Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall benchmark standing?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 sits in the 71st percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 17,779, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX sits in the 94th percentile with an average score of 67,469. The Ultra 9's score is roughly 3.8 times higher.

Q: Which processor wins in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX wins every single-core test recorded. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2204 versus 2046 for the Core 7 350, a 7.2% advantage. In PassMark single-thread, the Ultra 9 scores 4713 versus 4100, a 13% lead.

Q: Are these processors from the same architecture family?

A: No. The Intel Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename on a 3 nm process fabricated by Intel, with 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX uses the Arrow Lake-HX codename, also on a 3 nm process but fabricated by TSMC, with 24 cores and 24 threads.

Q: What memory configurations do these chips support?

A: The Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 275HX supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which chip has more cache?

A: The Core Ultra 9 275HX has 3 MB of L2 per core and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 350 has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. Both have 192 KB of L1 per core.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: Yes. The Core 7 350 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

The Verdict

The data separates these two processors cleanly. The Intel Core 7 350 is a low-power, compact mobile chip: 15 W TDP, 6 cores, single-channel memory, and a 71st percentile average benchmark standing. It posts modest scores across the board, with its best showing in PassMark single-thread at 4100 points.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is a performance flagship: 55 W TDP, 24 cores, dual-channel memory, 94th percentile standing, and an average benchmark score of 67,469. It wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks against the Core 7 350, with deltas ranging from 7.2% in Cinebench R23 single-core to 78.3% in both Cinebench R15 multicore and PassMark integer math.

A buyer choosing between these two is really choosing between power envelope and raw throughput. The Core 7 350 fits thin-and-light mobile designs where the 15 W TDP and single-channel memory keep thermals and costs contained. The Core Ultra 9 275HX targets large mobile workstations where the 55 W TDP and 24 threads deliver workstation-class multi-core results. The Core 7 350 cannot approach the Ultra 9's multi-thread scores, but it also does not need the cooling or battery capacity that the Ultra 9 demands. For workloads that are primarily single-threaded and bursty, the Core 7 350's 4.80 GHz boost clock and 2046 Cinebench R23 single-core score remain serviceable. For sustained multi-threaded rendering, compilation, or simulation, the Ultra 9's 35,589 Cinebench R23 multicore score is in another class entirely.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX wins every recorded benchmark, but the margin varies significantly by workload type.

The largest gaps appear in multi-threaded tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 9 scores 5619.5 against 1220 for the Core 7 350, a 78.3% deficit for the smaller chip. Cinebench R20 multicore shows a 73% gap, 19899 versus 5373. Cinebench R23 multicore shows a 77.4% gap, 35589 versus 8030. The pattern holds in PassMark multithread, where the Ultra 9 scores 55759 against 15170, a 72.8% difference.

Integer and floating-point math follow the same trend. PassMark integer math shows a 78.3% gap, 155218 versus 33734. Floating-point math shows a 77.6% gap, 191186 versus 42809. Data compression shows a 76.5% gap, 608381 versus 143123. Data encryption shows a 76.8% gap, 47112 versus 10933. Extended instructions show a 74.4% gap, 47016 versus 12045. Prime number finding shows a 76.1% gap, 448 versus 107. Random string sorting shows a 76.8% gap, 74320 versus 17238. Physics processing shows the smallest multi-thread gap at 64.9%, 3338 versus 1173.

Single-threaded tests show much narrower margins. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ultra 9 scores 334 against 292, a 12.6% gap. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 73% gap, which is anomalous given the other single-thread results: 2809 versus 758. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 7.2% gap, 2204 versus 2046. PassMark single-thread shows a 13% gap, 4713 versus 4100.

The Core 7 350's closest competitor in the database is the Intel Core 5 221TE, which scores 17860 on average, a 0.5% difference. The AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT sits at 17891, a 0.6% difference. The Core Ultra 9 275HX's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon w5-3525 at 67673, a 0.3% difference, and the AMD EPYC 4484PX at 67822, a 0.5% difference. These rival comparisons show that each chip sits in a distinct performance neighborhood, and the gap between them is not an artifact of benchmark selection.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every physical and electrical specification.

The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX has 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz versus 2.70 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.80 GHz versus 5.40 GHz. TDP is 15 W versus 55 W.

Sockets differ: the Core 7 350 uses Intel BGA 1516, and the Core Ultra 9 275HX uses Intel BGA 2114. The Core 7 350 has a 6 MB shared L3 cache; the Ultra 9 has 36 MB shared L3. L2 cache per core is 2.5 MB versus 3 MB. L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core.

Memory support differs. The Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9 supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs substantially. The Core 7 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Ultra 9 provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 7 350 has Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Ultra 9 has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

The multiplier is locked on the Core 7 350 and unlocked on the Ultra 9. The Core 7 350 has a launch MSRP of $469; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Ultra 9.

Release dates differ by over a year. The Ultra 9 launched on 2025-01-12, and the Core 7 350 launched on 2026-04-15.

Architecture Differences

The two chips represent different design points within Intel's mobile lineup, and the architecture data confirms this.

The Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, which the database lists under the Core 5 generation family. It is built on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The chip has no recorded transistor count or die size, indicating a smaller, simpler design. Its integrated graphics use the newer Xe3 architecture with just 2 Xe cores, consistent with a low-power part.

The Core Ultra 9 275HX uses the Arrow Lake-HX codename under the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. It is also built on a 3 nm process, but at TSMC. The database records 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm², confirming a large, complex die. Its integrated graphics use the Arc Xe-LPG architecture with 64 execution units, a much larger GPU block than the Core 7 350's 2 Xe cores.

The core counts reflect different design philosophies. The Core 7 350 uses 6 cores with no hyperthreading, meaning 6 threads. The Ultra 9 uses 24 cores with no hyperthreading, meaning 24 threads. Neither chip offers simultaneous multithreading, so thread count equals core count in both cases.

The cache hierarchy scales with the core count. L1 is identical per core at 192 KB. L2 grows from 2.5 MB per core on the Core 7 350 to 3 MB per core on the Ultra 9. L3 grows from 6 MB shared to 36 MB shared, a 6x increase that matches the 4x core count increase plus additional per-core allocation.

The memory controller differs as well. The Core 7 350 uses a single-channel interface, which caps bandwidth at 59.7 GB/s. The Ultra 9 uses dual-channel memory, doubling theoretical bandwidth to 102.4 GB/s. This bandwidth difference compounds the core-count advantage in memory-heavy workloads.

PCIe generation and lane count also differ. The Core 7 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, suitable for basic peripheral connectivity. The Ultra 9 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes, which supports high-bandwidth GPUs and NVMe storage arrays.

The production status for both is Active. The Ultra 9 launched earlier and has an unlocked multiplier, suggesting it is positioned as an enthusiast part. The Core 7 350 has a locked multiplier and a later launch date, positioning it as a mainstream efficiency part.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, so the meaningful question is not whether it wins, but where the margins are large enough to change system design decisions.

The Ultra 9's dominance is most pronounced in multi-threaded throughput. Cinebench R23 multicore at 35589 versus 8030, PassMark multithread at 55759 versus 15170, and PassMark integer math at 155218 versus 33734 all show gaps above 72%. Workloads that scale across cores, such as video rendering, code compilation, scientific simulation, and batch data processing, will see roughly 3.5 to 4.5 times the performance from the Ultra 9, depending on the specific test.

The Ultra 9 also leads in memory-bandwidth-sensitive tasks. Data compression at 608381 versus 143123 and random string sorting at 74320 versus 17238 both show 76.5% or larger gaps, consistent with the dual-channel memory controller and larger L3 cache working together.

The Core 7 350's best relative showing is in single-threaded tests. Cinebench R23 single-core shows only a 7.2% gap, 2046 versus 2204. PassMark single-thread shows a 13% gap, 4100 versus 4713. These margins are small enough that the Core 7 350 remains competitive for lightly threaded tasks like web browsing, document editing, and single-threaded legacy applications. Its 4.80 GHz boost clock helps close the gap despite the lower base clock.

The Core 7 350 also holds an advantage in power efficiency by specification. Its 15 W TDP is 40 W lower than the Ultra 9's 55 W TDP. For fanless or low-profile mobile designs, that difference is decisive. The 6-core chip can run in thinner chassis with smaller batteries, while the 24-core chip requires active cooling and substantial power delivery.

The Ultra 9's unlocked multiplier and 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes make it the choice for users who want overclocking headroom and high-bandwidth peripheral connectivity. The Core 7 350's locked multiplier and 6 Gen 4 lanes limit both.

The socket difference means these are not interchangeable upgrades. A motherboard designed for BGA 1516 cannot accept a BGA 2114 chip, so the choice is made at the system level, not the component level.

In summary: the Core 7 350 wins in power envelope, single-thread burst performance, and simplicity. The Ultra 9 wins in every measured benchmark, with the largest margins in multi-threaded and memory-intensive workloads. The 7.2% single-core gap in Cinebench R23 is the closest the Core 7 350 comes to closing the distance.