Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265F Comparison
Intel Core 7 350
Core Ultra 7 265F
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265F
Architecture Differences
The two processors represent fundamentally different Intel design philosophies despite sharing the same 3 nm process node. The Intel Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation family, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is built on Arrow Lake, specifically the Arrow Lake-S desktop variant within the Core Ultra Series 2 lineup.
The most obvious architectural split is core count. The Core 7 350 provides 6 cores and 6 threads, a configuration with no hyperthreading. The Core Ultra 7 265F delivers 20 cores and 20 threads, also without multithreading per core, but with a massive 14-core advantage. This immediately suggests the desktop part targets heavily parallel workloads, while the mobile part prioritizes efficiency and compactness.
Clock behavior reinforces the positioning. The Core 7 350 has a 1.50 GHz base clock and a 4.80 GHz boost clock. The Core Ultra 7 265F starts at 2.40 GHz base and reaches 5.30 GHz boost. Both boost figures are strong, but the desktop chip holds a 0.50 GHz advantage at peak, and its higher base clock means sustained all-core loads begin from a higher starting point.
Cache hierarchies differ substantially. Both use 192 KB of L1 per core, and L2 is per core in both cases: 2.5 MB per core for the Core 7 350 versus 3 MB per core for the Core Ultra 7 265F. The L3 cache tells the larger story. The mobile chip has 6 MB shared, while the desktop chip has 30 MB shared, a 5x difference. For data-heavy workloads that exceed the L3 capacity of the smaller part, the larger cache should reduce memory traffic significantly.
Memory architecture diverges completely. The Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 265F supports DDR5 only, but through a dual-channel bus that delivers 102.4 GB/s. That is roughly 1.7x the memory bandwidth, which matters for workloads that stream data or scale across many cores. The mobile chip also uses Intel BGA 1516, a soldered mobile socket, while the desktop chip uses Intel Socket 1851.
PCIe connectivity favors the desktop part. The Core 7 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 7 265F provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, a newer standard and more than triple the lane count. Integrated graphics also split the pair: the Core 7 350 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics at all, marked N/A.
Production status is Active for both, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The foundry differs: Intel fabricates the Wildcat Lake chip, while TSMC produces the Arrow Lake die. The desktop chip has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die; the mobile chip has no transistor or die size figures recorded. The Core Ultra 7 265F also carries a higher 65 W TDP versus 15 W for the Core 7 350, a 50 W gap that explains much of the performance difference.
The Verdict
The recorded data points to a decisive performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the database, 17 of 17 comparisons. The Core 7 350 wins zero. Its average benchmark score sits at 64,438 versus 17,779 for the mobile chip, and the percentile ranking confirms the gap: 93rd percentile versus 71st across all CPUs.
The Core 7 350 belongs in low-power mobile systems where the 15 W TDP, integrated Xe3 Graphics, and LPDDR5X memory support define the platform. The Core Ultra 7 265F is a desktop processor for users who need maximum multi-core throughput, as shown by its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 41,980, which is 5.2x the mobile part's 8,030.
The single-thread gap is narrower but still one-sided. In PassMark single-thread tests, the Core Ultra 7 265F scores 4,750 versus 4,100, a 13.7% advantage. For lightly threaded tasks, the mobile chip is competitive, but the desktop part still leads. The launch MSRP for the Core 7 350 is $469, and for the Core Ultra 7 265F it is $379. The data indicates the desktop part delivers far higher performance at a lower launch MSRP.
The nearest rivals for each chip confirm their respective leagues. 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. The Core Ultra 7 265F trades within 0.6% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265, the AMD EPYC 7343, the AMD EPYC 4464P, and the Intel Core i9-13900KS. The mobile chip competes with mid-range parts; the desktop chip competes with high-end server and flagship desktop silicon.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads.
Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?
A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 265F scores 41,980 versus 8,030 for the Core 7 350, a delta of -80.9% from the perspective of the mobile chip. PassMark multithread shows 49,410 versus 15,170, a -69.3% delta.
Q: Does the Core 7 350 have integrated graphics?
A: Yes, it includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.
Q: What memory types does each support?
A: The Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X on a single-channel bus. The Core Ultra 7 265F supports DDR5 only, on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.
Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?
A: The Core Ultra 7 265F boosts to 5.30 GHz. The Core 7 350 boosts to 4.80 GHz.
Q: How do the nearest rivals compare to each chip?
A: The Core 7 350 is within 0.7% of the Intel Core 5 120U and AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT. The Core Ultra 7 265F is within 0.6% of the Intel Core i9-13900KS and AMD EPYC 7343.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in nearly every specification category. Core count: 6 versus 20. Threads: 6 versus 20. Base clock: 1.50 GHz versus 2.40 GHz. Boost clock: 4.80 GHz versus 5.30 GHz. TDP: 15 W versus 65 W. Socket: Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel Socket 1851.
Codename and architecture split by design family. The Core 7 350 uses Wildcat Lake, while the Core Ultra 7 265F uses Arrow Lake-S. Generation labels also differ: Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) versus Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake). The process node is identical at 3 nm, but the foundry differs, Intel for the mobile chip and TSMC for the desktop chip. The desktop part records 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die, while the mobile part has no such figures.
Cache configurations diverge in L2 and L3. L2 is 2.5 MB per core for the Core 7 350 and 3 MB per core for the Core Ultra 7 265F. L3 is 6 MB shared versus 30 MB shared. Memory support differs: DDR5 plus LPDDR5X for the mobile chip, DDR5 only for the desktop chip. Memory bus width differs: single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s.
PCIe generation and lane count differ: Gen 4 with 6 lanes versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores versus N/A. Market segment: Mobile versus Desktop. Release dates differ: 2026-04-15 for the Core 7 350 versus 2025-01-06 for the Core Ultra 7 265F. Launch MSRP: $469 versus $379. Part numbers: SAE3F versus SRQCV. Both lack ECC memory support and unlocked multipliers.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Core Ultra 7 265F dominates every recorded comparison. The largest margin appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 41,980 against 8,030, a -80.9% delta. That is the single biggest gap in the dataset. PassMark integer math shows a -75.6% delta (138,078 versus 33,734), and floating-point math shows -75.4% (173,855 versus 42,809). These arithmetic workloads scale with core count, and the 20-core part has the expected advantage.
Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 4,231 versus 1,220, a -71.2% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 17,631 versus 5,373, a -69.5% delta. PassMark data compression shows 507,018 versus 143,123, a -71.8% delta. Data encryption shows 39,468 versus 10,933, a -72.3% delta. Extended instructions show 39,235 versus 12,045, a -69.3% delta. Prime number finding shows 416 versus 107, a -74.3% delta. Random string sorting shows 62,439 versus 17,238, a -72.4% delta. Physics shows 3,172 versus 1,173, a -63% delta. PassMark multithread shows 49,410 versus 15,170, a -69.3% delta.
Single-core results narrow the gap but never flip it. Cinebench R15 single-core: 597 versus 292, a -51.1% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core: 2,488 versus 758, a -69.5% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core: 5,926 versus 2,046, a -65.5% delta. PassMark single-thread: 4,750 versus 4,100, a -13.7% delta. The PassMark single-thread gap is the smallest in the entire head-to-head set, showing that the mobile chip's single-core efficiency is respectable even against a higher-clocked desktop part.
The delta pattern is consistent. Multi-core deltas range from -63% to -80.9%, while single-core deltas range from -13.7% to -69.5%. The Core 7 350 closes the relative gap only in the PassMark single-thread test. Every other benchmark shows a differential of at least half, meaning the desktop chip is at minimum roughly 2x faster in those tests.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins in every measured category, so the use-case split comes from the specifications rather than benchmark victories. The desktop chip is the clear choice for multi-threaded rendering, data compression, encryption, and arithmetic workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 41,980 and PassMark multithread score of 49,410 indicate sustained all-core performance that the mobile chip cannot approach. The 30 MB L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s dual-channel memory bandwidth support large working sets and high data throughput.
The Core 7 350 wins in the portability and power domain. Its 15 W TDP enables fanless or low-noise mobile designs, while the Core Ultra 7 265F requires 65 W and desktop cooling. The integrated Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores means the mobile chip can drive a display without a discrete GPU, whereas the desktop chip has no graphics output and requires a separate video card. LPDDR5X memory support allows compact, power-efficient memory configurations that would not be possible on the desktop platform.
For single-threaded responsiveness, the Core 7 350 is competitive in relative terms, trailing by only 13.7% in PassMark single-thread. This makes it acceptable for everyday mobile tasks like web browsing and office work. However, the Core Ultra 7 265F still leads in absolute single-thread scores, so users who want the fastest possible per-core performance on a desktop should choose the Arrow Lake part.
The PCIe difference defines expansion capability. The Core Ultra 7 265F offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes, enabling high-bandwidth GPUs and NVMe storage. The Core 7 350 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes, which is adequate for a mobile system but not for a high-end workstation. The Core 7 350 also has no recorded transistor count or die size, while the Core Ultra 7 265F documents 17,800 million transistors on 243 mm².
The nearest rival sets reinforce the split. The Core 7 350 sits within 0.7% of parts like the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT and Intel Core 5 120U, placing it in the mid-range mobile segment. The Core Ultra 7 265F sits within 0.6% of the Intel Core i9-13900KS and AMD EPYC 7343, placing it in the high-end desktop and server-adjacent segment. Users who need the latter tier of performance must choose the desktop chip; users who need a mobile processor with integrated graphics and low power draw must choose the Core 7 350.