Both have 192 KB of L1 per core. The L2 cache is 2.5 MB per core on the Core 7 350 and 3 MB per core on the Core Ultra 5 225. The L3 cache is 6 MB shared on the Core 7 350 and 20 MB shared on the Core Ultra 5 225. The Core Ultra 5 225 also has a much larger die, at 243 mm², with 17,800 million transistors. The Core 7 350 has no listed transistor count or die size.

Memory support differs. The Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 225 supports DDR5 only, with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs: the Core 7 350 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 225 uses Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics also differ. The Core 7 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 5 225 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 16 EU.

The socket types are incompatible. The Core 7 350 uses Intel BGA 1516, a mobile socket, while the Core Ultra 5 225 uses Intel Socket 1851, a desktop socket. The market segments confirm this: the Core 7 350 is mobile, the Core Ultra 5 225 is desktop. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The release dates differ by over a year, with the Core Ultra 5 225 released on 2025-01-06 and the Core 7 350 on 2026-04-15.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the majority of benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 wins all 17 head-to-head tests. The Core 7 350 wins none.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core Ultra 5 225 leads by -69%. The largest PassMark gap is in prime number finding at -70.1%.

Q: How close are the single-thread scores?

A: In PassMark single-thread, the Core Ultra 5 225 scores 4,412 against 4,100 for the Core 7 350, a -7.1% delta. That is the smallest gap in the dataset.

Q: Do both processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: Both use a 3 nm process node, but the Core 7 350 is fabricated by Intel while the Core Ultra 5 225 is fabricated by TSMC.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Core 7 350 supports 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel bus. The Core Ultra 5 225 supports 102.4 GB/s over a dual-channel bus.

Q: Are these processors in the same market segment?

A: No. The Core 7 350 is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 5 225 is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1851.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification field.

• Cores: 6 for the Core 7 350, 10 for the Core Ultra 5 225
• Threads: 6 for the Core 7 350, 10 for the Core Ultra 5 225
• Base clock: 1.50 GHz for the Core 7 350, 3.30 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 225
• Boost clock: 4.80 GHz for the Core 7 350, 4.90 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 225
• TDP: 15 watts for the Core 7 350, 65 watts for the Core Ultra 5 225
• Socket: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 7 350, Intel Socket 1851 for the Core Ultra 5 225
• Codename: Wildcat Lake for the Core 7 350, Arrow Lake-S for the Core Ultra 5 225
• Foundry: Intel for the Core 7 350, TSMC for the Core Ultra 5 225
• Transistors: not listed for the Core 7 350, 17,800 million for the Core Ultra 5 225
• Die size: not listed for the Core 7 350, 243 mm² for the Core Ultra 5 225
• L2 cache: 2.5 MB per core for the Core 7 350, 3 MB per core for the Core Ultra 5 225
• L3 cache: 6 MB shared for the Core 7 350, 20 MB shared for the Core Ultra 5 225
• Memory support: DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Core 7 350, DDR5 only for the Core Ultra 5 225
• Memory bus: single-channel for the Core 7 350, dual-channel for the Core Ultra 5 225
• Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s for the Core 7 350, 102.4 GB/s for the Core Ultra 5 225
• PCIe: Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the Core 7 350, Gen 5 with 20 lanes for the Core Ultra 5 225
• Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) for the Core 7 350, Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU for the Core Ultra 5 225
• Market segment: mobile for the Core 7 350, desktop for the Core Ultra 5 225
• Release date: 2026-04-15 for the Core 7 350, 2025-01-06 for the Core Ultra 5 225
• Launch MSRP: $469 for the Core 7 350, $246 for the Core Ultra 5 225

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark. Its 10 cores, higher base clock, dual-channel memory, and 20 MB L3 cache give it a substantial advantage in multi-threaded workloads. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result, where it leads by 69%, is the most striking example. Even in single-thread PassMark, where the gap is smallest at 7.1%, the Core Ultra 5 225 still leads.

The Core 7 350 is a mobile part with a 15 watt TDP, designed for power-constrained environments. Its 6 cores and single-channel memory limit its throughput. The 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth is roughly 42% lower than the Core Ultra 5 225's 102.4 GB/s. The L3 cache is 6 MB versus 20 MB. These architectural gaps explain why the Core 7 350 trails so consistently.

The nearest rival data reinforces the positioning. The Core Ultra 5 225 sits at the 85th percentile of all CPUs, matching the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F exactly. The Core 7 350 sits at the 71st percentile, near the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT and Intel Core 5 120U. The Core 7 350 belongs in the company of older or lower-power parts, while the Core Ultra 5 225 competes with current mid-range desktop silicon.

Who should pick which depends on the use case. The Core Ultra 5 225 is the choice for desktop workloads where performance matters: multi-core rendering, data compression, encryption, and floating-point math all show large advantages. The Core 7 350 is a mobile processor with a much lower TDP, suited for systems where power draw is the primary constraint. The benchmark data does not include power efficiency metrics, but the 15 watt TDP versus 65 watt TDP is a clear differentiator. The Core 7 350 also supports LPDDR5X memory, which the Core Ultra 5 225 does not, making it more flexible for mobile designs.

The production status for both is active, so both remain available for new systems. The Core Ultra 5 225 has the higher average benchmark score, the higher percentile ranking, and wins every head-to-head test. The Core 7 350 offers lower power draw and a smaller footprint, but the recorded data shows no performance test where it comes out ahead.