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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows that the Intel Core 7 350 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA have not been directly compared in any head-to-head benchmark runs within the database. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and neither processor has a recorded win count in direct comparisons. This absence of direct measurement data is significant, as it means that any performance ranking between these two parts must be inferred from their individual benchmark results and their positions relative to other CPUs in the database.

The Intel Core 7 350 has a full suite of benchmark scores recorded. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 8030, while its single-core score in the same test is 2046. In Cinebench R20, it scores 5373 multi-core and 758 single-core. The older Cinebench R15 test shows 1220 multi-core and 292 single-core. PassMark results include a multi-thread score of 15170, a single-thread score of 4100, integer math at 33734, floating point math at 42809, data compression at 143123, data encryption at 10933, extended instructions at 12045, find prime numbers at 107, physics at 1173, and random string sorting at 17238. The average benchmark score for this part is 17779, placing it in the 71st percentile of all CPUs in the database.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA has no benchmark scores recorded at all. Its average benchmark score is listed as 0, and its percentile versus all CPUs is 50. This means the database contains no performance measurements for this processor, making any direct numerical comparison impossible. The Core 7 350, by contrast, has a substantial body of data that can be analyzed and compared against other processors in the database.

Because the Core Ultra 5 235TA lacks recorded scores, the nearest rival comparison for the Core 7 350 provides the only meaningful context. The Core 7 350 sits within a tight cluster of comparable CPUs: it is 0.5% behind the Intel Core 5 221TE, 0.5% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9374F, 0.6% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT, and 0.7% behind the Intel Core 5 120U. These deltas are all within one percentage point, indicating that the Core 7 350 performs at essentially the same level as these four established processors in aggregate benchmark scoring.

The lack of head-to-head data means that the Core Ultra 5 235TA cannot be positioned against the Core 7 350 in any benchmark category. The Core 7 350’s individual scores show strong single-thread capability relative to its multi-thread output, with a single-thread to multi-thread ratio in PassMark of roughly 27% (4100 versus 15170). In Cinebench R23, the single-core score of 2046 represents about 25.5% of the multi-core score of 8030, which is typical for a processor with 6 cores and 6 threads.

The Verdict

The database presents a clear asymmetry: one processor has extensive benchmark coverage, and the other has none. The Intel Core 7 350, with its recorded scores and 71st percentile ranking, can be evaluated on its measured performance. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA, with no recorded benchmarks and a 50th percentile placeholder, cannot be assessed through measured data.

For users selecting strictly from the available data, the Core 7 350 is the only option with quantifiable performance. Its 6 cores and 6 threads, paired with a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, deliver a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 8030 and a PassMark multi-thread score of 15170. The Core Ultra 5 235TA offers more cores (14) and a higher boost clock (5.00 GHz), but without any recorded scores, those specifications do not translate into measured performance in the database.

The Core 7 350’s nearest rival comparison shows it is competitive with, and in some cases slightly ahead of, established processors like the AMD EPYC 9374F. The Core Ultra 5 235TA has no rival data, leaving its performance characteristics undefined. In a strict data-driven selection, the Core 7 350 is the only part that can be recommended based on evidence. The Core Ultra 5 235TA would require additional benchmark data before any performance-based verdict can be rendered.

Architecture Differences

The two processors differ substantially in their underlying architecture, as recorded in the database. The Intel Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is part of the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. It is built on a 3 nm process node at Intel’s own foundry. The processor has 6 cores and 6 threads, with a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. Its thermal design power (TDP) is 15 watts, indicating a low-power mobile design. The socket is Intel BGA 1516, confirming its mobile orientation. Memory support includes DDR5 and LPDDR5X, with a single-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. PCIe support is Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are provided by Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The processor uses a cache hierarchy of 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3 cache.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA is a fundamentally different design. It belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Arrow Lake architecture, and carries the codename Arrow Lake-S. It is also built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry is TSMC rather than Intel. The processor has 14 cores and 14 threads, with a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Its TDP is 65 watts, which is more than four times higher than the Core 7 350, reflecting a desktop-oriented power envelope. The socket is Intel Socket 1851, and the market segment is listed as Desktop. The processor has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², figures that are not recorded for the Core 7 350. Memory support is DDR5 only, with a dual-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, which is roughly 72% higher than the Core 7 350’s bandwidth. PCIe support is Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), a substantial upgrade in both generation and lane count. Integrated graphics are provided by Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 EU (execution units). The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3 cache, with the L3 cache being four times larger than the Core 7 350’s 6 MB.

The two processors also differ in release timing and pricing. The Core 7 350 has a release date of 2026-04-15 and a launch MSRP of $469. The Core Ultra 5 235TA has a release date of 2025-07-28 and a launch MSRP of $269. The Core Ultra 5 235TA is also listed with a part number (SRWPP), while the Core 7 350 has a part number of SAE3F. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 350 have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 7 350 has a full suite of benchmark scores, including Cinebench R23 multi-core at 8030, Cinebench R23 single-core at 2046, PassMark multi-thread at 15170, and PassMark single-thread at 4100. Its average benchmark score is 17779.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA has an empty benchmark array and an average benchmark score of 0. No performance measurements are recorded for this processor in the database.

Q: How does the Intel Core 7 350 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 is 0.5% behind the Intel Core 5 221TE, 0.5% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9374F, 0.6% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT, and 0.7% behind the Intel Core 5 120U in average benchmark score.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each processor?

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

Q: What are the process nodes for these two processors?

A: Both processors are built on a 3 nm process node. The Intel Core 7 350 uses Intel as the foundry, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA uses TSMC.

Q: What is the cache configuration for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Core 7 350’s boost clock of 4.80 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the recorded data, the Intel Core 7 350 wins in every measurable category because it is the only processor with benchmark scores. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 8030, single-core score of 2046, and PassMark multi-thread score of 15170 provide concrete performance figures. The Core 7 350 also holds a 71st percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database, indicating that it outperforms the majority of recorded processors.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA, despite having no benchmark scores, shows advantages in several specification-based categories. It has more cores (14 versus 6), a higher boost clock (5.00 GHz versus 4.80 GHz), a larger L3 cache (24 MB versus 6 MB), a higher memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s), a dual-channel memory bus (versus single-channel), and more PCIe lanes (20 Gen 5 lanes versus 6 Gen 4 lanes). Its TDP of 65 watts indicates a higher power envelope, which typically allows for sustained performance in desktop workloads, though this is not confirmed by any recorded benchmarks.

In terms of production status, both processors are listed as Active. The Core Ultra 5 235TA has a release date of 2025-07-28, while the Core 7 350 has a release date of 2026-04-15, making the Core Ultra 5 235TA the earlier release. The Core Ultra 5 235TA also has a lower launch MSRP of $269 compared to the Core 7 350’s $469, though pricing is not a factor in performance analysis.

For users prioritizing measured performance, the Intel Core 7 350 is the only processor with data to support a selection. For users prioritizing core count, cache size, memory bandwidth, and PCIe connectivity, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA offers a superior specification sheet, but its actual performance remains unmeasured in the database. The Core 7 350’s nearest rival deltas, all within 0.7%, suggest that it is a stable, mid-tier performer, while the Core Ultra 5 235TA’s lack of data leaves its position undefined.