Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H, which wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The Intel Core 7 350 does not claim a single win in any test. The largest gap appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 7 265H scores 335 against the Core 7 350's 107, a delta of -68.1%. This indicates a substantial advantage in integer-heavy, single-threaded algorithmic workloads.

Multi-core performance differences are consistently large. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 7 265H scores 19940 versus 8030 for the Core 7 350, a delta of -59.7%. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a similar pattern: 12131 against 5373, a -55.7% difference. Cinebench R15 multi-core records 2989 versus 1220, a -59.2% delta. PassMark multi-thread results show 34027 against 15170, a -55.4% gap. These figures point to the Ultra 7 265H delivering roughly 2.2 to 2.5 times the multi-threaded throughput of the Core 7 350 across rendering and synthetic workloads.

Single-core and lightly threaded tests show a much narrower margin. Cinebench R23 single-core has the Ultra 7 265H at 2080 and the Core 7 350 at 2046, a delta of only -1.6%. Cinebench R15 single-core records 307 against 292, a -4.9% difference. PassMark single-thread scores are 4334 versus 4100, a -5.4% delta. The two chips are closely matched when only one core is active, with the Ultra 7 265H holding a modest but consistent edge.

The Cinebench R20 single-core result breaks the pattern: 1712 for the Ultra 7 265H versus 758 for the Core 7 350, a delta of -55.7%. This is an outlier compared to the other single-core tests, suggesting that in this specific benchmark the Core 7 350 is far less competitive. The reason is not apparent from the recorded data alone, but the result is consistent across the database's measurements.

Memory and compression workloads also favor the Ultra 7 265H heavily. PassMark data compression shows 334711 against 143123, a -57.2% delta. Data encryption records 26005 versus 10933, a -58% gap. Extended instructions score 26805 against 12045, a -55.1% difference. Random string sorting returns 40742 versus 17238, a -57.7% delta. These results indicate the Ultra 7 265H is roughly 2.3 times faster in memory-intensive and vectorized tasks.

Math workloads follow the same trend. PassMark floating point math scores 109123 for the Ultra 7 265H and 42809 for the Core 7 350, a -60.8% delta. Integer math records 85479 versus 33734, a -60.5% difference. Physics simulation scores 2497 against 1173, a -53% gap. Every category shows the same direction of advantage, with the smallest multi-core margin in physics and the largest in prime number calculation.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H wins all 17 head-to-head tests recorded in the database. The Intel Core 7 350 wins none.

Q: How close are the two chips in single-core performance?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 7 265H scores 2080 against 2046 for the Core 7 350, a delta of -1.6%. PassMark single-thread shows 4334 versus 4100, a -5.4% difference. The exception is Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Ultra 7 265H leads by -55.7%.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 7 265H scores 335 and the Core 7 350 scores 107, a difference of -68.1%.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Ultra 7 265H has an average benchmark score of 41621, while the Core 7 350 averages 17779. The Ultra 7 265H sits at the 88th percentile of all CPUs, the Core 7 350 at the 71st.

Q: Which CPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The Ultra 7 265H boosts to 5.30 GHz. The Core 7 350 boosts to 4.80 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Ultra 7 265H uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core 7 350 uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The two processors differ substantially in core configuration. The Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads, all on the Wildcat Lake codename. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H uses the Arrow Lake-H codename and provides 16 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 7 265H therefore has 10 additional cores and 10 additional threads. Neither chip enables simultaneous multithreading, as thread counts equal core counts for both.

Fabrication differs at the foundry level. Both chips are built on a 3 nm process, but the Core 7 350 is manufactured by Intel, while the Ultra 7 265H is manufactured by TSMC. The Core 7 350 belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation, while the Ultra 7 265H belongs to the Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake-H) generation.

Cache hierarchies show clear differences. L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core for both. L2 cache is 2.5 MB per core on the Core 7 350 and 3 MB per core on the Ultra 7 265H. L3 cache is 6 MB shared on the Core 7 350 versus 24 MB shared on the Ultra 7 265H, a fourfold difference in the last-level cache.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The Core 7 350 has a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 7 265H has a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory support is absent on the Core 7 350 but present on the Ultra 7 265H.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 7 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU. The Ultra 7 265H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The integrated graphics are different as well: the Core 7 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Ultra 7 265H uses Arc Graphics 140T.

Sockets are not interchangeable. The Core 7 350 uses Intel BGA 1516, and the Ultra 7 265H uses Intel BGA 2049. The Ultra 7 265H carries a higher base clock of 2.20 GHz versus 1.50 GHz on the Core 7 350, and a higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. Thermal design power is 28 W for the Ultra 7 265H and 15 W for the Core 7 350.

Release timing and market positioning differ. The Ultra 7 265H was released in January 2025, while the Core 7 350 was released in April 2026. Both are active production parts for the mobile segment. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 7 350 has a launch MSRP of $469; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Ultra 7 265H.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear separation of roles. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H is the stronger processor across every benchmark category in the database. Its 16 cores, 24 MB of L3 cache, dual-channel memory, and higher clocks translate into roughly 2.2 to 2.5 times the multi-threaded performance of the Core 7 350 in Cinebench and PassMark workloads. It also holds the advantage in single-core tests, though by a much smaller margin of 1.6% to 5.4% in most cases.

The Intel Core 7 350 is a lower-power part with a 15 W TDP, 6 cores, and a single-channel memory bus. Its average benchmark score of 17779 places it at the 71st percentile of all CPUs. The Ultra 7 265H, with an average score of 41621, sits at the 88th percentile. In the database's nearest rival comparisons, the Core 7 350 is bracketed by the Intel Core 5 221TE at -0.5%, the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT at -0.6%, and the Intel Core 5 120U at -0.7%, while the AMD EPYC 9374F sits 0.5% ahead. The Ultra 7 265H is bracketed by the Intel Core 7 251TE at -0.1%, the Intel Core i7-12850HX at -0.4%, and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X at 0.6%, with the Intel Core i7-14650HX 0.1% ahead.

For workloads that demand high multi-threaded throughput, large cache, and fast memory bandwidth, the Ultra 7 265H is the clear choice based on the data. For scenarios where power consumption is the primary constraint, the Core 7 350's 15 W TDP and single-channel memory configuration indicate a more energy-conscious design, though the database does not include power efficiency measurements. The Core 7 350's single-core scores are close enough to the Ultra 7 265H that lightly threaded tasks would show only a small difference, but every other category strongly favors the Ultra 7 265H.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core 7 350 | Intel Core Ultra 7 265H |

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

| Cores | 6 | 16 |

| Threads | 6 | 16 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 28 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2049 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-H |

| Generation | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake-H) |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

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

| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 8 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Arc Graphics 140T |

| Release date | 2026-04-15 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | $469 | Not recorded |

| Part number | SAE3F | SRQAQ |

L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core for both. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory. Both are mobile segment parts with active production status and locked multipliers.