Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data presents a clear split between the two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H dominates the multicore and throughput-oriented workloads, taking 14 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark wins. Its victories include every Cinebench multicore test, all PassMark compute tests except single-thread, and the compression, encryption, and sorting workloads. The margin in these wins is substantial, with the Core Ultra 7 356H leading by 55.4% to 67.3% across the board. The largest gap appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 7 356H scores 327 versus 107 for the Core 7 350, a 67.3% advantage.

The Intel Core 7 350 wins only three benchmarks, and all of them are single-thread tests. It edges out the Core Ultra 7 356H in Cinebench R23 single-core by a razor-thin 0.3% (2046 versus 2040) and in PassMark single-thread by 0.7% (4100 versus 4072). These wins indicate that the Core 7 350 has slightly higher peak single-core performance, likely due to its higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz compared with 4.70 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 356H. However, the practical difference is negligible, and the Core Ultra 7 356H wins Cinebench R15 single-core (303 versus 292) and R20 single-core (1715 versus 758) by much larger margins.

For users whose workloads are heavily threaded, such as video rendering, 3D modeling, or data processing, the Core Ultra 7 356H is the clear choice. The data shows it delivers roughly 2.3 times the multicore performance of the Core 7 350 in Cinebench R23 (18395 versus 8030). For lightly threaded tasks like web browsing or office productivity, the two processors are effectively tied, with the Core 7 350 holding a marginal edge that would be imperceptible in real-world use.

Architecture Differences

The two chips share several fundamental traits but diverge sharply on core count and memory configuration. Both are manufactured on Intel's 3 nm process node and integrate Intel Xe3 Graphics. They also share identical per-core cache sizes: 192 KB of L1 and 2.5 MB of L2 per core. The L3 cache, however, differs significantly. The Core 7 350 has 6 MB of shared L3, while the Core Ultra 7 356H has 18 MB, a threefold increase that helps feed its larger core count.

The core and thread counts are the defining architectural split. The Core 7 350 uses 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading, while the Core Ultra 7 356H uses 16 cores and 16 threads. Both are based on Intel's Wildcat Lake and Panther Lake designs respectively, with the Core Ultra 7 356H belonging to the Core Ultra Series 3 family. The 16-core part relies on the Panther Lake-H architecture, while the Core 7 350 uses Wildcat Lake.

Memory support also differentiates the two. The Core 7 350 runs single-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X memory with a peak bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core Ultra 7 356H runs dual-channel memory and reaches 115.2 GB/s, nearly double the bandwidth. This explains the large gap in memory-sensitive benchmarks like data compression and random string sorting, where the Core Ultra 7 356H leads by 57.4% and 57.9% respectively.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Core 7 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 7 356H provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes. This affects expansion options for discrete GPUs or high-speed NVMe storage. The Core Ultra 7 356H also has a higher thermal envelope at 25 W versus 15 W for the Core 7 350, which aligns with its larger core count and higher memory bandwidth.

The Core 7 350 has a launch MSRP of $469, while the Core Ultra 7 356H has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The Core Ultra 7 356H was released on 2026-01-04, and the Core 7 350 was released on 2026-04-15. Both use different sockets: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 7 350 and Intel BGA 2540 for the Core Ultra 7 356H, meaning they are not socket-compatible.

The Verdict

The benchmark data supports a straightforward conclusion. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H is the superior processor for almost all workloads. It delivers 14 wins against 3 for the Core 7 350, and its average benchmark score of 41215 places it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, compared with the Core 7 350's average score of 17779 and 71st percentile. The Core Ultra 7 356H's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X (average score 41376, delta -0.4%) and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (average score 41208, delta 0%), indicating it performs at the level of a desktop-class enthusiast chip.

The Core 7 350 sits in a different performance tier. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (average score 17891, delta -0.6%) and the Intel Core 5 120U (average score 17898, delta -0.7%), both of which are older or lower-tier parts. The Core 7 350's single-thread wins are narrow, and they do not offset the massive multicore deficit.

For a laptop buyer who needs sustained multicore throughput for content creation, compilation, or scientific computing, the Core Ultra 7 356H is the only rational pick from this data. For users who prioritize maximum single-thread responsiveness and have workloads that never scale beyond a few threads, the Core 7 350 offers a marginal advantage, but the 0.3% to 0.7% delta is within noise. The Core 7 350's lower 15 W TDP may appeal to fanless or ultra-portable designs, but the performance trade-off is severe.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: Which chip has the higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 wins by a 0.3% margin, scoring 2046 versus 2040 for the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H.

Q: How large is the multicore gap in Cinebench R20?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H scores 12153 versus 5373 for the Intel Core 7 350, a 55.8% advantage.

Q: What is the L3 cache difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core 7 350 has 6 MB.

Q: Which processor supports faster PCIe?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H supports PCIe Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes, while the Intel Core 7 350 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes.

Q: Do both processors use the same memory bandwidth?

A: No. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H reaches 115.2 GB/s with dual-channel memory, while the Intel Core 7 350 reaches 59.7 GB/s with single-channel memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest win for the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 327 against 107 for the Core 7 350, a 67.3% lead. This test is highly sensitive to core count and memory latency, and the 16-core Panther Lake part clearly benefits from its wider architecture. The next largest gap is in PassMark integer math: 83111 versus 33734, a 59.4% difference, followed by PassMark physics at 2895 versus 1173, a 59.5% gap.

In Cinebench tests, the Core Ultra 7 356H shows consistent multicore dominance. Cinebench R15 multicore sees it score 3055 against 1220, a 60.1% lead. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 12153 versus 5373, a 55.8% gap, and Cinebench R23 multicore shows 18395 versus 8030, a 56.3% gap. The single-core Cinebench results are mixed: the Core Ultra 7 356H wins R15 single-core (303 versus 292, 3.6%) and R20 single-core (1715 versus 758, 55.8%), but the Core 7 350 wins R23 single-core by 0.3%.

PassMark data compression favors the Core Ultra 7 356H at 336177 versus 143123, a 57.4% lead. Data encryption shows a similar pattern: 26345 versus 10933, a 58.5% gap. Extended instructions score 27898 versus 12045, a 56.8% difference. Floating point math delivers 103128 versus 42809, a 58.5% gap. Random string sorting comes in at 40990 versus 17238, a 57.9% difference.

The PassMark multithread score summarizes the overall throughput picture: 33978 for the Core Ultra 7 356H versus 15170 for the Core 7 350, a 55.4% lead. The only wins for the Core 7 350 are the two PassMark single-thread entries (both 4100 versus 4072, 0.7%) and Cinebench R23 single-core (2046 versus 2040, 0.3%). These narrow margins confirm that the Core 7 350's single-thread advantage is real but negligible, while the Core Ultra 7 356H's multicore advantage is overwhelming in every measured category.