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

Intel Core 7 350 and Intel Core Ultra 5 235H are both active mobile processors from Intel, but the benchmark data separates them into two distinct performance tiers. The Core Ultra 5 235H wins every single head-to-head comparison in the database, taking 17 wins out of 17 recorded tests. The Core 7 350 does not win any test. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 5 235H is 37522, while the Core 7 350 averages 17779. In percentile terms, the Core Ultra 5 235H sits at the 85th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 350 sits at the 71st percentile. The data confirms a substantial performance gap, with the Core Ultra 5 235H leading by margins that range from roughly 6% to nearly 69% depending on the workload.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 350 records zero benchmark wins in this comparison. Every single test in the database, from Cinebench rendering to PassMark math operations, favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H. The closest contest is in single-threaded PassMark performance, where the Core Ultra 5 235H scores 4359 against 4100 for the Core 7 350, a 5.9% lead. This narrow margin indicates that the Core 7 350 has competitive single-core capability, but it still falls behind.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H wins decisively across all workload categories. In multi-core rendering, the gap is enormous. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 68.6% advantage for the Core Ultra 5 235H, with a score of 25598 versus 8030. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 50% lead, with 10751 against 5373. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 52.7% lead, with 2580 versus 1220. These results indicate that the Core Ultra 5 235H is the clear choice for threaded applications such as video rendering, 3D modeling, and compilation workloads.

The data also shows a strong lead for the Core Ultra 5 235H in PassMark multi-threaded tests. PassMark multithread scores 30091 for the Core Ultra 5 235H versus 15170 for the Core 7 350, a 49.6% advantage. PassMark integer math shows a 54.6% lead, with 74247 versus 33734. PassMark floating point math shows a 54.2% lead, with 93509 versus 42809. These results reinforce that the Core Ultra 5 235H handles parallel processing workloads far more effectively.

Single-core performance is closer but still favors the Core Ultra 5 235H. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 43.4% lead, with 3613 versus 2046. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 50% lead, with 1517 versus 758. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 19.8% lead, with 364 versus 292. The PassMark single-thread test narrows the gap to 5.9%, the smallest delta in the entire comparison. This suggests that for lightly threaded tasks, such as basic office work or web browsing, the Core 7 350 remains viable, though still slower.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families with distinct design philosophies. The Intel Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. It is built on a 3 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-H, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2. It is also built on a 3 nm process node, but at TSMC rather than Intel.

Core counts differ significantly. The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 5 235H has 14 cores and 14 threads. This 8-core difference is the primary driver of the multi-core performance gap. The Core 7 350 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 235H has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The higher base and boost clocks on the Core Ultra 5 235H contribute to its single-core advantage as well.

Cache configurations also differ. 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 235H. The L3 cache shows a major difference: the Core 7 350 has 6 MB shared, while the Core Ultra 5 235H has 18 MB shared. The larger L3 cache on the Core Ultra 5 235H provides more on-die storage for frequently accessed data, which can improve performance in cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory support is another differentiator. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory. However, the Core 7 350 uses a single-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 235H uses a dual-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The higher memory bandwidth on the Core Ultra 5 235H is critical for memory-intensive tasks and helps feed the additional cores.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 7 350 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 5 235H includes Arc Graphics 140T. PCIe support also varies: the Core 7 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 235H provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes. The newer PCIe standard on the Core Ultra 5 235H offers higher bandwidth for external devices.

Power envelopes are different. The Core 7 350 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Core Ultra 5 235H has a TDP of 28 watts. The higher power allowance on the Core Ultra 5 235H enables higher sustained clocks and more active cores. The Core 7 350 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the Core Ultra 5 235H uses the Intel BGA 2049 socket. The release dates differ: the Core 7 350 launched on 2026-04-15, while the Core Ultra 5 235H launched on 2025-01-12.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H is the superior processor in every measurable test. It wins all 17 head-to-head benchmarks, with an average score of 37522 compared to 17779 for the Core 7 350. The 85th percentile ranking for the Core Ultra 5 235H places it among higher-performing CPUs, while the 71st percentile for the Core 7 350 places it in the mid-range.

The Core Ultra 5 235H sits close to several desktop-class rivals in the database. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-13900HK, which scores 37425 and trails by 0.3%, and the Intel Core i5-13600K, which scores 37685 and leads by 0.4%. This positioning indicates that the Core Ultra 5 235H delivers performance comparable to previous-generation high-end desktop parts, despite being a mobile processor.

The Core 7 350 sits near a different set of rivals. Its nearest competitors include the Intel Core 5 221TE, which scores 17860 and leads by 0.5%, and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT, which scores 17891 and leads by 0.6%. The Core 7 350 also trails the Intel Core 5 120U by 0.7% (17898). These rivals are older or lower-tier parts, which reflects the Core 7 350's position as an entry-level mobile option.

For users prioritizing raw performance, the Core Ultra 5 235H is the only choice from this data. Its advantages in core count, clock speed, cache, memory bandwidth, and PCIe generation all contribute to its dominance. The Core 7 350 offers lower power consumption at 15 watts versus 28 watts, which could benefit battery life in thin-and-light laptops, but the performance trade-off is severe.

The Core 7 350 does carry a launch MSRP of $469, which the database records. The Core Ultra 5 235H has no listed launch MSRP. Beyond that single stated price, no further cost analysis is available in the data.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

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

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 235H scores 25598 against 8030 for the Core 7 350, a 68.6% advantage.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the Intel Core 7 350 boosts to 4.80 GHz.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235H uses dual-channel memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 7 350 uses single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

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

A: The Core Ultra 5 235H leads in all single-thread tests. The smallest margin is PassMark single-thread, where the Core Ultra 5 235H scores 4359 versus 4100, a 5.9% lead. The largest single-thread margin is Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Core Ultra 5 235H leads by 50% with 1517 against 758.

Q: What are the process nodes for each processor?

A: Both processors use a 3 nm process node. The Core 7 350 is fabricated at Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 235H is fabricated at TSMC.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant single victory for the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H occurs in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 25598 against 8030 for the Core 7 350. The 68.6% delta is the largest in the entire comparison. This benchmark stresses all cores simultaneously, and the Core Ultra 5 235H benefits from its 14 cores versus 6, plus a larger 18 MB L3 cache versus 6 MB.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a similar pattern. The Core Ultra 5 235H scores 10751, exactly double the 5373 of the Core 7 350, resulting in a 50% delta. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 52.7% delta, with 2580 versus 1220. The consistency of the multi-core Cinebench results confirms that the Core Ultra 5 235H delivers roughly double the rendering throughput of the Core 7 350.

PassMark integer math shows a 54.6% lead for the Core Ultra 5 235H, with 74247 versus 33734. PassMark floating point math shows a 54.2% lead, with 93509 versus 42809. PassMark find prime numbers shows a 55.2% lead, with 239 versus 107. These arithmetic tests are heavily threaded and scale well with core count, explaining the large deltas.

PassMark data compression shows a 52.6% lead, with 301979 versus 143123. PassMark data encryption shows a 52.7% lead, with 23121 versus 10933. PassMark random string sorting shows a 52.4% lead, with 36208 versus 17238. PassMark extended instructions shows a 48.4% lead, with 23354 versus 12045. These workloads also benefit from the additional cores and higher memory bandwidth of the Core Ultra 5 235H.

PassMark multithread shows a 49.6% lead, with 30091 versus 15170. PassMark physics shows a 40.9% lead, with 1985 versus 1173. The physics test is the second-smallest margin in the comparison, indicating that the Core 7 350 is relatively less disadvantaged in this particular workload, though it still loses.

Single-core tests show smaller but consistent leads. Cinebench R23 single-core has a 43.4% delta, with 3613 versus 2046. Cinebench R20 single-core has a 50% delta, with 1517 versus 758. Cinebench R15 single-core has a 19.8% delta, with 364 versus 292. The PassMark single-thread test has the smallest delta at 5.9%, with 4359 versus 4100. These results indicate that the Core Ultra 5 235H has a substantial clock-for-clock advantage, driven by its higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.80 GHz.

The benchmark data shows no scenario where the Core 7 350 recovers ground. The Core Ultra 5 235H leads in every category, with deltas ranging from -5.9% to -68.6%. The average benchmark score of 37522 for the Core Ultra 5 235H is more than double the 17779 of the Core 7 350. The percentile ranking of 85 versus 71 further quantifies the separation. Based on the recorded measurements, the Core Ultra 5 235H is the stronger processor by every metric available.