Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a clear picture: the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V wins 16 of the 17 recorded comparisons, often by substantial margins. The Core 7 350 manages only a single win, and that victory is narrow.

The largest gap appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test. The Ultra 9 288V scores 195 against the Core 7 350's 107, a 45.1% advantage. This is the most lopsided result in the entire dataset, indicating a major difference in integer-heavy single-threaded workloads. Floating point math also favors the Ultra 9 decisively, with a 59536 score versus 42809, a 28.1% lead. Physics simulation shows a similar pattern, with the Ultra 9 at 1637 against 1173, a 28.3% advantage.

Cinebench multi-core results consistently show the Ultra 9 ahead by roughly 21% to 24%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 9 scores 10178 against 8030, a 21.1% delta. The R20 multi-core test shows a 24% gap with 7069 versus 5373. The R15 multi-core test records a 22.9% difference with 1583 versus 1220. These results confirm that the Ultra 9's additional cores and higher power envelope translate directly into sustained multi-threaded performance.

Single-core results are closer. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ultra 9 leads with 301.5 against 292, a modest 3.2% advantage. The R20 single-core test shows a larger 24% gap with 997 versus 758. However, the Core 7 350 takes the Cinebench R23 single-core test, scoring 2046 against 1950, a 4.9% margin. PassMark single-thread tests give the Ultra 9 a 4.1% edge, 4274 versus 4100.

The Core 7 350's single win is notable. It demonstrates that in at least one synthetic single-core workload, the Wildcat Lake design can outperform the Lunar Lake part. Yet the broader single-core picture favors the Ultra 9, and the multi-core gap is too large to ignore.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a 3 nm process node but come from different foundries and design families. The Core 7 350 uses Intel's own foundry with the Wildcat Lake codename, part of the Core 5 generation. The Core Ultra 9 288V is fabricated by TSMC and uses the Lunar Lake architecture, belonging to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation.

Core counts differ: the Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither part supports simultaneous multithreading. Both share the same per-core L1 cache of 192 KB and per-core L2 cache of 2.5 MB. The L3 cache differs significantly: 6 MB shared on the Core 7 350 versus 12 MB shared on the Ultra 9 288V. The doubled L3 cache likely contributes to the Ultra 9's advantage in workloads that benefit from larger working sets.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus, with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra 9 288V supports only LPDDR5X but over a dual-channel bus, delivering 136.5 GB/s. That is more than double the bandwidth, a critical factor for integrated graphics and memory-sensitive tasks. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 7 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 9 288V provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. The newer PCIe generation on the Ultra 9 offers higher per-lane bandwidth, though with fewer lanes.

Integrated graphics separate the two clearly. The Core 7 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Ultra 9 288V uses Arc 140V, Intel's higher-tier integrated solution. The Arc 140V is designed for more demanding graphics workloads, and the dual-channel memory bandwidth of the Ultra 9 gives it a substantial memory throughput advantage for GPU tasks.

Clock speeds favor the Ultra 9. It runs at 3.30 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost, versus 1.50 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost on the Core 7 350. The higher base clock is particularly relevant for sustained workloads. The TDP difference is 30 W versus 15 W, reflecting the Ultra 9's higher performance envelope and power draw.

Both processors use different sockets: Intel BGA 2833 for the Ultra 9 and Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 7 350. They are not interchangeable. Both are mobile segment parts, both active in production, and both have locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The Ultra 9 288V wins across almost every measured category. In Cinebench multi-core tests, it leads by 21% to 24%, making it the clear choice for rendering, video encoding, and other heavily threaded workloads. PassMark integer math shows a 23.4% advantage, floating point math a 28.1% advantage, and data compression a 23.3% advantage. Data encryption also favors the Ultra 9 by 22.7%. Extended instruction workloads, often relevant to scientific computing and cryptography, show a 22.9% lead.

The Core 7 350's only benchmark win is Cinebench R23 single-core, with a 4.9% margin. This suggests that in short, lightly threaded bursts, the Wildcat Lake design can occasionally edge out Lunar Lake. But the PassMark single-thread score contradicts that picture, giving the Ultra 9 a 4.1% lead. The R20 single-core test also strongly favors the Ultra 9 with a 24% gap. The practical interpretation is that the Core 7 350 does not offer a reliable single-core advantage.

For users who prioritize power efficiency, the Core 7 350's 15 W TDP versus 30 W is a meaningful differentiator. The Ultra 9 delivers far more performance but at double the thermal budget. In thin-and-light laptops where sustained load is limited by cooling, the Core 7 350 may sustain closer to its peak performance relative to its TDP. The Ultra 9 needs robust cooling to maintain its multi-core lead.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V wins all three Cinebench multi-core tests. In R23, it scores 10178 versus 8030, a 21.1% lead. In R20, it scores 7069 versus 5373, a 24% lead. In R15, it scores 1583 versus 1220, a 22.9% lead.

Q: Does the Core 7 350 win any benchmark?

A: Yes. The Core 7 350 wins Cinebench R23 single-core with a score of 2046 against 1950, a 4.9% margin. It loses all other recorded comparisons.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: The Ultra 9 288V uses dual-channel LPDDR5X with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 7 350 uses single-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9 has more than double the memory bandwidth.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither supports simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Ultra 9 288V has 12 MB shared L3 cache. The Core 7 350 has 6 MB shared L3 cache. Both have 192 KB L1 per core and 2.5 MB L2 per core.

Q: What integrated graphics do they use?

A: The Core 7 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Ultra 9 288V uses Arc 140V. The Ultra 9 also has the advantage of dual-channel memory bandwidth to feed its integrated GPU.

The Verdict

The data consistently favors the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V. It wins 16 of 17 benchmarks, often by 20% or more. The multi-core performance gap is substantial, and even single-threaded results mostly favor the Ultra 9. The Core 7 350's single win in Cinebench R23 single-core does not offset the broader pattern.

The Core 7 350 does have one clear advantage: its 15 W TDP versus 30 W. For fanless or ultra-portable designs where thermal limits are strict, the lower power draw matters. But the performance cost is steep. The Ultra 9 delivers 21% to 24% higher multi-core scores, a 28.1% lead in floating point math, and a 45.1% lead in prime number finding, all while maintaining competitive single-core performance.

The Ultra 9's dual-channel memory and 136.5 GB/s bandwidth make it the better choice for integrated graphics workloads and memory-intensive applications. The Arc 140V GPU paired with that bandwidth is a stronger platform for light gaming or GPU-accelerated tasks than the Xe3 Graphics in the Core 7 350.

The Core 7 350 fits a narrower niche: low-power mobile systems where battery life and thermals outweigh raw performance. For any workload that scales with cores, cache, or memory bandwidth, the Ultra 9 288V is the superior part. The recorded data leaves little room for debate.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 350 | Intel Core Ultra 9 288V |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 6 | 8 |

| Threads | 6 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 30 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2833 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Lunar Lake |

| Generation | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra 9 (Lunar Lake) |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 136.5 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Arc 140V |

| Launch MSRP | $469 | Not listed |