Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core 7 350 compare to the Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL in terms of raw compute performance?

A: The Core 7 350 has an average benchmark score of 17779, placing it in the 71st percentile of all CPUs. The Core Ultra 7 155HL has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, with an average benchmark score of 0 and a 50th percentile ranking.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL has 16 cores and 22 threads.

Q: How do the cache configurations differ between the two?

A: The Core 7 350 uses 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 7 155HL uses 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth support?

A: The Core 7 350 has a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 155HL has a dual-channel memory bus with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a more advanced manufacturing process?

A: The Core 7 350 is fabricated on a 3 nm process node, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL uses a 7 nm node. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Q: What are the release dates for these two CPUs?

A: The Core 7 350 was released on 2026-04-15, and the Core Ultra 7 155HL was released on 2024-04-07.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design generations from Intel. The Core 7 350 is based on the Wildcat Lake codename, which belongs to the "Core 5 (Wildcat Lake)" generation, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL uses the Meteor Lake architecture under the "Ultra 7 (Meteor Lake-PS)" generation, part of the Core Ultra Series 1.

The manufacturing process differs substantially: the Core 7 350 is built on a 3 nm node, whereas the Core Ultra 7 155HL uses a 7 nm node. This process difference likely explains the Core 7 350's lower thermal design power of 15 watts versus the Core Ultra 7 155HL's 45 watts, despite the latter having far more cores.

The core topology is another major divergence. The Core 7 350 is a 6-core, 6-thread design, meaning no simultaneous multithreading is present. The Core Ultra 7 155HL offers 16 cores and 22 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement with both performance and efficiency core types, where the thread count exceeds the core count.

Cache hierarchy reflects the architectural split. The Core 7 350 allocates more L1 cache per core (192 KB) and more L2 per core (2.5 MB), suggesting a focus on per-core efficiency. The Core Ultra 7 155HL uses smaller per-core allocations (112 KB L1, 2 MB L2) but compensates with a much larger shared L3 cache of 24 MB versus 6 MB for the Core 7 350.

The integrated graphics solutions differ as well. The Core 7 350 integrates Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL uses Arc Xe-LPG with 128 execution units, a substantially larger GPU configuration.

Socket compatibility is another distinguishing factor: the Core 7 350 uses Intel BGA 1516, a mobile-oriented socket, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL uses Intel Socket 1851 and is classified as a desktop-market segment part. The Core 7 350 also supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, whereas the Core Ultra 7 155HL supports DDR5 with the caveat that support depends on the motherboard.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains benchmark results only for the Core 7 350. The Core Ultra 7 155HL has no recorded scores, which makes direct comparison impossible from measured data. What the recorded data does show is the Core 7 350's performance profile across multiple test suites.

In Cinebench R15, the Core 7 350 scores 1220 in multi-core and 292 in single-core. The R20 version shows 5373 multi-core and 758 single-core. In the more demanding R23 test, it delivers 8030 multi-core and 2046 single-core. These figures indicate a processor that scales reasonably well from single-threaded to multi-threaded workloads given its 6-core, 6-thread configuration.

PassMark results cover a wider range of specific workloads. The data compression test yields a score of 143123, while data encryption reaches 10933. Extended instruction set performance registers 12045. Integer math scores 33734, floating-point math scores 42809, and prime number finding scores 107. The multithreaded PassMark score is 15170, with a single-thread score of 4100. Physics tests show 1173, and random string sorting achieves 17238.

The nearest rivals in the database for the Core 7 350 provide context for its standing. The Intel Core 5 221TE has an average score of 17860, which is 0.5% higher than the Core 7 350. The AMD EPYC 9374F scores 17693, putting it 0.5% lower. The AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT scores 17891, 0.6% higher, and the Intel Core 5 120U scores 17898, 0.7% higher. These deltas show the Core 7 350 sitting in a very tight competitive band, within roughly a percentage point of four different processors from both Intel and AMD.

The 71st percentile ranking among all CPUs indicates the Core 7 350 outperforms the majority of processors in the database, even though it is a low-power mobile part. The average benchmark score of 17779 reflects strong aggregate performance across the test suite.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows clear divergence in nearly every major field. The Core 7 350 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 155HL has a base clock of 1.40 GHz and the same 4.80 GHz boost clock. Both processors have locked multipliers.

The power envelope differs significantly: the Core 7 350 is rated at 15 watts TDP, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL is rated at 45 watts. This threefold difference aligns with their different market segments, mobile versus desktop.

Memory support shows the Core 7 350 accepting DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL accepts DDR5 with motherboard dependency. The memory bus width is single-channel for the Core 7 350 and dual-channel for the Core Ultra 7 155HL. Memory bandwidth follows accordingly: 59.7 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s.

PCIe connectivity differs: the Core 7 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 7 155HL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). Neither supports ECC memory.

The Core 7 350 has a launch MSRP of $469, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL has a launch MSRP of $438. Both have active production status.

Cache specifications differ as described earlier, with the Core 7 350 using larger per-core L1 and L2 but much smaller L3. The Core 7 350's L1 is 192 KB per core, L2 is 2.5 MB per core, and L3 is 6 MB shared. The Core Ultra 7 155HL's L1 is 112 KB per core, L2 is 2 MB per core, and L3 is 24 MB shared.

The part numbers also differ: SAE3F for the Core 7 350 and SRN2Z for the Core Ultra 7 155HL. Socket types are Intel BGA 1516 for the former and Intel Socket 1851 for the latter.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear asymmetry: one processor has extensive benchmark coverage, and the other has none. The Intel Core 7 350 delivers measurable performance results across Cinebench and PassMark suites, achieving a 71st percentile ranking. The Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL has no recorded benchmark scores, making its performance characteristics unknown from the database's perspective.

For users selecting between these two based on the recorded data, the Core 7 350 offers verified performance metrics. Its 6-core, 6-thread configuration with 4.8 GHz boost clock produces an average benchmark score of 17779. The nearest rivals, all within 0.7% of its average score, confirm that this processor competes effectively with a range of desktop and mobile parts from both Intel and AMD.

The Core Ultra 7 155HL offers a different structural profile: 16 cores, 22 threads, 24 MB L3 cache, dual-channel memory, and a 45-watt TDP. These specifications suggest a processor designed for higher multi-threaded throughput, but no measured scores exist to confirm this expectation. The 7 nm process node and 2024 release date place it in an earlier generation than the 3 nm Core 7 350.

The Core 7 350's 15-watt TDP with a 4.8 GHz boost clock indicates efficient high-frequency operation. Its 3 nm process node is the more advanced manufacturing technology. The Core Ultra 7 155HL's larger core count and cache suggest an intended role in more demanding multi-threaded environments, but the absence of benchmark data prevents verification.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 350 wins in every category where measured data exists. Its benchmark results cover Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both multi-core and single-core tests, plus a comprehensive PassMark suite including integer math, floating-point math, encryption, compression, and physics workloads. The 71st percentile ranking places it above the median of all CPUs in the database.

The Core 7 350 also holds advantages in manufacturing process (3 nm versus 7 nm), power efficiency (15 watts versus 45 watts), and per-core cache allocation (192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2 per core versus 112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core). Its memory flexibility with both DDR5 and LPDDR5X support may suit mobile platforms.

The Core Ultra 7 155HL wins on structural specifications that suggest multi-threaded capability. Its 16 cores and 22 threads provide a 10-core and 16-thread advantage over the Core 7 350. The 24 MB shared L3 cache is four times larger, which could benefit workloads with large working sets. The dual-channel memory bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth offers 50% more theoretical memory throughput than the single-channel 59.7 GB/s of the Core 7 350.

The Core Ultra 7 155HL also provides more PCIe lanes (8 versus 6) and a larger integrated graphics unit (128 execution units versus 2 Xe cores). Its desktop market segment classification and Socket 1851 compatibility target a different platform type than the mobile BGA 1516 of the Core 7 350.

The recorded data favors the Core 7 350 for any application where verified performance is required. The Core Ultra 7 155HL remains a specification-only option, with its architectural advantages in core count, cache size, and memory bandwidth unvalidated by benchmark results. The choice between them depends on whether the user prioritizes measured performance data or structural specifications that suggest untested multi-threaded potential.