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

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data presents a completely one-sided benchmark landscape. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core 7 350. The Core 7 350 does not win a single test in the database. This is not a close contest, the performance gap is consistent and substantial across every workload category.

The Intel Core 7 350 occupies the 71st percentile among all CPUs, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX sits at the 93rd percentile. The average benchmark score for the Core 7 350 is 17,779, compared to 63,173 for the Core Ultra 7 265HX. That is a 3.5x difference in average score, indicating a fundamentally different performance class.

The Core Ultra 7 265HX clearly targets demanding workloads. Its 20 cores and 20 threads handle multi-threaded tasks with authority, while its 5.30 GHz boost clock supports strong single-thread performance. The Core 7 350, with 6 cores, 6 threads, and a 4.80 GHz boost clock, fits a much lighter duty cycle. The data suggests the Core 7 350 is designed for efficiency-focused mobile systems where maximum performance is not the primary objective.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX records an average benchmark score of 63,173, compared to 17,779 for the Intel Core 7 350.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265HX scores 40,642 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core 7 350 scores 8,030. The Core Ultra 7 265HX leads by 80.2 percent.

Q: Does the Core 7 350 win any benchmark tests?

A: No. The database records 17 head-to-head tests, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX wins all 17. The Core 7 350 has zero wins.

Q: What is the difference in single-thread performance?

A: In PassMark single-thread tests, the Core Ultra 7 265HX scores 4,500 versus 4,100 for the Core 7 350, a lead of 8.9 percent. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the margin is larger at 64.3 percent, with scores of 5,737 and 2,046 respectively.

Q: How do the two processors compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265HX provides 102.4 GB/s through a dual-channel memory bus, while the Core 7 350 delivers 59.7 GB/s through a single-channel interface.

Q: Which processor has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265HX ranks in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 350 ranks in the 71st percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite reveals the starkest separation. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 265HX produces 40,642 points against 8,030 for the Core 7 350, a delta of 80.2 percent. The R20 multi-core test shows a 68.5 percent gap, with scores of 17,069 and 5,373. R15 multi-core records 4,096 versus 1,220, a 70.2 percent difference. These numbers indicate the Core Ultra 7 265HX delivers roughly four to five times the multi-threaded rendering throughput.

Single-core results follow a similar pattern but with a narrower spread. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 5,737 for the Core Ultra 7 265HX against 2,046 for the Core 7 350, a 64.3 percent advantage. R20 single-core records 2,409 versus 758, a 68.5 percent gap. R15 single-core shows 578 versus 292, a 49.5 percent margin. The consistency of these margins across Cinebench versions confirms the architectural superiority of the Core Ultra 7 265HX, not just in core count but in per-core efficiency as well.

PassMark tests reinforce the pattern. Data compression scores 511,817 for the Core Ultra 7 265HX versus 143,123 for the Core 7 350, a 72 percent lead. Data encryption shows 39,472 against 10,933, a 72.3 percent gap. Extended instructions deliver 40,741 versus 12,045, a 70.4 percent margin. Integer math records 126,954 against 33,734, a 73.4 percent difference, while floating point math shows 161,605 versus 42,809, a 73.5 percent gap.

The smallest head-to-head margin appears in PassMark single-thread tests. The Core Ultra 7 265HX scores 4,500, the Core 7 350 scores 4,100, a lead of only 8.9 percent. This narrow gap suggests that in lightly threaded, latency-sensitive workloads, the Core 7 350 is comparatively competitive. The two processors are much closer in per-thread capability than in aggregate throughput. The physics test shows a 60.6 percent gap, with scores of 2,978 and 1,173. Find prime numbers records 406 versus 107, a 73.6 percent difference. Random string sorting shows 62,458 versus 17,238, a 72.4 percent margin.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ dramatically. The Core Ultra 7 265HX has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Neither processor uses hyper-threading, so thread counts equal core counts in both cases.

Clock speeds also separate the two. The Core Ultra 7 265HX has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The Core 7 350 runs at 1.50 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. The Core Ultra 7 265HX sustains a higher minimum operating frequency and reaches a higher maximum.

Thermal design power differs substantially. The Core Ultra 7 265HX carries a 55 W TDP, while the Core 7 350 operates at 15 W. This 40 W difference explains much of the performance gap, as the Core Ultra 7 265HX has far more thermal headroom for sustained heavy loads.

The sockets are incompatible. The Core Ultra 7 265HX uses Intel BGA 2114, while the Core 7 350 uses Intel BGA 1516. These are physically different packages, so no cross-compatibility exists.

Memory support diverges. The Core Ultra 7 265HX supports DDR5 only, with a dual-channel bus delivering 102.4 GB/s. The Core 7 350 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 265HX offers nearly double the memory bandwidth, which benefits memory-intensive workloads such as compression and encryption.

PCIe capabilities differ as well. The Core Ultra 7 265HX provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes, while the Core 7 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes. This affects expansion options for high-speed storage and external GPUs.

The multiplier is unlocked on the Core Ultra 7 265HX, while the Core 7 350 has a locked multiplier. Overclocking potential therefore exists only on the Core Ultra 7 265HX.

Architecture Differences

The Core Ultra 7 265HX belongs to the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-HX codename, and sits in the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. The Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename in the Core 5 generation. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. The Core Ultra 7 265HX is manufactured by TSMC, while the Core 7 350 is manufactured by Intel.

The Core Ultra 7 265HX has a substantially larger silicon footprint. The database records 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 7 350 has no listed transistor count or die size, indicating that this information is not available in the recorded data.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. Both processors have 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the Core Ultra 7 265HX versus 2.5 MB per core on the Core 7 350. The L3 cache shows the largest divergence: 30 MB shared on the Core Ultra 7 265HX against 6 MB shared on the Core 7 350. This 24 MB difference in L3 capacity directly impacts workloads with large working sets.

The integrated graphics units differ in architecture. The Core Ultra 7 265HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Core 7 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The 64EU configuration on the Core Ultra 7 265HX suggests significantly stronger integrated graphics performance, though the database does not include graphics-specific benchmarks for either processor.

The release dates differ by over a year. The Core Ultra 7 265HX appeared on January 12, 2025, while the Core 7 350 appeared on April 15, 2026. The Core 7 350 is a newer design, but the benchmark data shows it trails the older processor substantially.

The Core 7 350 has a launch MSRP of $469. The Core Ultra 7 265HX has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

The Verdict

The benchmark data leaves no ambiguity. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX wins every recorded test, with margins ranging from 8.9 percent in PassMark single-thread to 80.2 percent in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The 93rd percentile ranking versus 71st percentile confirms a different performance tier.

Multi-threaded workloads belong decisively to the Core Ultra 7 265HX. Its 20 cores, 30 MB of L3 cache, dual-channel memory, and 55 W TDP combine to deliver four to five times the throughput of the Core 7 350 in rendering tests. The 80.2 percent lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core is the largest single gap in the entire comparison.

Single-threaded performance also favors the Core Ultra 7 265HX, though less dramatically. The 8.9 percent margin in PassMark single-thread tests shows that the Core 7 350 is not far behind in lightly threaded scenarios. The 64.3 percent gap in Cinebench R23 single-core, however, suggests that the Core Ultra 7 265HX has a meaningful per-core advantage that becomes apparent under sustained load.

Systems requiring low power draw should consider the Core 7 350. Its 15 W TDP is 40 W below the Core Ultra 7 265HX, which enables thinner cooling solutions and longer battery life in mobile devices. The single-channel memory and 6-lane PCIe Gen 4 interface are consistent with a light-duty design.

The Core Ultra 7 265HX is the choice for compute-intensive applications. The data shows clear superiority in every measured category, from data compression to floating point math to prime number calculation. The unlocked multiplier on the Core Ultra 7 265HX also permits performance tuning that the locked Core 7 350 cannot offer.

The Core 7 350 simply does not compete on performance. Its zero wins across 17 tests, combined with the 3.5x average score disadvantage, places it in a different market segment. The Core Ultra 7 265HX delivers the performance, the bandwidth, the cache capacity, and the expansion capabilities that demanding applications require.