Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285T Comparison
Intel Core 7 350
Core Ultra 9 285T
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285T
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The benchmark data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 7 350 does not secure a single win in any workload category, with the Ultra 9 285T leading by margins ranging from 10.4% to 76.1%.
The largest single-score gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Ultra 9 285T scores 33,573 against the Core 7 350's 8,030, a 76.1% advantage. This pattern repeats across the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Ultra 9 285T scores 14,100 versus 5,373, a 61.9% lead. Even in single-core tests, where the Core 7 350's 4.80 GHz boost clock should narrow the gap, the Ultra 9 285T wins decisively: Cinebench R23 single-core shows 4,739 versus 2,046, a 56.8% margin, and Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1,990 versus 758, a 61.9% margin.
PassMark results reinforce the same hierarchy. Integer math shows the Ultra 9 285T at 132,433 against 33,734, a 74.5% lead. Floating point math follows with 137,923 versus 42,809, a 69% advantage. Data compression benchmarks record 384,140 for the Ultra 9 285T versus 143,123 for the Core 7 350, a 62.7% gap. Data encryption shows 32,061 versus 10,933, a 65.9% difference. Extended instructions produce 27,477 versus 12,045, a 56.2% margin. Find prime numbers scores 345 versus 107, another 69% gap. Random string sorting records 47,695 against 17,238, a 63.9% difference.
The closest contest in the entire dataset is PassMark single-thread, where the Ultra 9 285T scores 4,576 and the Core 7 350 scores 4,100, a 10.4% lead. This is the only head-to-head result under 38%, indicating that the Core 7 350's single-thread performance is its most competitive area, though still clearly inferior. The average benchmark score for the Ultra 9 285T is 51,310, placing it at the 91st percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 7 350 averages 17,779 and sits at the 71st percentile.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different Intel product families and target different market segments. The Intel Core 7 350 is a mobile part built around the Wildcat Lake codename, belonging to the Core 5 generation family. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T is a desktop Arrow Lake-S part from the Core Ultra Series 2 generation.
Both CPUs are fabricated on a 3 nm process, but the production foundries differ. The Core 7 350 is manufactured by Intel, while the Core Ultra 9 285T is produced by TSMC. The Ultra 9 285T integrates 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 7 350's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.
Core configuration differs substantially. The Core 7 350 provides 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 9 285T offers 24 cores and 24 threads, also without hyper-threading but with four times the physical core count. Base clocks are close: 1.50 GHz for the Core 7 350 and 1.40 GHz for the Ultra 9 285T. Boost clocks favor the Ultra 9 285T at 5.40 GHz versus 4.80 GHz.
Cache hierarchies diverge at the L2 and L3 levels. Both use 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The Core 7 350 has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 285T has 3 MB of L2 per core and 36 MB of shared L3, six times the L3 capacity. The thermal design power differs significantly: 15 watts for the Core 7 350 versus 35 watts for the Ultra 9 285T.
Memory support separates the two as well. The Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Ultra 9 285T supports DDR5 only, but over a dual-channel bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is unsupported on the Core 7 350 and supported on the Ultra 9 285T. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Core 7 350 offers Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 9 285T offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.
Integrated graphics differ in architecture and execution units. The Core 7 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Ultra 9 285T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. Sockets are incompatible: the Core 7 350 uses Intel BGA 1516, and the Ultra 9 285T uses Intel Socket 1851. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.
Where Each One Wins
The Core 7 350 wins nowhere in the recorded benchmark set, but its profile suggests specific strengths that are not represented in head-to-head wins. Its 15-watt TDP places it in a low-power mobile segment, and its single-channel memory support with LPDDR5X compatibility indicates a design aimed at compact, battery-conscious systems. The 6 MB shared L3 and 6 CPU PCIe Gen 4 lanes further point toward lightweight mobile workloads rather than sustained heavy compute.
The Ultra 9 285T dominates every workload category in the database. Its multi-core advantage is largest in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the 76.1% lead tracks with its 24-core configuration and 36 MB L3. PassMark integer math shows a 74.5% margin, indicating strong general-purpose compute. Floating point math and prime number finding both show 69% leads, suggesting the Ultra 9 285T handles mathematical workloads with similar efficiency. Data compression and encryption margins of 62.7% and 65.9% respectively indicate solid performance in data-intensive tasks.
The single-thread results deserve attention. The 10.4% PassMark single-thread gap is the smallest margin in the entire comparison, and Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 38.8% difference. The Core 7 350's 4.80 GHz boost clock helps it stay relatively close in lightly threaded tasks, but the Ultra 9 285T's 5.40 GHz boost clock still carries the workload. For users prioritizing battery life, the Core 7 350's 15-watt TDP versus 35 watts is the only recorded specification that favors it, though no benchmark directly measures power efficiency.
The Verdict
The recorded data supports only one conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T outperforms the Intel Core 7 350 in every measured benchmark. The 24-core Ultra 9 285T delivers an average benchmark score of 51,310, nearly three times the Core 7 350's 17,779. Its 91st percentile ranking against all CPUs in the database compares favorably with the Core 7 350's 71st percentile.
The Core Ultra 9 285T's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core i9-14900T with an average score of 51,015 and a 0.6% delta, the Intel Core i9-13900F at 51,730 with a -0.8% delta, the Intel Core i7-13850HX at 50,761 with a 1.1% delta, and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT at 50,718 with a 1.2% delta. These figures place the Ultra 9 285T in the same performance class as recent high-end desktop processors. The Core 7 350's nearest rivals are the Intel Core 5 221TE at 17,860 with a -0.5% delta, the AMD EPYC 9374F at 17,693 with a 0.5% delta, the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT at 17,891 with a -0.6% delta, and the Intel Core 5 120U at 17,898 with a -0.7% delta, positioning it among mid-range and older desktop parts.
Selection between these two should follow the market segment. The Core 7 350 is a mobile processor with a 15-watt TDP and a launch MSRP of $469. The Ultra 9 285T is a desktop processor with a 35-watt TDP and a launch MSRP of $549. The Core 7 350 suits systems requiring low power draw and mobile integration, while the Ultra 9 285T suits workloads that demand the highest available performance in the database. No benchmark result suggests the Core 7 350 can match the Ultra 9 285T in raw compute.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads.
Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?
A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Ultra 9 285T scores 33,573 versus the Core 7 350's 8,030, a 76.1% difference.
Q: How do the two compare in single-threaded performance?
A: The Ultra 9 285T wins all single-thread tests. PassMark single-thread shows 4,576 versus 4,100, a 10.4% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 4,739 versus 2,046, a 56.8% lead.
Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications for each processor?
A: The Core 7 350 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth and supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Ultra 9 285T uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and supports DDR5 only.
Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?
A: The Ultra 9 285T supports ECC memory. The Core 7 350 does not.
Q: What process nodes and foundries are used?
A: Both processors use a 3 nm process. The Core 7 350 is manufactured by Intel, while the Ultra 9 285T is manufactured by TSMC.