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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T wins every single recorded comparison against the Intel Core 7 350. Across 17 head-to-head tests, the Core Ultra 7 265T takes all 17 wins, while the Core 7 350 records zero victories. This is not a close contest, and the margin varies dramatically depending on the workload.

The largest single gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core Ultra 7 265T scores 31,558 against 8,030 for the Core 7 350, a delta of -74.6%. That means the Core 7 350 trails by nearly three-quarters of the performance in this heavily threaded render workload. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows a similar pattern, with the Core Ultra 7 265T at 13,254 and the Core 7 350 at 5,373, a -59.5% delta. Cinebench R15 multi-core follows the same trend: 3,180 versus 1,220, a -61.6% gap.

Single-core results are closer, but the Core Ultra 7 265T still leads in every case. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 7 265T posts 4,455 against 2,046, a -54.1% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1,871 versus 758, a -59.5% delta. The narrowest margin in the entire dataset is PassMark single-thread, where the Core Ultra 7 265T scores 4,338 and the Core 7 350 scores 4,100, a delta of only -5.5%. This indicates that for purely single-threaded integer-style work, the two processors are reasonably close, but the Core Ultra 7 265T still holds the advantage.

In PassMark multi-thread, the Core Ultra 7 265T delivers 37,084 against 15,170, a -59.1% delta. The PassMark physics test shows 2,391 versus 1,173, a -50.9% delta, the smallest multi-core gap recorded. Floating point math shows 129,817 versus 42,809, a -67% delta, while integer math shows 104,943 versus 33,734, a -67.9% delta. Data compression follows with 370,158 versus 143,123, a -61.3% delta, and data encryption with 29,687 versus 10,933, a -63.2% delta. Extended instructions land at 28,609 versus 12,045, a -57.9% delta, and random string sorting at 44,400 versus 17,238, a -61.2% delta. Prime number finding shows 322 versus 107, a -66.8% delta.

The average benchmark score tells the same story. The Core Ultra 7 265T averages 47,697 across the database, while the Core 7 350 averages 17,779. The percentile ranking places the Core Ultra 7 265T at the 90th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 7 350 sits at the 71st percentile. The nearest rivals for each part confirm their respective tiers. The Core 7 350 sits within -0.7% to 0.5% of the Intel Core 5 221TE, AMD EPYC 9374F, AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT, and Intel Core 5 120U. The Core Ultra 7 265T sits within -0.5% to 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945, AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D, AMD Ryzen 9 3900, and Intel Core Ultra X9 378H. These rival clusters show that the two processors operate in entirely different performance strata.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is substantial. The Intel Core 7 350 is built on the Wildcat Lake codename, part of the Core 5 generation, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T uses the Arrow Lake-S codename from the Arrow Lake architecture, part of the Core Ultra Series 2. Both are fabricated on a 3 nm process, but the Core 7 350 is produced at Intel's foundry, while the Core Ultra 7 265T is produced at TSMC.

Core counts differ sharply. The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 7 265T has 20 cores and 20 threads, also without hyper-threading, but with 14 additional physical cores. This core disparity is the primary driver of the multi-core benchmark gaps. Base clocks are identical at 1.50 GHz for both, but boost clocks differ: the Core 7 350 boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the Core Ultra 7 265T boosts to 5.30 GHz.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. Both parts share 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The L2 cache is 2.5 MB per core on the Core 7 350 and 3 MB per core on the Core Ultra 7 265T. The L3 cache difference is far larger: 6 MB shared on the Core 7 350 versus 30 MB shared on the Core Ultra 7 265T. That fivefold L3 advantage gives the Core Ultra 7 265T more room for frequently accessed data.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus, yielding 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 265T supports only DDR5, but over a dual-channel bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s. Neither part supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is also different: the Core 7 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 7 265T provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ in branding and execution units. The Core 7 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 7 265T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU. The socket and market segment also separate the two: the Core 7 350 uses Intel BGA 1516 and targets mobile, while the Core Ultra 7 265T uses Intel Socket 1851 and targets desktop. The Core Ultra 7 265T has a disclosed transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the Core 7 350 has no transistor or die size data recorded. The Core 7 350 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Core Ultra 7 265T has a TDP of 35 watts. The release dates also differ, with the Core Ultra 7 265T appearing earlier in the database.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward split. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T is the stronger processor in every measured benchmark category, with particularly large advantages in multi-threaded workloads, memory bandwidth, cache capacity, and PCIe connectivity. Its 20 cores, 30 MB L3 cache, dual-channel memory at 102.4 GB/s, and Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes make it the appropriate choice for desktop workloads that scale across cores and require substantial memory throughput. Its 90th percentile ranking and average score of 47,697 place it alongside desktop-class AMD Ryzen 9 parts.

The Intel Core 7 350 is a 6-core mobile processor with a 15-watt TDP, single-channel memory at 59.7 GB/s, and Gen 4 PCIe with 6 lanes. Its 71st percentile ranking and average score of 17,779 place it in a lower performance tier. The data indicates it is suited to power-constrained mobile environments where the 15-watt thermal envelope and compact BGA package matter more than raw throughput. The nearest rivals for the Core 7 350 include lower-tier Intel Core 5 parts and mid-range AMD Ryzen 5 processors, while the nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 7 265T include high-end AMD Ryzen 9 parts. No benchmark in the database shows the Core 7 350 winning any comparison, so the selection between these two parts should be driven by platform requirements, not performance expectations.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T wins with a score of 31,558 against 8,030 for the Intel Core 7 350, a delta of -74.6%.

Q: How close are the two processors in single-threaded performance?

A: The narrowest gap is in PassMark single-thread, where the Core Ultra 7 265T scores 4,338 and the Core 7 350 scores 4,100, a delta of only -5.5%.

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 265T has 20 cores and 20 threads.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The Core 7 350 uses single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 265T uses dual-channel memory with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the L3 cache size on each processor?

A: The Core 7 350 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 265T has 30 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265T boosts to 5.30 GHz, while the Core 7 350 boosts to 4.80 GHz. Both have a base clock of 1.50 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

A workload-based split emerges from the recorded data. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T wins every benchmark category, but the degree of dominance varies. For rendering and heavily threaded compute, the Core Ultra 7 265T is decisively ahead. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a -74.6% delta, Cinebench R20 multi-core shows -59.5%, and Cinebench R15 multi-core shows -61.6%. PassMark integer math shows -67.9%, floating point math shows -67%, and data compression shows -61.3%. These are workloads where the 20-core configuration and 30 MB L3 cache provide a massive advantage over the 6-core Core 7 350.

For single-threaded tasks, the Core Ultra 7 265T still wins, but by a smaller margin. PassMark single-thread shows only -5.5%, indicating that the Core 7 350's 4.80 GHz boost clock keeps it competitive in lightly threaded integer work. Cinebench single-core tests show larger gaps, with -54.1% in R23 and -59.5% in R20, so the Core Ultra 7 265T's higher boost clock and architecture still prevail in those workloads.

For memory-intensive applications, the Core Ultra 7 265T holds a clear edge with 102.4 GB/s of dual-channel bandwidth versus 59.7 GB/s of single-channel bandwidth. The 30 MB L3 cache also reduces reliance on system memory. For PCIe-dependent workloads such as high-speed storage or expansion cards, the Core Ultra 7 265T's Gen 5 with 20 lanes is substantially more capable than the Core 7 350's Gen 4 with 6 lanes.

For power-constrained mobile deployment, the Core 7 350 has the advantage in thermal envelope at 15 watts versus 35 watts, and its BGA 1516 socket suits compact mobile designs. The Core 7 350 also supports LPDDR5X memory, which the Core Ultra 7 265T does not. The Core Ultra 7 265T uses a desktop Socket 1851 and is not positioned for such environments. The data does not show any performance win for the Core 7 350, but its platform characteristics point to low-power mobile systems rather than performance-focused desktop builds.