Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 165HL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the Intel Core 7 350 shows a processor that lands in the 71st percentile of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 17,779. The absence of recorded benchmark results for the Intel Core Ultra 7 165HL, however, means that no direct head-to-head comparison scores exist in the database. The Core 7 350's nearest rivals include the Intel Core 5 221TE (average score 17,860, delta -0.5%), the AMD EPYC 9374F (average score 17,693, delta +0.5%), the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (average score 17,891, delta -0.6%), and the Intel Core 5 120U (average score 17,898, delta -0.7%).

The Core 7 350's Cinebench results indicate a strong single-core showing. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,046 points, combined with a multi-core score of 8,030 points, reveals a processor that delivers roughly four times the multi-core throughput of its own single-core result, which is typical for a 6-core, 6-thread part. The Cinebench R20 figures follow the same pattern: 758 points single-core and 5,373 points multi-core. The older Cinebench R15 test shows 292 points single-core and 1,220 points multi-core, which again reflects the 1:4 ratio between single and multi-threaded workloads.

Passmark results for the Core 7 350 show a single-thread score of 4,100 and a multithread score of 15,170. The integer math score of 33,734 and floating point math score of 42,809 are notable, as the floating point result exceeds the integer result by a significant margin. The processor also records 12,045 in extended instructions, 14,3123 in data compression, 10,933 in data encryption, 107 in find prime numbers, 1,173 in physics, and 17,238 in random string sorting.

Because the Core Ultra 7 165HL has no recorded benchmarks in the database, its percentile of 50 and average score of 0 cannot be used to derive any performance deltas. The data set simply lacks the measurements to compare these two processors directly. What can be stated from the recorded information is that the Core 7 350 outperforms the AMD EPYC 9374F by 0.5% in average score, while it trails the Intel Core 5 221TE by 0.5%, the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT by 0.6%, and the Intel Core 5 120U by 0.7%. These deltas are all within a narrow band, placing the Core 7 350 in the middle of a tight cluster of comparable average scores.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that the Intel Core 7 350 is the only one of these two processors with measurable performance records. Its 71st percentile ranking versus all CPUs, alongside its active production status and 2026 release date, positions it as a current mobile processor with verified throughput numbers. The Core Ultra 7 165HL, by contrast, has zero recorded benchmarks and a 50th percentile placeholder, which means no performance conclusion can be drawn from the database.

For workloads that rely on single-thread performance, the Core 7 350's Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,046 and Passmark single-thread score of 4,100 indicate a capable performer. For multi-threaded tasks, its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 8,030 and Passmark multithread score of 15,170 provide the only available comparison points. The Core Ultra 7 165HL's higher core count of 16 and thread count of 22 suggests theoretical multi-threading advantages, but without benchmark data, that remains speculative rather than measured.

The choice between these two processors, strictly from the data, favors the Core 7 350 because it has demonstrable results. Users requiring verified performance metrics should select the Core 7 350. Users considering the Core Ultra 7 165HL must rely on its specification sheet alone, which shows a newer desktop-oriented part with more cores and threads, but no recorded scores to validate real-world behavior.

Architecture Differences

The Core 7 350 is built on a 3 nm process node and uses the Wildcat Lake codename, with its generation listed as Core 5 (Wildcat Lake). It features 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyper-threading is present, and each core has 192 KB of L1 cache and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, with 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores.

The Core Ultra 7 165HL, in contrast, uses the Meteor Lake architecture and the Meteor Lake-PS codename, built on a 7 nm process node. It is part of the Core Ultra Series 1, with 16 cores and 22 threads, indicating a mix of performance and efficiency cores. Each core has 112 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, with a larger 24 MB of shared L3 cache. Its integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG with 128 execution units.

The process node difference is substantial: 3 nm versus 7 nm. The Core 7 350 also differs in its memory architecture, supporting DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 165HL supports DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, though its memory support is noted as depending on the motherboard.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 7 350 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 7 165HL offers Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). Both processors have locked multipliers, and neither supports ECC memory.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several recorded specification fields. The Core 7 350 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, while the Core Ultra 7 165HL has a base clock of 1.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Core 7 350 has a TDP of 15 watts, whereas the Core Ultra 7 165HL has a TDP of 45 watts, a threefold difference in thermal design power.

The socket types are not the same: the Core 7 350 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 7 165HL uses Intel Socket 1851. The market segments differ as well, with the Core 7 350 classified as a mobile part and the Core Ultra 7 165HL classified as a desktop part.

Core and thread counts show a 16-core, 22-thread configuration for the Core Ultra 7 165HL versus a 6-core, 6-thread configuration for the Core 7 350. The L3 cache is 24 MB shared on the Core Ultra 7 165HL versus 6 MB shared on the Core 7 350. Memory bandwidth is higher on the Core Ultra 7 165HL at 89.6 GB/s, compared to 59.7 GB/s on the Core 7 350, and the memory bus is dual-channel versus single-channel.

The release dates differ: the Core Ultra 7 165HL was released in April 2024, while the Core 7 350 is dated for April 2026. The launch MSRP for the Core 7 350 is $469, and the launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 7 165HL is $459. Both processors are listed as active in production status.

FAQ

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 165HL has 16 cores and 22 threads.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two?

A: The Core 7 350 boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the Core Ultra 7 165HL boosts to 5.00 GHz, a difference of 0.20 GHz in favor of the Core Ultra 7 165HL.

Q: Which processor has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra 7 165HL has a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s over a dual-channel bus. The Core 7 350 has 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel bus.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Core 7 350 has a TDP of 15 watts. The Core Ultra 7 165HL has a TDP of 45 watts.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Core Ultra 7 165HL has 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 350 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Are there recorded benchmark scores for the Core Ultra 7 165HL?

A: No, the database contains no benchmark results for the Core Ultra 7 165HL. All recorded benchmark scores belong to the Core 7 350.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 7 350 wins on verified benchmark results. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,046 and multi-core score of 8,030, along with its Passmark single-thread score of 4,100 and multithread score of 15,170, provide concrete measurements that the Core Ultra 7 165HL simply lacks. For any user requiring evidence of performance, the Core 7 350 is the only processor with data to support a decision.

The Core 7 350 also wins on process efficiency, with a 3 nm node versus 7 nm, and a 15 watt TDP versus 45 watts. Its integrated graphics use Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, which is a newer design than the Arc Xe-LPG 128EU found in the Core Ultra 7 165HL. The Core 7 350's memory flexibility, supporting both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, gives it an advantage for mobile platforms where power and memory type flexibility matter.

The Core Ultra 7 165HL wins on raw specifications that favor heavy multi-threading. Its 16 cores and 22 threads, combined with 24 MB of L3 cache and 89.6 GB/s of dual-channel memory bandwidth, point to a processor designed for parallel workloads. Its boost clock of 5.00 GHz is higher than the Core 7 350's 4.80 GHz, and its PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes offers two more lanes than the Core 7 350's 6 lanes. It also uses the newer Socket 1851, which may indicate platform-level differences.

The Core Ultra 7 165HL's desktop market segment and 45 watt TDP suggest it is intended for systems where power draw is less constrained, while the Core 7 350's 15 watt TDP and mobile segment target power-sensitive devices. The Core 7 350's release date of 2026 places it as a more recent part, while the Core Ultra 7 165HL's 2024 release date makes it the older design despite its higher core count.

For single-threaded applications, the Core 7 350's recorded Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,046 is the only available measurement. For multi-threaded applications, the Core 7 350's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 8,030 is the only recorded number. The Core Ultra 7 165HL cannot claim wins in any benchmark category because no data exists for it. The specification sheet suggests it could excel in parallel processing, but the database does not confirm this with measured results.