Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap between the Intel Core 7 350 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Core Ultra 9 285 emerges as the winner. There are no tests where the Core 7 350 takes the lead. The most extreme margin appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945 against 8,030 for the Core 7 350, a delta of -83.6%. This indicates the Core Ultra 9 285 delivers roughly six times the multi-threaded rendering throughput in that workload.

Single-threaded performance also favors the larger chip, though by a smaller margin. In PassMark single-thread, the Core Ultra 9 285 records 4,881 points versus 4,100 for the Core 7 350, a delta of -16%. This is the narrowest gap in the entire dataset. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a wider spread: 6,909 for the Core Ultra 9 285 versus 2,046 for the Core 7 350, a delta of -70.4%. The pattern suggests that while the Core Ultra 9 285 has a clear frequency and IPC advantage, the Core 7 350 remains competitive in lightly threaded tasks relative to its own multi-core output.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4,933 versus 1,220, a delta of -75.3%. The R20 multi-core test shows 20,556 against 5,373, a delta of -73.9%. Single-core R15 and R20 results follow similar trajectories: 696 versus 292 (-58%) and 2,901 versus 758 (-73.9%) respectively. The consistency of these deltas across Cinebench versions indicates a stable architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

PassMark integer math shows the Core Ultra 9 285 at 164,869 against 33,734 for the Core 7 350, a delta of -79.5%. Floating-point math follows with 194,988 versus 42,809, a delta of -78%. Data compression scoring 602,121 versus 143,123 shows a delta of -76.2%, while data encryption at 46,949 versus 10,933 shows -76.7%. Extended instructions deliver 45,357 versus 12,045, a delta of -73.4%. Find prime numbers, a heavily integer-bound test, records 459 versus 107, a delta of -76.7%. Random string sorting yields 73,651 versus 17,238, a delta of -76.6%. The PassMark multi-thread score sits at 56,602 versus 15,170, a delta of -73.2%, and physics simulation scores 3,598 versus 1,173, a delta of -67.4%.

The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 9 285 is 75,488, placing it at the 95th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Core 7 350 averages 17,779, sitting at the 71st percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 7 350 include the Intel Core 5 221TE at 17,860 (-0.5%), the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT at 17,891 (-0.6%), and the Intel Core 5 120U at 17,898 (-0.7%). The AMD EPYC 9374F sits slightly behind at 17,693 (+0.5%). For the Core Ultra 9 285, its nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 8224P at 75,582 (-0.1%), with the AMD EPYC 4545P at 75,373 (+0.2%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D at 75,716 (-0.3%).

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to different architectural families and market segments. The Intel Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, part of the Core 5 generation, built on a 3 nm process node fabricated by Intel. It has 6 cores and 6 threads, with a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The thermal design power is 15 watts, indicating a low-power mobile design. It uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket, which is a ball-grid array package for soldered installation. The Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth. It does not support ECC memory. The PCIe interface is Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU only. Integrated graphics are provided by Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The production status is active, with a release date of April 2026 and a launch MSRP of $469.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285, by contrast, uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, part of the Ultra 9 generation. It is also built on a 3 nm node, but fabricated by TSMC. The design features 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The thermal design power is 65 watts, more than four times that of the Core 7 350. It uses the Intel Socket 1851, a desktop package. Memory support is DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, providing 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, and ECC memory is supported. The PCIe interface is Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG with 64 execution units. The transistor count is 17,800 million, with a die size of 243 mm². The release date is December 2024, and the launch MSRP is $579.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, while the Intel Core 7 350 reaches 4.80 GHz.

Q: How do the cache hierarchies differ?

A: Both have 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 9 285. The L3 cache is 6 MB shared on the Core 7 350 versus 36 MB shared on the Core Ultra 9 285.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Core 7 350 supports single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285 supports dual-channel memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core 7 350 does not support ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 9 285 does.

Q: What are the PCIe capabilities of each?

A: The Core 7 350 uses PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75,488, compared to 17,779 for the Core 7 350.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field. The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz versus 2.50 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.80 GHz versus 5.60 GHz. The thermal design power is 15 watts versus 65 watts. The Core 7 350 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Intel Socket 1851. The Core 7 350 is based on Wildcat Lake, the Core Ultra 9 285 on Arrow Lake-S. The Core 7 350 belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation, the Core Ultra 9 285 to the Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake) generation. Both use a 3 nm process node, but the Core 7 350 is fabricated by Intel and the Core Ultra 9 285 by TSMC. The Core Ultra 9 285 lists 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size, while the Core 7 350 does not list these figures. The L2 cache is 2.5 MB per core on the Core 7 350 versus 3 MB per core on the Core Ultra 9 285. The L3 cache is 6 MB shared versus 36 MB shared. The Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, the Core Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 only. The memory bus is single-channel versus dual-channel, with bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported on the Core 7 350 but is supported on the Core Ultra 9 285. PCIe is Gen 4 with 6 lanes versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU. The market segment is Mobile for the Core 7 350 and Desktop for the Core Ultra 9 285. Release dates are April 2026 for the Core 7 350 and December 2024 for the Core Ultra 9 285. The launch MSRP is $469 for the Core 7 350 and $579 for the Core Ultra 9 285. The multiplier is locked on both. Part numbers are SAE3F for the Core 7 350 and SRQD4 for the Core Ultra 9 285.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the superior processor for any workload that benefits from high core counts, large caches, or high memory bandwidth. Its 24 cores and 24 threads, combined with 36 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel memory at 102.4 GB/s, deliver massive multi-threaded performance. The 95th percentile ranking and an average benchmark score of 75,488 place it in the top tier of desktop CPUs. The Core Ultra 9 285 also leads in single-threaded tests, with a PassMark single-thread score of 4,881 versus 4,100 for the Core 7 350, though the margin is narrower at -16%.

The Intel Core 7 350, with its 15 watt TDP and mobile BGA package, targets low-power portable systems. Its 6 cores, 6 MB L3 cache, and single-channel memory provide modest performance, as reflected in its 71st percentile ranking and average score of 17,779. The data shows it is closest in performance to desktop processors like the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT and the Intel Core 5 120U, with deltas under 1%. For scenarios where power efficiency and compact form factor matter more than raw throughput, the Core 7 350 fits that niche. For any compute-intensive task, whether rendering, compiling, or data processing, the Core Ultra 9 285 is the clear choice based on the recorded measurements.