Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255H Comparison
Intel Core 7 350
Core Ultra 7 255H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255H
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The benchmark data splits the field cleanly between two very different processors. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H dominates the multi-threaded and throughput-oriented tests, while the Intel Core 7 350 takes a narrow but consistent lead in two specific single-core Cinebench workloads.
Looking at the multi-core results first, the Core Ultra 7 255H wins every single heavy parallel workload. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 7 scores 9240 against the Core 7 350's 8030, a 13.1% advantage. That gap widens in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Ultra 7 posts 6381 versus 5373, a 15.8% margin. The R15 multi-core test shows a similar pattern: 1515 for the Ultra 7 against 1220 for the Core 7 350, a 19.5% difference.
The PassMark suite reveals an even larger chasm in specialized workloads. The Ultra 7 255H scores 298850 in data compression against 143123 for the Core 7 350, a 52.1% lead. Data encryption follows the same trajectory: 23395 versus 10933, a 53.3% advantage. Extended instructions land at 23755 for the Ultra 7 and 12045 for the Core 7 350, a 49.3% gap. Integer math shows 77975 against 33734, a 56.7% margin. Floating point math mirrors that exact 56.7% delta, with 98796 versus 42809. Prime number finding is the widest single gap at 64.7%, with the Ultra 7 scoring 303 against 107. Physics simulation results show 2254 versus 1173, a 48% lead. Random string sorting delivers 36058 versus 17238, a 52.2% margin. The multi-thread PassMark score lands at 30703 against 15170, a 50.6% advantage.
The single-thread PassMark results narrow considerably. The Ultra 7 255H still wins, scoring 4317 against 4100, but the margin shrinks to just 5%. That is the closest performance gap in the entire comparison.
The Core 7 350 does win two benchmarks, both single-core Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core 7 350 scores 292 against 251, a 16.3% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2046 against 1843, an 11% advantage. However, Cinebench R20 single-core breaks that pattern: the Ultra 7 255H wins 900 against 758, a 15.8% margin. That mixed single-core picture matters when choosing between the two.
Where Each One Wins
The Core Ultra 7 255H is the clear choice for any workload that scales across cores or stresses memory bandwidth. Its wins span compression, encryption, integer and floating point math, physics simulation, sorting, and extended instruction sets. The 16-core, 16-thread configuration with dual-channel memory support gives it a structural advantage in parallel tasks. The PassMark multi-thread score of 30703 nearly doubles the Core 7 350's 15170, which is consistent with the 50.6% delta recorded in the head-to-head data.
The Core 7 350 wins in two specific single-core Cinebench tests, but it does not win the single-thread PassMark test. The data suggests the Core 7 350 has a per-core strength in certain lightly threaded Cinebench scenarios, yet the Ultra 7 255H still holds the overall single-thread PassMark advantage at 4317 versus 4100. The Cinebench R20 single-core result also goes to the Ultra 7, so the Core 7 350's wins are isolated to the R15 and R23 versions of that benchmark.
For users running short single-core renders or legacy Cinebench R15 workloads, the Core 7 350 shows a real edge. For everything else, from data processing to physics simulation to multi-threaded rendering, the Ultra 7 255H delivers substantially higher scores. The database places the Core 7 350 at the 71st percentile among all CPUs, while the Ultra 7 255H sits at the 83rd percentile. The average benchmark score tells the same story: 33537 for the Ultra 7 versus 17779 for the Core 7 350.
Architecture Differences
The two processors share a 3 nm process node but come from different foundries and internal designs. The Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation family. The Core Ultra 7 255H uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-H, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. Intel fabricates the Core 7 350 in-house, while TSMC fabricates the Core Ultra 7 255H.
Core counts diverge sharply. The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyperthreading. The Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ as well: 1.50 GHz for the Core 7 350 versus 2.00 GHz for the Ultra 7 255H. Boost clocks favor the Ultra 7 at 5.10 GHz against 4.80 GHz. Thermal design power scales with the core count, with the Core 7 350 rated at 15 W and the Ultra 7 255H at 28 W.
Cache layouts also differ. Both use 192 KB of L1 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 7 255H. The shared L3 cache is 6 MB on the Core 7 350 and 24 MB on the Ultra 7 255H. That 18 MB difference in shared cache is likely a major factor in the throughput gaps seen in compression and encryption tests.
Memory support is another dividing line. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but the Core 7 350 runs a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 255H runs dual-channel with 102.4 GB/s. That 71.5% bandwidth advantage helps explain the wide margins in memory-sensitive benchmarks. ECC memory is supported on the Ultra 7 255H but not on the Core 7 350.
PCIe capabilities differ by a full generation. The Core 7 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 7 255H provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 7 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Ultra 7 255H uses Arc Graphics 140T. The sockets are different as well, with the Core 7 350 on Intel BGA 1516 and the Ultra 7 255H on Intel BGA 2049. The Core 7 350 has a launch MSRP of $469; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Ultra 7 255H. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 7 350 released on April 15, 2026, while the Ultra 7 255H released on January 12, 2025.
The Verdict
The data points to different users for each processor. The Core Ultra 7 255H is the stronger processor by nearly every recorded metric. It wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, including every multi-core test and every PassMark workload. Its 83rd percentile ranking and 33537 average benchmark score place it well above the Core 7 350's 71st percentile and 17779 average. The 16-core configuration, 24 MB of shared L3 cache, dual-channel memory, and Gen 5 PCIe support make it the choice for any workload that benefits from parallel execution, high memory bandwidth, or newer I/O standards.
The Core 7 350 is not without merit. Its 16.3% win in Cinebench R15 single-core and 11% win in Cinebench R23 single-core show that its 6-core design can outpace the Ultra 7 255H in specific lightly threaded rendering tasks. Its 15 W TDP makes it a lower-power option, and its Wildcat Lake architecture with Intel's in-house 3 nm process is a distinct design. The single-channel memory bus and 6 MB shared L3 cache limit its throughput potential, but the Cinebench single-core results confirm that raw per-core performance in certain workloads is competitive.
The nearest rival data adds context. The Core 7 350 sits within 0.7% of the Intel Core 5 120U, the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT, the Intel Core 5 221TE, and the AMD EPYC 9374F in average score. The Core Ultra 7 255H sits within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen 5 240, the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS, the AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX, and the Intel Core i5-12600HX. Both processors are competitive within their respective performance tiers.
Users who prioritize multi-threaded throughput, data-heavy workloads, and newer platform features should select the Core Ultra 7 255H. Users who need a lower-power part with a specific single-core Cinebench advantage and a lower launch MSRP may find the Core 7 350 suitable, provided their workloads align with its two benchmark wins.
FAQ
Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H wins 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core 7 350 wins 2.
Q: What are the single-core Cinebench results for each processor?
A: The Core 7 350 scores 292 in Cinebench R15 single-core and 2046 in Cinebench R23 single-core. The Core Ultra 7 255H scores 251 and 1843 respectively. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Ultra 7 255H wins 900 against 758.
Q: How much faster is the Core Ultra 7 255H in multi-threaded PassMark?
A: The Core Ultra 7 255H scores 30703 in PassMark multi-thread against 15170 for the Core 7 350, a 50.6% advantage.
Q: What is the core and thread count difference?
A: The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores and 16 threads.
Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?
A: No. The Core Ultra 7 255H supports ECC memory. The Core 7 350 does not.
Q: What process node do both processors use?
A: Both use a 3 nm process node. Intel fabricates the Core 7 350, while TSMC fabricates the Core Ultra 7 255H.