Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265 Comparison
Intel Core 7 350
Core Ultra 7 265
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265
FAQ
Q: How do the Intel Core 7 350 and Intel Core Ultra 7 265 compare in overall average benchmark score?
A: The Core Ultra 7 265 records an average benchmark score of 64,640, while the Core 7 350 records 17,779. The Ultra 7 265 also sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 71st percentile for the Core 7 350.
Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?
A: The Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core Ultra 7 265 also has a higher base clock of 2.40 GHz and boost clock of 5.30 GHz, versus 1.50 GHz and 4.80 GHz for the Core 7 350.
Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?
A: The Core Ultra 7 265 supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Core 7 350 supports single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.
Q: In the head-to-head benchmarks, which processor wins more tests?
A: The Core Ultra 7 265 wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Core 7 350 wins none.
Q: What is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head results?
A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core Ultra 7 265 scores 42,216 against 8,030 for the Core 7 350, a delta of -81%.
Q: Do both processors use the same socket?
A: No. The Core 7 350 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 7 265 uses Intel Socket 1851.
Architecture Differences
The two processors represent fundamentally different design targets. The Intel Core 7 350, codenamed Wildcat Lake, is built on a 3 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. It is a mobile-oriented part with 6 cores and 6 threads, a base clock of 1.50 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. Its thermal design point is 15 watts, which indicates a low-power mobile focus.
The Intel Core Ultra 7 265, codenamed Arrow Lake-S, is also built on a 3 nm process, but the foundry is TSMC. It is a desktop part with 20 cores and 20 threads, a base clock of 2.40 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. Its thermal design point is 65 watts, four times the Core 7 350’s envelope. The Ultra 7 265 carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 7 350 has no recorded transistor or die size data.
Cache hierarchies differ substantially. Both allocate 192 KB of L1 per core, but the Core Ultra 7 265 offers 3 MB of L2 per core versus 2.5 MB per core for the Core 7 350. The shared L3 cache is 30 MB on the Ultra 7 265, five times the 6 MB on the Core 7 350.
Memory support diverges as well. The Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 265 supports only DDR5, but over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe connectivity favors the desktop part: the Ultra 7 265 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes, while the Core 7 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes.
Integrated graphics differ. The Core 7 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 7 265 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 32 execution units. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.
The production status for both is Active. The Core 7 350 has a release date of April 15, 2026, and a launch MSRP of $469. The Core Ultra 7 265 has a release date of January 6, 2025, and a launch MSRP of $394.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The recorded data shows a decisive sweep: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons. The margins vary by workload, from modest single-thread advantages to massive multi-thread leads.
In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 7 265 scores 4,255 against 1,220 for the Core 7 350, a delta of -71.3%. The single-core result in R15 is closer but still one-sided: 600 versus 292, a -51.3% delta. Cinebench R20 shows a narrower multi-core gap, 6,268 versus 5,373, a -14.3% delta, but the single-core result in R20 also sits at -14.3% (884 versus 758).
Cinebench R23 produces the largest discrepancy of the entire dataset. The multi-core test gives the Ultra 7 265 a score of 42,216 versus 8,030, a -81% delta. The single-core R23 test shows 5,960 versus 2,046, a -65.7% delta. These numbers indicate that the Core Ultra 7 265 delivers more than five times the multi-threaded rendering throughput of the Core 7 350.
PassMark workloads reinforce the pattern. Data compression favors the Ultra 7 265 at 522,983 versus 143,123, a -72.6% delta. Data encryption shows 40,456 versus 10,933, a -73% delta. Extended instructions score 41,478 versus 12,045, a -71% delta. Prime number finding is 418 versus 107, a -74.4% delta.
Floating point math and integer math show similar magnitudes. The Ultra 7 265 scores 172,776 in floating point against 42,809, a -75.2% delta. Integer math is 134,773 versus 33,734, a -75% delta. The PassMark multi-thread test gives 49,682 versus 15,170, a -69.5% delta. Physics simulation scores 2,923 versus 1,173, a -59.9% delta. Random string sorting is 63,833 versus 17,238, a -73% delta.
The smallest margins appear in single-threaded tests. PassMark single-thread shows 4,689 versus 4,100, a -12.6% delta. That is the only category where the Core 7 350 comes within double-digit percentage points of the Ultra 7 265. Even so, the desktop part leads in every recorded metric.
Specification Differences
The two CPUs differ across nearly every hardware category. Core count: 6 versus 20. Thread count: 6 versus 20. Base clock: 1.50 GHz versus 2.40 GHz. Boost clock: 4.80 GHz versus 5.30 GHz. Thermal design point: 15 watts versus 65 watts.
Socket and form factor: Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel Socket 1851. The Core 7 350 is a mobile part, while the Ultra 7 265 is a desktop part. Codename: Wildcat Lake versus Arrow Lake-S. Foundry: Intel versus TSMC. The Ultra 7 265 has recorded transistor count and die size; the Core 7 350 does not.
Cache: L1 is identical at 192 KB per core. L2 differs at 2.5 MB per core versus 3 MB per core. L3 shared cache is 6 MB versus 30 MB.
Memory: the Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with single-channel bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Ultra 7 265 supports only DDR5 with dual-channel bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.
PCIe: Gen 4 with 6 lanes versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU.
Release date: April 15, 2026 versus January 6, 2025. Launch MSRP: $469 versus $394. Part number: SAE3F versus SRQCX. Series: the Ultra 7 265 is listed under Core Ultra Series 2, while the Core 7 350 has no series designation.
Where Each One Wins
The benchmark data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins in every measured workload. That includes all Cinebench rendering tests, all PassMark computational tests, and all single-threaded measurements. The Core 7 350 does not claim a single head-to-head victory.
The Ultra 7 265 is clearly the stronger choice for multi-threaded rendering, compression, encryption, and physics simulation. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,216 versus 8,030 demonstrates a five-fold advantage in heavily threaded workloads. The PassMark multi-thread result, 49,682 versus 15,170, confirms that advantage extends beyond rendering into general parallel computation.
The Core 7 350’s closest relative performance appears in single-threaded tasks. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4,100 trails the Ultra 7 265’s 4,689 by only 12.6%. That is the narrowest margin in the dataset. However, even there the Core 7 350 does not win.
For workloads that depend on memory bandwidth, the Ultra 7 265 holds a clear edge with 102.4 GB/s dual-channel support versus 59.7 GB/s single-channel. For workloads that depend on PCIe bandwidth, the Ultra 7 265 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes versus Gen 4 with 6 lanes.
The Core 7 350’s advantages are not visible in benchmark scores. It operates at a much lower thermal design point of 15 watts, which suits mobile or low-power environments. Its support for LPDDR5X adds memory flexibility, and its BGA 1516 socket indicates an integrated, non-upgradeable form factor. Its integrated Xe3 graphics with 2 Xe cores may serve basic display tasks, but the recorded benchmarks do not include graphics tests.
The data positions the Ultra 7 265 as the dominant processor in this comparison. The Core 7 350 offers a low-power mobile profile, but every recorded performance metric favors the desktop part. The percentile rankings underline the gap: 93rd versus 71st percentile of all CPUs. The nearest rivals for the Core 7 350, including the AMD EPYC 9374F and AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT, sit within roughly 1% of its average score, indicating it is competitive with mid-range desktop parts from other families. The Core Ultra 7 265’s nearest rivals, including the AMD EPYC 4464P and Intel Core Ultra 7 265F, also cluster within 1%, showing it performs at a higher tier entirely.