Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235A Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A records an average benchmark score of 48,201, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 7 350 records 17,779, placing it in the 71st percentile.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-threaded performance?

A: In the PassMark single-thread test, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A scores 4,557, which is 10% ahead of the Intel Core 7 350's 4,100. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 5 235A scores 4,607 versus 2,046, a 55.6% advantage.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A has 14 cores and 14 threads.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 6 MB of shared L3 cache on the Intel Core 7 350.

Q: Do both processors use the same memory bus configuration?

A: No. The Intel Core 7 350 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the launch MSRP values for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 has a launch MSRP of $469. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A has a launch MSRP of $269.

The Verdict

The benchmark data favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A in every recorded head-to-head test. It wins all 17 comparisons, with advantages ranging from 10% in PassMark single-thread to 75.4% in Cinebench R23 multicore. The Core Ultra 5 235A also sits in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 350 sits in the 71st percentile.

The Core 7 350 is a mobile processor built for a different role. Its 15 W TDP, single-channel memory, and 6-core layout point to low-power systems. The Core Ultra 5 235A, with a 65 W TDP, dual-channel memory, and 14 cores, targets desktop workloads. The data shows that anyone needing maximum throughput, heavy multi-threaded rendering, or faster single-core response should pick the Core Ultra 5 235A.

There is no benchmark category where the Core 7 350 comes out ahead. Its only distinguishing factors are a lower TDP and a smaller physical footprint, which matter for mobile designs rather than raw performance. For users constrained by power and chassis size, the Core 7 350 is the only sensible option from this pair; for all performance-oriented tasks, the Core Ultra 5 235A is the clear choice based on recorded measurements.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A dominates the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 3,289 against 1,220, a 62.9% lead. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the margin is 60.8% (13,705 versus 5,373). The largest multicore gap appears in Cinebench R23, where the Ultra 5 235A scores 32,633 versus 8,030, a 75.4% advantage. This pattern reflects the core count difference: 14 cores versus 6 cores, with no hyperthreading on either part.

Single-core results are closer but still favor the Ultra 5 235A. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 37.1% lead (464 versus 292). Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 60.8% lead (1,934 versus 758). Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 55.6% lead (4,607 versus 2,046). The smallest gap in the entire dataset is PassMark single-thread: 4,557 versus 4,100, a 10% difference. That suggests the Core 7 350's single-core efficiency is competitive, but not enough to overcome the Ultra 5 235A's higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.80 GHz.

PassMark workloads tell a similar story. Data compression shows a 63.7% lead for the Ultra 5 235A (393,800 versus 143,123). Data encryption also shows 63.7% (30,136 versus 10,933). Extended instructions show 61.9% (31,625 versus 12,045). Floating-point math shows 64% (118,778 versus 42,809). Integer math shows 61.9% (88,626 versus 33,734). The largest PassMark margin is in find prime numbers, where the Ultra 5 235A scores 392 versus 107, a 72.7% lead.

Physics and multithread tests reinforce the pattern. PassMark physics gives the Ultra 5 235A a 51.9% lead (2,437 versus 1,173). PassMark multithread gives a 60.5% lead (38,392 versus 15,170). Random string sorting shows a 65.2% lead (49,489 versus 17,238). Across all recorded tests, the Ultra 5 235A never trails. The Core 7 350's best relative performance is in PassMark single-thread, where it trails by only 10%, but that is still a loss.

The nearest rival data for each processor provides context. The Core 7 350's average score of 17,779 sits close to the Intel Core 5 221TE (17,860, 0.5% behind), the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (17,891, 0.6% behind), and the Intel Core 5 120U (17,898, 0.7% behind). The Core Ultra 5 235A's average of 48,201 sits close to the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 (48,171, 0.1% ahead), the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX (48,287, 0.2% behind), and the AMD EPYC 4345P (48,470, 0.6% behind). In other words, the Core 7 350 competes with mid-range mobile and older desktop parts, while the Core Ultra 5 235A competes with much higher-end desktop and workstation silicon.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads; the Core Ultra 5 235A has 14 cores and 14 threads. Base clock speeds are 1.50 GHz versus 3.40 GHz. Boost clocks are 4.80 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. TDP is 15 W versus 65 W.

The Core 7 350 uses Intel BGA 1516, a soldered mobile socket. The Core Ultra 5 235A uses Intel Socket 1851, a desktop socket. The Core 7 350 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, while the Core Ultra 5 235A supports DDR5 only. Memory bus width differs: single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth is 59.7 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s.

PCIe support also differs. The Core 7 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 5 235A provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 7 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 5 235A uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 EU.

Release dates differ. The Core Ultra 5 235A was released on 2025-07-28, while the Core 7 350 was released on 2026-04-15. Both processors are currently active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The Core 7 350 is codenamed Wildcat Lake and belongs to the Core 5 generation. The Core Ultra 5 235A is codenamed Arrow Lake-S, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, and uses the Arrow Lake architecture. 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 235A is fabricated by TSMC.

Transistor count and die size are recorded only for the Core Ultra 5 235A: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. No equivalent figures are listed for the Core 7 350.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. Both processors have 192 KB of L1 cache 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 235A. Shared L3 cache is 6 MB on the Core 7 350 and 24 MB on the Core Ultra 5 235A. Neither processor supports 3D V-Cache.

Memory architecture differences reflect their target segments. The Core 7 350's single-channel bus and LPDDR5X support suit mobile power-constrained designs. The Core Ultra 5 235A's dual-channel DDR5-only support with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth suits desktop memory throughput needs.

PCIe generation and lane counts also separate the architectures: Gen 4 with 6 lanes on the Core 7 350 versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes on the Core Ultra 5 235A. This affects expansion capability for GPUs and NVMe drives. The integrated graphics cores differ too, with the Xe3 design on the mobile part and the Arc Xe-LPG design on the desktop part.

Neither processor supports ECC memory. Both have locked multipliers, meaning no manual overclocking via multiplier adjustment.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A wins in every recorded benchmark category. For multi-threaded productivity, it leads by 60.5% in PassMark multithread, 75.4% in Cinebench R23 multicore, and 60.8% in Cinebench R20 multicore. For single-threaded tasks, it leads by 10% in PassMark single-thread and 55.6% in Cinebench R23 single-core. For memory-heavy workloads like data compression and encryption, it leads by 63.7% in both cases. For physics simulation, it leads by 51.9%. For integer and floating-point math, it leads by 61.9% and 64% respectively.

The Intel Core 7 350 has no benchmark wins. Its only advantages are structural: a 15 W TDP versus 65 W, a BGA socket for compact mobile integration, LPDDR5X memory support, and a smaller physical presence. It also has a later release date, 2026-04-15 versus 2025-07-28.

Use-case segmentation follows these structural facts. The Core 7 350 fits thin-and-light mobile systems where power draw and socket size are the primary constraints. The Core Ultra 5 235A fits desktop builds where performance per watt is less critical than raw throughput. The data shows no scenario where the Core 7 350 outperforms the Core Ultra 5 235A in computational tests, so the choice depends entirely on platform requirements, not benchmark results.