Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

Intel Core 7 350 and Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus are both mobile processors from Intel, but the recorded benchmark data places them in entirely different performance tiers. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with the Core 7 350 failing to claim a single victory. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is 79,574, while the Core 7 350 averages 17,779. This places the Core Ultra 9 in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 71st percentile for the Core 7 350. The data indicates a decisive performance gap, driven by differences in core count, cache, memory support, and power allocation.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus dominates every measured workload category in the database. Its 24 cores and 24 threads provide a substantial lead in multi-threaded tasks, as shown by Cinebench R23 multicore scores of 39,684 versus 8,030 for the Core 7 350, a delta of -79.8%. This pattern repeats across all multicore tests, including PassMark multithread (59,439 vs 15,170, -74.5%) and Cinebench R15 multicore (5,981 vs 1,220, -79.6%). Workloads that scale with core count, such as data compression, integer math, and floating-point math, all favor the Core Ultra 9 by margins between 74.5% and 79.5%.

Single-threaded performance also favors the Core Ultra 9, though by a smaller margin. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 scores 2,356 against 2,046 for the Core 7 350, a -13.2% delta. PassMark single-thread shows 4,951 versus 4,100, a -17.2% delta. This indicates that the Core Ultra 9 has a per-core performance advantage as well as a core-count advantage, likely due to its higher boost clock of 5.50 GHz compared to 4.80 GHz.

The Core 7 350, in contrast, does not win any benchmark in the head-to-head set. Its strengths lie elsewhere, specifically in power efficiency and platform simplicity. The 15 W TDP versus 55 W TDP suggests it is designed for systems where thermal and power budgets are constrained. Its single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth are lower than the dual-channel 102.4 GB/s of the Core Ultra 9, but for light workloads, the Core 7 350 delivers adequate performance with significantly less power draw. The database shows no workload where the Core 7 350 outperforms the Core Ultra 9, so its advantage is purely operational, not performance-based.

The Verdict

The data directs different buyers toward each processor. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is for users who need maximum compute throughput in a mobile form factor. Its 24 cores, 36 MB of shared L3 cache, and dual-channel memory support deliver top-tier results in rendering, data processing, and other parallel workloads. The 95th percentile ranking confirms it sits near the top of the CPU performance distribution. Users running Cinebench-class workloads or heavy PassMark tasks should select the Core Ultra 9 without hesitation.

The Core 7 350 targets a different use case: low-power mobile computing. With 6 cores, 6 threads, and a 15 W TDP, it fits into thinner, lighter systems that prioritize battery life and thermals over raw speed. Its 71st percentile ranking is respectable for a low-power part, and its 1.50 GHz base clock allows for efficient operation under light loads. The Core 7 350 is appropriate for general productivity, web browsing, and office applications where the extra cores and bandwidth of the Core Ultra 9 would go unused and waste power.

The launch MSRP for the Core 7 350 is $469. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The Core 7 350 is not unlocked, while the Core Ultra 9 features an unlocked multiplier, meaning the latter can be overclocked if the system allows. For users who expect to run sustained multi-threaded workloads, the Core Ultra 9 is the only logical choice given its massive performance lead. For users who prioritize portability and efficiency, the Core 7 350 provides adequate performance at a fraction of the power envelope.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest performance gap appears in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the Core Ultra 9 scores 39,684 and the Core 7 350 scores 8,030, a delta of -79.8%. This means the Core Ultra 9 delivers roughly five times the multicore performance, a margin that reflects the difference between 24 cores and 6 cores. PassMark integer math shows a similar split: 164,839 versus 33,734, a -79.5% delta. Floating-point math follows with 201,773 versus 42,809, a -78.8% delta.

Data compression tests show the Core Ultra 9 at 658,724 versus 143,123 for the Core 7 350, a -78.3% delta. Data encryption also favors the larger chip: 50,008 versus 10,933, a -78.1% delta. Extended instruction workloads, which test SIMD and other specialized operations, score 51,290 versus 12,045, a -76.5% delta. Prime number finding, a highly parallel workload, shows 519 versus 107, a -79.4% delta.

Random string sorting, another parallel task, scores 80,327 versus 17,238, a -78.5% delta. The smallest multicore gap is in PassMark physics, where the Core Ultra 9 scores 3,387 and the Core 7 350 scores 1,173, a -65.4% delta. This workload may be less dependent on pure core count and more sensitive to clock speed or memory latency.

Single-threaded gaps are smaller but still consistent. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 340 versus 292, a -14.1% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2,992 versus 758, a -74.7% delta, which is anomalous compared to other single-core tests. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2,356 versus 2,046, a -13.2% delta. PassMark single-thread shows 4,951 versus 4,100, a -17.2% delta. The Core Ultra 9 wins every single-threaded test, confirming its higher boost clock translates into real per-core gains.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an average benchmark score of 79,574, while the Intel Core 7 350 averages 17,779. The Core Ultra 9 also ranks in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 71st percentile for the Core 7 350.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multicore rendering performance?

A: In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 39,684, while the Core 7 350 scores 8,030, a delta of -79.8%. The Core Ultra 9 also leads in Cinebench R20 multicore (21,198 vs 5,373, -74.7%) and Cinebench R15 multicore (5,981 vs 1,220, -79.6%).

Q: Is the Core 7 350 better in any single benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head benchmark data shows the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins all 17 comparisons. The Core 7 350 does not record a single win.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 7 350 does not.

Q: How does memory bandwidth differ between the two?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has dual-channel memory support with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 7 350 has single-channel memory support with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. Both support DDR5, but the Core 7 350 also supports LPDDR5X.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use different Intel architectures. The Core 7 350 is based on the Wildcat Lake codename, part of the Core 5 generation. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2 and the Ultra 9 generation. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ: the Core 7 350 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is fabricated by TSMC.

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a larger physical footprint, with a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors. The Core 7 350 has no recorded die size or transistor count in the database. Cache configurations diverge significantly. Both have 192 KB of L1 cache per core, but the Core 7 350 has 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, while the Core Ultra 9 has 3 MB per core. Shared L3 cache is 6 MB for the Core 7 350 and 36 MB for the Core Ultra 9.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Core 7 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Core Ultra 9 supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the Core 7 350 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 9 has an unlocked multiplier; the Core 7 350 does not.

Specification Differences

The Core 7 350 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. Thermal design power differs substantially: 15 W for the Core 7 350 versus 55 W for the Core Ultra 9.

The Core 7 350 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses the Intel BGA 2114 socket. Memory support: the Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus, while the Core Ultra 9 supports DDR5 only with a dual-channel bus. Memory bandwidth is 59.7 GB/s for the Core 7 350 and 102.4 GB/s for the Core Ultra 9. ECC memory is supported only on the Core Ultra 9.

The Core 7 350 has a launch MSRP of $469. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has no recorded launch MSRP. Release dates differ by one month: the Core 7 350 was released on 2026-04-15, and the Core Ultra 9 was released on 2026-03-16. Both are active production parts for the mobile market segment. Part numbers are SAE3F for the Core 7 350 and SADSS for the Core Ultra 9. The Core Ultra 9 has a higher boost clock, more L2 and L3 cache, and a wider memory bus, all of which contribute to its dominant benchmark results.