Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison
Intel Core 7 350
Core Ultra 9 386H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H
FAQ
Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H records an average benchmark score of 43210, while the Intel Core 7 350 records 17779. The Ultra 9 sits at the 88th percentile among all CPUs, compared to the Core 7's 71st percentile.
Q: How does the single-core performance compare between the two?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H leads in every recorded single-thread test, but the margins are modest. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 9 scores 2071.5 versus 2046 for the Core 7, a 1.2% advantage. PassMark single-thread shows 4218 versus 4100, a 2.8% gap.
Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?
A: The largest recorded delta is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H scores 341 against 107 for the Core 7 350, a 68.6% advantage. The next largest gaps are in Cinebench R15 multicore (62.1%) and PassMark integer math (61.4%).
Q: Do both processors use the same process node?
A: Yes, both the Intel Core 7 350 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H are fabricated on Intel's 3 nm process node. They also share the same per-core L1 cache of 192 KB and per-core L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
Q: How do the memory subsystems differ?
A: The Intel Core 7 350 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory.
Q: What are the closest rivals for each processor according to the database?
A: The Intel Core 7 350's nearest rival is the Intel Core 5 221TE (average score 17860, 0.5% ahead), followed by the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (17891) and the Intel Core 5 120U (17898). The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 (43326, 0.3% ahead), with the Intel Core i9-12900 (42906) behind it.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons recorded in the database. The Intel Core 7 350 does not win a single test in this matchup. However, the magnitude of the Ultra 9's advantage varies significantly by workload, which defines where each processor can be considered competitive.
In single-threaded and lightly threaded tasks, the Core 7 350 remains close. Cinebench R23 single-core shows only a 1.2% difference, and Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 3.8% gap. PassMark single-thread records a 2.8% difference. These results indicate that for applications with limited thread utilization, the Core 7 350 delivers comparable responsiveness despite its lower core count.
The situation changes dramatically in multi-threaded workloads. The Ultra 9 386H leads by 58.1% in Cinebench R20 multicore, 60.9% in Cinebench R23 multicore, and 62.1% in Cinebench R15 multicore. PassMark multithread shows a 57.1% advantage for the Ultra 9. The Core 7 350 cannot close these gaps because it offers only 6 cores and 6 threads against 16 cores and 16 threads on the Ultra 9.
For data-centric workloads, the Ultra 9 dominates equally. Data compression shows a 59.4% advantage, data encryption 59.7%, and random string sorting 59.1%. Extended instructions and floating-point math follow the same pattern, with the Ultra 9 leading by 58.7% and 60.6% respectively. The Core 7 350 is best suited to scenarios where single-thread speed matters most and where the higher power envelope of the Ultra 9 is not warranted.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different Intel families. The Intel Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses the Panther Lake architecture, codename Panther Lake, and belongs to the Ultra 9 (Panther Lake-H) generation. Both are built on Intel's 3 nm process at Intel's foundry.
Core configuration differs substantially. The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. The Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads, also without SMT but with more than double the physical core count. This difference drives the multi-threaded benchmark spreads.
Cache hierarchy is identical at the per-core level: both parts use 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core. The shared L3 cache differs, with the Core 7 350 carrying 6 MB shared and the Ultra 9 386H carrying 18 MB shared. That 12 MB additional shared cache benefits the Ultra 9 in workloads with larger working sets.
Memory architecture also separates the two. The Core 7 350 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra 9 386H uses a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s. PCIe capability differs as well: the Core 7 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 9 386H provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes.
Integrated graphics differ in naming and configuration. The Core 7 350 lists Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores explicitly. The Ultra 9 386H lists Intel Xe3 Graphics without a core count in the database. Both aim at mobile segments, but the Ultra 9's larger overall package targets higher performance tiers.
The socket and package differ. The Core 7 350 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Ultra 9 386H uses Intel BGA 2540. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 7 350 has a launch MSRP of $469, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Ultra 9 386H.
Specification Differences
The Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clock on the Core 7 is 1.50 GHz versus 2.10 GHz on the Ultra 9. Boost clock is 4.80 GHz on the Core 7 versus 4.90 GHz on the Ultra 9. The Core 7 has a 15 W TDP, while the Ultra 9 has a 25 W TDP.
L3 cache differs: 6 MB shared on the Core 7 350 versus 18 MB shared on the Ultra 9 386H. Memory bus width differs: single-channel on the Core 7 versus dual-channel on the Ultra 9. Memory bandwidth is 59.7 GB/s on the Core 7 and 115.2 GB/s on the Ultra 9. PCIe generation and lane count differ: Gen 4 with 6 lanes on the Core 7 versus Gen 5 with 12 lanes on the Ultra 9.
The integrated GPU listing differs: the Core 7 350 specifies Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Ultra 9 386H lists Intel Xe3 Graphics without a specified Xe core count. The socket differs (BGA 1516 versus BGA 2540). The part numbers differ: SAE3F for the Core 7 350 and SA4R5Q9EH for the Ultra 9 386H. Release dates differ, with the Ultra 9 386H released earlier in the database. Only the Core 7 350 has a recorded launch MSRP of $469.
Both processors are marked Active in production status, both target the Mobile market segment, both are manufactured by Intel on a 3 nm node, both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, both have ECC memory disabled, and both have locked multipliers.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins every recorded head-to-head test, but the margins tell a clear story. The closest result is Cinebench R23 single-core: 2071.5 versus 2046, a 1.2% advantage for the Ultra 9. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 303.5 versus 292, a 3.8% gap. PassMark single-thread shows 4218 versus 4100, a 2.8% gap. These single-thread results show that the Core 7 350's 4.80 GHz boost clock and Wildcat Lake architecture keep it competitive when only one or two threads are active.
Multi-threaded Cinebench results separate the parts clearly. Cinebench R15 multicore: 3223 versus 1220, a 62.1% advantage for the Ultra 9. Cinebench R20 multicore: 12820 versus 5373, a 58.1% advantage. Cinebench R23 multicore: 20547 versus 8030, a 60.9% advantage. The Ultra 9's 16 cores versus 6 cores explains the scale of these margins.
PassMark integer math shows 87284 versus 33734, a 61.4% advantage for the Ultra 9. Floating-point math: 108527 versus 42809, a 60.6% advantage. Physics: 3028 versus 1173, a 61.3% advantage. Multithread: 35399 versus 15170, a 57.1% advantage. Prime number finding: 341 versus 107, a 68.6% advantage, the largest in the recorded set.
Data workloads follow the same pattern. Data compression: 352365 versus 143123, a 59.4% advantage. Data encryption: 27150 versus 10933, a 59.7% advantage. Random string sorting: 42135 versus 17238, a 59.1% advantage. Extended instructions: 29138 versus 12045, a 58.7% advantage.
The average benchmark scores place the Ultra 9 386H at 43210, roughly 2.4 times higher than the Core 7 350's 17779. The percentile rankings reinforce the gap: 88th percentile for the Ultra 9 versus 71st for the Core 7. The nearest rival data confirms the positioning. The Core 7 350 trades within 0.7% of the Intel Core 5 221TE, the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT, and the Intel Core 5 120U. The Ultra 9 386H trades within 0.9% of the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465, and the Intel Core i9-12900 series.