Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous in its use-case split. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H wins every single recorded head-to-head comparison, taking all 17 benchmark tests against the Intel Core 7 350. The Core 7 350 records zero wins across the entire suite. This is not a case of complementary strengths where one part excels in specific workloads; the Core Ultra 9 285H dominates uniformly across multi-core rendering, single-core responsiveness, memory-intensive operations, and math workloads.

The most significant separation occurs in multi-threaded performance. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285H scores 20781.5 versus the Core 7 350's 8030, a delta of -61.4% from the smaller part's perspective. The PassMark multithread test shows a similar pattern: 34171 versus 15170, a -55.6% delta. These results indicate that the Core Ultra 9 285H is designed for sustained parallel workloads such as video encoding, 3D rendering, and scientific computation.

The single-core picture is far closer, though the Core Ultra 9 285H still holds the advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the scores are 2129.5 versus 2046, a delta of only -3.9%. The PassMark single-thread test shows 4415 versus 4100, a -7.1% delta. For lightly threaded applications like office productivity, web browsing, or legacy software, the Core 7 350 is competitive, but it cannot match the higher boost clock of the Core Ultra 9 285H.

Intermediate tests confirm the pattern. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285H delivers 12201 against 5373, a -56% delta. In PassMark floating-point math, the scores are 109190 versus 42809, a -60.8% delta. The Core 7 350 does manage to stay within a single-digit percentage in the single-core Cinebench R15 test, scoring 292 against 313, a -6.7% delta. This suggests that the architectural efficiency of the Wildcat Lake design helps narrow the gap when thread count is irrelevant.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families with distinct design philosophies. The Intel Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. It is built on a 3 nm process node manufactured by Intel. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-H codename, belonging to the Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-H) generation. It is also built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry is TSMC rather than Intel.

The core configuration differs substantially. The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The Core Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads, also without hyperthreading but with nearly three times the physical core count. This explains the massive multi-core score disparity. The base clock of the Core 7 350 is 1.50 GHz, while the Core Ultra 9 285H starts at 2.90 GHz. The boost clocks are 4.80 GHz and 5.40 GHz respectively, giving the larger part a 0.60 GHz advantage in maximum frequency.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. Both use 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The L2 cache is 2.5 MB per core on the Core 7 350 versus 3 MB per core on the Core Ultra 9 285H. The L3 cache is the larger difference: 6 MB shared on the Core 7 350 versus 24 MB shared on the Core Ultra 9 285H, a fourfold increase. This additional cache capacity benefits workloads with large working sets, such as database operations or complex simulations.

Memory support shows another major split. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory. However, the Core 7 350 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 9 285H uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285H also supports ECC memory, which the Core 7 350 does not. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core 7 350 offers Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 9 285H offers Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 7 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 9 285H uses Arc Graphics 140T, which is a more substantial GPU solution. The TDP ratings reflect the performance tier: 15 watts for the Core 7 350 versus 45 watts for the Core Ultra 9 285H. The sockets also differ, with the Core 7 350 using Intel BGA 1516 and the Core Ultra 9 285H using Intel BGA 2049.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Neither processor supports hyperthreading.

Q: What is the performance difference in multi-core workloads?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285H leads by large margins. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 20781.5 versus 8030 for the Core 7 350, a -61.4% delta. The PassMark multithread test shows 34171 versus 15170, a -55.6% delta.

Q: How close is single-core performance?

A: The gap is much smaller. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 285H scores 2129.5 versus 2046, a -3.9% delta. The PassMark single-thread test shows 4415 versus 4100, a -7.1% delta.

Q: Do the two processors support the same memory configuration?

A: Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X. However, the Core 7 350 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285H uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and supports ECC memory, which the Core 7 350 does not.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds?

A: The Core 7 350 boosts to 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 285H boosts to 5.40 GHz. The base clocks are 1.50 GHz and 2.90 GHz respectively.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285H has 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 350 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. This represents a fourfold difference in L3 capacity.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The core count is 6 versus 16, with thread counts matching core counts at 6 and 16 respectively. The base clock is 1.50 GHz on the Core 7 350 and 2.90 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 285H. The boost clock is 4.80 GHz versus 5.40 GHz. The TDP is 15 watts versus 45 watts.

The socket differs: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 7 350, Intel BGA 2049 for the Core Ultra 9 285H. The codenames are Wildcat Lake and Arrow Lake-H respectively. The process node is 3 nm for both, but the foundry is Intel for the Core 7 350 and TSMC for the Core Ultra 9 285H.

Cache configurations diverge. The L1 cache is the same at 192 KB per core. The L2 cache is 2.5 MB per core versus 3 MB per core. The L3 cache is 6 MB shared versus 24 MB shared. Memory bandwidth is 59.7 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. The memory bus is single-channel versus dual-channel. ECC memory is not supported on the Core 7 350 but is supported on the Core Ultra 9 285H.

PCIe lanes differ: Gen 4 with 6 lanes on the Core 7 350, Gen 5 with 8 lanes on the Core Ultra 9 285H. The integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores versus Arc Graphics 140T. The release dates are 2026-04-15 for the Core 7 350 and 2025-01-12 for the Core Ultra 9 285H. The launch MSRP is $469 for the Core 7 350 and $651 for the Core Ultra 9 285H. The part numbers are SAE3F and SRQAL respectively.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest delta in the entire suite appears in PassMark find prime numbers. The Core Ultra 9 285H scores 330 against 107 for the Core 7 350, a -67.6% delta. This test is highly sensitive to integer throughput and cache behavior, where the larger part's 16 cores and 24 MB L3 cache provide a decisive advantage.

Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a -61.6% delta, with scores of 3177.5 versus 1220. Cinebench R23 multi-core follows at -61.4%, with 20781.5 versus 8030. These rendering workloads scale directly with core count, and the Core Ultra 9 285H's 10 additional cores produce nearly 2.6 times the score in both tests.

PassMark floating-point math records a -60.8% delta, scoring 109190 versus 42809. Integer math shows a -60.7% delta, with 85922 versus 33734. Both math workloads benefit from the larger core count and higher sustained clocks on the Core Ultra 9 285H.

Data encryption shows a -58.2% delta, scoring 26140 versus 10933. Random string sorting shows a -57.9% delta, with 40931 versus 17238. Data compression records a -57.4% delta, scoring 335859 versus 143123. These memory-heavy tests highlight the dual-channel bus and larger cache of the Core Ultra 9 285H.

PassMark multithread shows a -55.6% delta, scoring 34171 versus 15170. Extended instructions show a -55% delta, with 26794 versus 12045. Cinebench R20 multi-core records a -56% delta, scoring 12201 versus 5373. Cinebench R20 single-core also shows a -56% delta, with 1722 versus 758, though the absolute score difference is much smaller.

PassMark physics shows a -53.3% delta, scoring 2513 versus 1173. This test relies on collision detection and rigid body simulation, which benefit from the higher core count. PassMark single-thread shows a -7.1% delta, with 4415 versus 4100, and the duplicate singlethread entry confirms this result.

The smallest delta is Cinebench R23 single-core at -3.9%, with 2129.5 versus 2046. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a -6.7% delta, with 313 versus 292. These single-core results indicate that the Wildcat Lake architecture in the Core 7 350 achieves reasonable efficiency per core, but the Core Ultra 9 285H's higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz still secures the win.

The percentile rankings place the Core 7 350 at the 71st percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17779. The Core Ultra 9 285H sits at the 86th percentile with an average score of 38312. The nearest rival to the Core 7 350 is the Intel Core 5 221TE with an average score of 17860 and a -0.5% delta, followed by the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT at 17891 (-0.6%) and the Intel Core 5 120U at 17898 (-0.7%). The Core Ultra 9 285H's nearest rival is the Intel Core 9 270H at 38335 (-0.1%), with the Intel Core i5-13600HX at 38261 (0.1%) and the AMD Ryzen 7 250 at 38221 (0.2%) close behind.