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

The Verdict

The data separates these two processors cleanly. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX wins every recorded benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, taking all 17 tests. The Intel Core 7 350 does not record a single victory. The Core Ultra 9 285HX posts an average benchmark score of 76155, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 350 averages 17779 and sits in the 71st percentile.

The Core Ultra 9 285HX is the processor for workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth. Its 24 cores and 24 threads, dual-channel memory bus, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache produce multi-core results that dwarf the Core 7 350. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 scores 36429.5 against 8030, a 78% margin. The Core 7 350, with 6 cores and 6 threads, a single-channel memory bus, and 6 MB of L3 cache, is built for a different purpose. Its 15 W TDP and 1.50 GHz base clock point to low-power mobile designs where sustained throughput is secondary to efficiency.

The Core Ultra 9 285HX also leads in single-thread tests, but by a narrower margin. In Cinebench R23 single-core it scores 2187.5 versus 2046, a 6.5% difference. PassMark single-thread shows 4618 against 4100, an 11.2% gap. These numbers indicate that the Core 7 350 is competitive in lightly threaded work despite its far smaller core count. Its 4.80 GHz boost clock partially compensates for the architectural gap.

The Core 7 350 is the choice only where power envelopes matter more than raw performance. Its 15 W TDP, versus 55 W for the Core Ultra 9 285HX, and its single-channel memory support suggest integration into compact, thermally constrained systems. The Core Ultra 9 285HX, with an unlocked multiplier, 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, and ECC memory support, targets high-performance mobile workstations and gaming laptops. The launch MSRP for the Core 7 350 is $469. The Core Ultra 9 285HX has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. The Core Ultra 9 285HX uses the Arrow Lake architecture and sits in the Core Ultra Series 2, with the Arrow Lake-HX codename.

Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. The Core 7 350 is manufactured by Intel, while the Core Ultra 9 285HX is produced by TSMC. The Core Ultra 9 285HX carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 7 350 has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 9 285HX has 24 cores and 24 threads, also without additional threads per core. The Core Ultra 9 runs a 2.80 GHz base clock and a 5.50 GHz boost clock. The Core 7 350 runs a 1.50 GHz base and a 4.80 GHz boost.

Cache hierarchies differ in L2 and L3. Both list 192 KB of L1 per core. The Core 7 350 has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 285HX has 3 MB of L2 per core and 36 MB of shared L3.

Memory support also separates them. The Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285HX supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is not supported by the Core 7 350; the Core Ultra 9 285HX supports ECC.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 7 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 9 285HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

The Core 7 350 has a locked multiplier, while the Core Ultra 9 285HX has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 7 350 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket; the Core Ultra 9 285HX uses the Intel BGA 2114 socket. The Core 7 350 carries PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes. The Core Ultra 9 285HX carries PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU-only lanes.

The Core 7 350 has a release date of April 15, 2026. The Core Ultra 9 285HX has a release date of January 12, 2025.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 285HX scores 2187.5 against 2046 for the Core 7 350, a 6.5% lead. In PassMark single-thread, the Core Ultra 9 scores 4618 against 4100, an 11.2% lead.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Core 7 350 has a TDP of 15 W. The Core Ultra 9 285HX has a TDP of 55 W.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core Ultra 9 285HX supports ECC memory. The Core 7 350 does not.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285HX boosts to 5.50 GHz. The Core 7 350 boosts to 4.80 GHz.

Q: How do the two compare in average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285HX has an average benchmark score of 76155 and ranks in the 95th percentile. The Core 7 350 has an average benchmark score of 17779 and ranks in the 71st percentile.

Specification Differences

The recorded data shows these differences between the two processors:

• Cores: 6 for the Core 7 350, 24 for the Core Ultra 9 285HX
• Threads: 6 for the Core 7 350, 24 for the Core Ultra 9 285HX
• Base clock: 1.50 GHz for the Core 7 350, 2.80 GHz for the Core Ultra 9 285HX
• Boost clock: 4.80 GHz for the Core 7 350, 5.50 GHz for the Core Ultra 9 285HX
• TDP: 15 W for the Core 7 350, 55 W for the Core Ultra 9 285HX
• Socket: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 7 350, Intel BGA 2114 for the Core Ultra 9 285HX
• Codename: Wildcat Lake for the Core 7 350, Arrow Lake-HX for the Core Ultra 9 285HX
• Foundry: Intel for the Core 7 350, TSMC for the Core Ultra 9 285HX
• Transistors: no recorded value for the Core 7 350, 17,800 million for the Core Ultra 9 285HX
• Die size: no recorded value for the Core 7 350, 243 mm² for the Core Ultra 9 285HX
• L2 cache: 2.5 MB per core for the Core 7 350, 3 MB per core for the Core Ultra 9 285HX
• L3 cache: 6 MB shared for the Core 7 350, 36 MB shared for the Core Ultra 9 285HX
• Memory support: DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Core 7 350, DDR5 for the Core Ultra 9 285HX
• Memory bus: single-channel for the Core 7 350, dual-channel for the Core Ultra 9 285HX
• Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s for the Core 7 350, 102.4 GB/s for the Core Ultra 9 285HX
• ECC memory: not supported for the Core 7 350, supported for the Core Ultra 9 285HX
• PCIe: Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes for the Core 7 350, Gen 5 with 20 CPU-only lanes for the Core Ultra 9 285HX
• Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) for the Core 7 350, Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU for the Core Ultra 9 285HX
• Multiplier: locked for the Core 7 350, unlocked for the Core Ultra 9 285HX
• Release date: April 15, 2026 for the Core 7 350, January 12, 2025 for the Core Ultra 9 285HX

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 9 285HX wins all 17 head-to-head tests. The margins vary from modest in single-thread workloads to overwhelming in multi-thread and math-heavy tests.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 scores 5656.5 against 1220, a 78.4% advantage. The R20 multi-core test shows 20236 versus 5373, a 73.4% margin. R23 multi-core delivers 36429.5 versus 8030, a 78% gap. These results reflect the 4x core-count advantage and the larger L3 cache.

Single-core Cinebench results are closer. R15 single-core shows 323.5 against 292, a 9.7% lead. R20 single-core shows 2856 against 758, a 73.5% lead. The R20 single-core margin is unusually large compared to the other single-thread tests, and the recorded data shows that result without further explanation. R23 single-core shows 2187.5 versus 2046, a 6.5% lead.

PassMark tests follow the same pattern. Data compression: 631885 versus 143123, a 77.3% lead. Data encryption: 48567 versus 10933, a 77.5% lead. Extended instructions: 49148 versus 12045, a 75.5% lead. Find prime numbers: 460 versus 107, a 76.7% lead. Floating point math: 194998 versus 42809, a 78% lead. Integer math: 155076 versus 33734, a 78.2% lead. Multithread: 56902 versus 15170, a 73.3% lead. Physics: 3476 versus 1173, a 66.3% lead. Random string sorting: 77196 versus 17238, a 77.7% lead. Single-thread: 4618 versus 4100, an 11.2% lead.

The narrowest margins are in single-thread workloads. The 6.5% R23 single-core gap and the 11.2% PassMark single-thread gap show that the Core 7 350 holds up reasonably well when only one thread is active. The widest margins appear in multi-core and math workloads, where the Core Ultra 9's core count and memory bandwidth dominate.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 285HX wins every recorded benchmark, so its domain is all measured workloads. Multi-threaded rendering, compression, encryption, and math-heavy applications all favor it strongly. The 24-core configuration, 36 MB L3 cache, and dual-channel 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth support sustained high-throughput tasks. The 55 W TDP and unlocked multiplier indicate a design for performance-oriented mobile systems where power draw is a secondary concern.

The Core 7 350 has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. Its strongest relative showing is in single-thread tests, where it trails by 6.5% to 11.2% rather than the 70% plus margins seen elsewhere. The 15 W TDP, single-channel memory bus, and LPDDR5X support suggest that its intended role is efficiency-focused mobile devices. Its 4.80 GHz boost clock allows it to remain competitive in lightly threaded tasks despite the core count disadvantage.

The data does not show any workload category where the Core 7 350 outperforms the Core Ultra 9 285HX. The selection between these two processors comes down to the system-level constraints around them. The Core 7 350 fits into a lower power envelope with a smaller socket and fewer PCIe lanes. The Core Ultra 9 285HX demands more power and a larger socket but delivers a step change in throughput across every measured benchmark.