Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive, one-sided performance relationship between the Intel Core 7 350 and the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Core Ultra 7 255HX wins every single matchup. The Core 7 350 does not record a single victory in the database, indicating a substantial performance gap that spans both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads.

The largest margins appear in multi-core rendering workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 255HX scores 32612 against 8030 for the Core 7 350, a delta of -75.4%. The Cinebench R15 multi-core result shows a similar pattern: 4916 versus 1220, also a -75.2% gap. Cinebench R20 multi-core follows with 17187 versus 5373, a -68.7% difference. These results indicate that the Core Ultra 7 255HX delivers roughly four times the multi-threaded rendering performance of the Core 7 350, a margin consistent across all three Cinebench versions.

Single-core performance tells a different story. The gap narrows considerably here, though the Core Ultra 7 255HX still leads. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the difference is only -5.4% (2163 versus 2046). Cinebench R15 single-core shows a -10.7% gap (327 versus 292), and the PassMark single-thread test records -10.1% (4562 versus 4100). The single-core advantage for the Core Ultra 7 255HX is real but modest, suggesting that per-core efficiency is relatively close between the two processors.

The PassMark suite confirms the multi-threaded dominance. Data compression shows 515143 versus 143123, a -72.2% gap. Data encryption records 39499 versus 10933, a -72.3% difference. Extended instructions score 41247 versus 12045, a -70.8% margin. Integer math delivers 127126 versus 33734, a -73.5% gap, while floating-point math shows 160624 versus 42809, a -73.3% difference. The physics test records 2926 versus 1173, the smallest multi-threaded margin at -59.9%, but still a clear win for the Core Ultra 7 255HX.

Prime number finding shows 400 versus 107, a -73.2% gap. Random string sorting records 62591 versus 17238, a -72.5% difference. The multithread aggregate score is 48234 versus 15170, a -68.5% margin. These consistent deltas in the 68-75% range across nearly every workload point to a processor that is fundamentally in a different performance class rather than one that merely edges ahead in specific tasks.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial. The Core 7 350, codenamed Wildcat Lake, uses a 3 nm process node manufactured by Intel. It is a 6-core, 6-thread processor with no hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 7 255HX, codenamed Arrow Lake-HX, also uses a 3 nm process but is manufactured by TSMC. It is a 20-core, 20-thread processor, also without hyper-threading, but with over three times the core count.

The Core Ultra 7 255HX carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 7 350 has no transistor count or die size recorded in the database. The cache hierarchy differs significantly. Both processors use 192 KB of L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache jumps from 2.5 MB per core on the Core 7 350 to 3 MB per core on the Core Ultra 7 255HX. The L3 cache is the biggest divergence: 6 MB shared on the Core 7 350 versus 30 MB shared on the Core Ultra 7 255HX, a five-fold increase.

Memory architecture also separates the two. The Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 255HX supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, nearly double the throughput. PCIe connectivity is another differentiator: Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes on the Core 7 350 versus Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes on the Core Ultra 7 255HX.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 7 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 7 255HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Core Ultra 7 255HX has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 7 350 does not, indicating overclocking capability on the former. The base clock is 1.50 GHz for the Core 7 350 versus 2.40 GHz for the Core Ultra 7 255HX, and boost clocks are 4.80 GHz versus 5.20 GHz respectively.

The Core Ultra 7 255HX belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 family with an Arrow Lake architecture, while the Core 7 350 is a Wildcat Lake part from the Core 5 generation. Both are mobile processors in active production. The Core 7 350 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the Core Ultra 7 255HX uses the Intel BGA 2114 socket, meaning they are not interchangeable in a system.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX wins every multi-core benchmark. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 32612 versus 8030 for the Core 7 350, a -75.4% delta. The gap is consistent across Cinebench R15 (-75.2%), R20 (-68.7%), and the PassMark multithread test (-68.5%).

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap?

A: The Core Ultra 7 255HX leads in all single-core tests but by much smaller margins. Cinebench R23 single-core shows only a -5.4% difference (2163 versus 2046). Cinebench R15 single-core shows -10.7% (327 versus 292), and PassMark single-thread shows -10.1% (4562 versus 4100).

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

A: The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core Ultra 7 255HX has 20 cores and 20 threads. Neither processor uses hyper-threading.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare?

A: Both have 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The Core 7 350 has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 255HX has 3 MB of L2 per core and 30 MB of shared L3.

Q: Which processor supports faster PCIe connectivity?

A: The Core Ultra 7 255HX supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The Core 7 350 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes.

Q: What memory bandwidth do these processors offer?

A: The Core 7 350 offers 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel bus. The Core Ultra 7 255HX offers 102.4 GB/s over a dual-channel bus.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 350 | Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 6 | 20 |

| Threads | 6 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.20 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 55 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2114 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-HX |

| Process Node | 3 nm (Intel) | 3 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 243 mm² |

| L2 Cache | 2.5 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes | Gen 5, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | SAE3F | SRVFG |

| Launch MSRP | $469 | Not recorded |

| Release Date | April 2026 | January 2025 |

The Verdict

The recorded data leads to an unambiguous conclusion. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX outperforms the Intel Core 7 350 in every single benchmark test in the database, with 17 wins out of 17 head-to-head matchups. The average benchmark score of 62738 for the Core Ultra 7 255HX versus 17779 for the Core 7 350 places them in different performance strata, reflected in their percentile rankings of 93 versus 71 among all CPUs.

The Core Ultra 7 255HX belongs in a league with processors like the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 (delta -0.2%), the AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 (delta 0.4%), and the Intel Core i7-13790F (delta -0.5%). The Core 7 350, by contrast, sits near the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (delta -0.6%), the Intel Core 5 120U (delta -0.7%), and the Intel Core 5 221TE (delta -0.5%). These nearest rival comparisons show that the Core 7 350 performs in the mainstream range while the Core Ultra 7 255HX competes at a much higher tier.

The Core Ultra 7 255HX delivers roughly four times the multi-threaded performance of the Core 7 350 in Cinebench workloads, with deltas of -75.4%, -75.2%, and -68.7% across R23, R15, and R20 respectively. It also provides over three times the PassMark multithread score (48234 versus 15170). The single-core advantage is smaller, at 5-11%, but still consistently favors the Core Ultra 7 255HX.

The only meaningful advantage for the Core 7 350 in the database is its substantially lower TDP of 15 W versus 55 W for the Core Ultra 7 255HX. For thermally constrained systems where power draw is the limiting factor, the Core 7 350 offers a far more efficient baseline. However, for any workload that can utilize multiple cores, the Core Ultra 7 255HX is the superior choice based on the measured data.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 255HX wins in every performance benchmark category. Its largest margins come in heavily multi-threaded workloads: Cinebench R23 multi-core (-75.4%), Cinebench R15 multi-core (-75.2%), PassMark data compression (-72.2%), PassMark data encryption (-72.3%), PassMark floating-point math (-73.3%), and PassMark integer math (-73.5%). These are workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth, where the 20-core, dual-channel configuration of the Core Ultra 7 255HX provides a decisive advantage.

The Core Ultra 7 255HX also wins in single-threaded tests, though by narrower margins. Cinebench R23 single-core (-5.4%), Cinebench R15 single-core (-10.7%), and PassMark single-thread (-10.1%) all favor the Core Ultra 7 255HX, likely due to its higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz versus 4.80 GHz on the Core 7 350. Even in the physics test, which often reflects single-core efficiency, the Core Ultra 7 255HX leads by -59.9%, a smaller margin than other multi-threaded tests but still decisive.

The Core 7 350 has no benchmark wins in the database. Its strengths are structural rather than performance-based: a 15 W TDP that is 40 W lower than the Core Ultra 7 255HX, support for LPDDR5X memory in addition to DDR5, and a smaller physical footprint implied by its lower core count and 6 MB L3 cache. For fanless designs, ultra-portable chassis, or battery-sensitive mobile workloads, the Core 7 350 offers a power profile that the Core Ultra 7 255HX cannot match. The Core 7 350 also has a recorded launch MSRP of $469, while the Core Ultra 7 255HX has no launch price in the database.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, rendering speed, data compression, or encryption performance, the Core Ultra 7 255HX is the only choice supported by the benchmark evidence. For users prioritizing minimal power draw in a mobile form factor, the Core 7 350 presents the efficient alternative, albeit with a substantial performance trade-off that the data quantifies at roughly three to four times slower in multi-threaded tasks.