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

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core 7 350 compare to the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K in overall benchmark standing?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285K sits at the 96th percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the Core 7 350 sits at the 71st percentile. Their average benchmark scores are 83,807 and 17,779 respectively, a gap that reflects the different market segments each processor targets.

Q: Which processor offers higher single-thread performance?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285K leads in every single-thread test recorded. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 9 scores 2,377 against the Core 7 350's 2,046, a 13.9% advantage. PassMark single-thread shows 5,087 versus 4,100, a 19.4% edge.

Q: What is the largest performance difference between the two chips?

A: The biggest delta appears in PassMark data compression, where the Core Ultra 9 285K scores 790,052 versus 143,123 for the Core 7 350, an 81.9% difference. Cinebench R15 multicore shows a similar 81.2% gap, with scores of 6,494 and 1,220.

Q: Are these processors built on the same manufacturing process?

A: Both use a 3 nm process node, but they come from different foundries. The Core 7 350 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 9 285K is fabricated by TSMC. This is one of several architectural distinctions between the two.

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

A: No. The Core 7 350 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a single-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285K supports only DDR5, but uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9 also supports ECC memory, while the Core 7 350 does not.

Q: How many benchmark tests does each processor win in their head-to-head comparison?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285K wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark tests. The Core 7 350 does not win a single test in the database comparison.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is the dominant performer across every recorded test, winning all 17 head-to-head comparisons. Its average benchmark score of 83,807 places it at the 96th percentile, surrounded by server-class parts like the AMD EPYC 4584PX and AMD EPYC 9135. The Core 7 350, with an average score of 17,779 at the 71st percentile, sits closer to processors like the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT and Intel Core 5 120U.

The Core Ultra 9 285K is the choice for workloads that demand maximum throughput. Its 24 cores and 24 threads, combined with a 5.70 GHz boost clock and 36 MB of shared L3 cache, deliver results that are consistently 70% to 82% ahead of the Core 7 350 in multithreaded tasks. The data shows the Ultra 9 excels in rendering, encryption, compression, and floating-point math. The PassMark physics score of 3,938 versus 1,173, a 70.2% advantage, reinforces this pattern.

The Core 7 350 serves a different purpose entirely. It is a mobile processor with a 15 W TDP, designed for efficiency in portable systems. Its 6 cores and 6 threads, single-channel memory bus, and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth are appropriate for lightweight productivity and everyday computing. The single-thread scores, while lower in absolute terms, are proportionally closer to the Ultra 9 than the multicore scores. The Core 7 350 trails by only 13.9% in Cinebench R23 single-core and 19.4% in PassMark single-thread, indicating the architecture carries competitive per-core capability.

The verdict from the data: the Core Ultra 9 285K is the unequivocal performance leader, suited for desktop users who need maximum compute. The Core 7 350 is a power-conscious mobile part that trades raw performance for portability. Neither processor is a substitute for the other.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 9 285K dominates every recorded benchmark, but the magnitude of the victory varies significantly by workload type. The narrowest gaps appear in single-thread tests. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the Ultra 9 at 2,377 against 2,046, a 13.9% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a similar pattern: 359 versus 292, an 18.7% margin. PassMark single-thread records 5,087 versus 4,100, a 19.4% difference.

The multicore results tell a different story. Cinebench R15 multicore delivers 6,494 for the Ultra 9 versus 1,220 for the Core 7 350, an 81.2% gap. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 24,003 against 5,373, a 77.6% difference. Cinebench R23 multicore, the more demanding workload, records 42,522 versus 8,030, an 81.1% margin.

PassMark's specialized workloads amplify the Ultra 9's advantage. Data compression shows the largest delta at 81.9%, with scores of 790,052 and 143,123. Data encryption follows at 81.1% (57,745 versus 10,933). Random string sorting trails at 81.8% (94,927 versus 17,238). Extended instructions show an 80.7% gap (62,277 versus 12,045), while find prime numbers records 80.2% (541 versus 107).

Floating-point math and integer math follow the same trend. The Ultra 9 scores 224,324 in floating-point math versus 42,809, an 80.9% lead. Integer math shows 172,379 versus 33,734, an 80.4% margin. The multithread aggregate score records 67,260 versus 15,170, a 77.4% difference.

The physics test shows the smallest multicore gap at 70.2%, with the Ultra 9 posting 3,938 against 1,173. This is still a commanding margin, but the relative closeness suggests the Core 7 350's per-core efficiency is more competitive in this particular workload.

No benchmark in the database favors the Core 7 350. The wins column shows 0 for the mobile chip and 17 for the desktop flagship. The data is unambiguous: the Core Ultra 9 285K is faster in every measured category.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285K has 24 cores and 24 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading, so core count equals thread count for both.

Clock speeds diverge significantly. The Core 7 350 runs at a 1.50 GHz base clock with a 4.80 GHz boost. The Core Ultra 9 285K runs at 3.70 GHz base and 5.70 GHz boost. The Ultra 9's boost clock is nearly 1 GHz higher.

Power envelopes are dramatically different. The Core 7 350 has a 15 W TDP, positioning it for fanless or low-power mobile designs. The Core Ultra 9 285K has a 125 W TDP, reflecting its desktop performance focus.

Sockets are incompatible. The Core 7 350 uses Intel BGA 1516, a soldered mobile package. The Core Ultra 9 285K uses Intel Socket 1851, a desktop LGA socket.

Memory support differs in type and width. The Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285K supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported only on the Ultra 9.

PCIe capabilities are not comparable. The Core 7 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 9 285K provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

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

The multiplier is unlocked on the Ultra 9, while the Core 7 350 has a locked multiplier. The Ultra 9 also carries a higher launch MSRP of $589, against $469 for the Core 7 350.

Release dates are separated by roughly 18 months. The Core Ultra 9 285K launched on 2024-10-23, while the Core 7 350 launched on 2026-04-15. Both remain in active production.

Architecture Differences

The Core Ultra 9 285K belongs to the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-S desktop variant. The Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is listed under the Core 5 generation with Wildcat Lake architecture. These are fundamentally different designs targeting different platforms.

Both processors are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs. The Core 7 350 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 9 285K is fabricated by TSMC. The Ultra 9's die contains 17,800 million transistors across a 243 mm² die. The Core 7 350's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Cache hierarchies share the same L1 configuration: 192 KB per core for both. The L2 cache differs, with the Core 7 350 using 2.5 MB per core and the Ultra 9 using 3 MB per core. The shared L3 cache shows the largest divergence: 6 MB for the Core 7 350 versus 36 MB for the Ultra 9.

The Core Ultra 9 285K is part of the Core Ultra Series 2, a desktop flagship line. Its 24 cores and 36 MB L3 cache are designed for high-throughput desktop workloads. The Core 7 350, with 6 cores and 6 MB L3, is a mobile part optimized for power efficiency within a 15 W envelope.

The integrated graphics reflect their respective positions. The Core 7 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, a modest solution for basic display output. The Core Ultra 9 285K uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, a more capable integrated GPU.

Memory architecture reinforces the performance gap. The Ultra 9's dual-channel DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth provides nearly double the memory throughput of the Core 7 350's single-channel 59.7 GB/s. The Ultra 9 also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Core 7 350.

PCIe generation and lane count further separate the two. The Ultra 9 offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the Core 7 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes. This positions the Ultra 9 for discrete GPUs and high-speed storage, while the Core 7 350 is constrained to lighter peripheral loads.

The multiplier unlock on the Ultra 9 allows enthusiast overclocking, a capability not available on the locked Core 7 350. This, combined with the 125 W TDP, indicates the Ultra 9 is built for maximum sustained performance, whereas the Core 7 350 prioritizes battery life and thermal headroom.