Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H dominates the Intel Core 7 350 across every recorded benchmark, winning all 17 head-to-head comparisons. The margins are decisive in multi-threaded workloads, while single-thread performance shows a much narrower gap.

The largest advantage appears in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the Ultra X7 358H scores 3027 against the Core 7 350's 1220, a 59.7% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a similar pattern: 12011 versus 5373, a 55.3% difference. Cinebench R23 multi-core follows with 18747 versus 8030, a 57.2% gap. These results reflect the Ultra X7 358H's substantially higher core count and thread count.

In single-core tests, the Ultra X7 358H still wins, but by much smaller margins. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2080 versus 2046, only a 1.6% advantage. Cinebench R15 single-core is similarly close: 301.5 versus 292, a 3.2% edge. PassMark single-thread scores are nearly identical at 4124 versus 4100, a 0.6% difference. The data indicates that per-core performance is comparable; the multi-core gap comes from the additional cores.

PassMark workloads reinforce the multi-core story. Data compression shows 332508 versus 143123, a 57% lead. Data encryption delivers 26046 versus 10933, a 58% gap. Extended instructions score 27274 versus 12045, a 55.8% difference. Integer math runs 83147 versus 33734, a 59.4% lead. Floating-point math reaches 103842 versus 42809, a 58.8% gap. Find prime numbers shows 337 versus 107, the largest relative margin at 68.2%. Physics simulation scores 3021 versus 1173, a 61.2% gap. Multithread performance lands at 33802 versus 15170, a 55.1% lead. Random string sorting completes at 40357 versus 17238, a 57.3% difference.

The average benchmark score tells the same story: the Ultra X7 358H averages 40967, while the Core 7 350 averages 17779. The Ultra X7 358H sits at the 87th percentile of all CPUs, versus the 71st percentile for the Core 7 350. The nearest rival data confirms the Ultra X7 358H's positioning: it trails the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 by only 0.6% and the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H by 0.6%, while leading the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G by 0.6%. The Core 7 350, by contrast, sits within 0.7% of the Intel Core 5 120U and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a 3 nm process node and Intel as the foundry, but their internal designs diverge sharply. The Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename with 6 cores and 6 threads. The Ultra X7 358H uses the Panther Lake codename with 16 cores and 16 threads, more than doubling the parallel execution capacity.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. Both use 192 KB of L1 per core, but the L2 cache is 2.5 MB per core on the Core 7 350 versus 3 MB per core on the Ultra X7 358H. The shared L3 cache is much larger on the Ultra X7 358H at 18 MB, versus 6 MB on the Core 7 350. This tripling of shared cache likely contributes to the Ultra X7 358H's multi-threaded efficiency.

Memory architecture also separates the two. The Core 7 350 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra X7 358H supports only LPDDR5X but uses a dual-channel bus, delivering 153.6 GB/s, roughly 2.6 times the bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs by generation and lane count. The Core 7 350 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Ultra X7 358H uses Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes, offering a newer standard but fewer lanes.

Integrated graphics are distinct. The Core 7 350 carries Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Ultra X7 358H uses Arc B390, a higher-tier graphics solution. Both are mobile parts, with sockets differing: the Core 7 350 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Ultra X7 358H uses Intel BGA 2540.

Power envelopes are not equal. The Core 7 350 has a 15 W TDP, while the Ultra X7 358H has a 25 W TDP. The base clock is 1.50 GHz on the Core 7 350 and 1.90 GHz on the Ultra X7 358H. Boost clocks match at 4.80 GHz for both. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Release timing differs. The Ultra X7 358H was released on 2026-01-04, while the Core 7 350 followed on 2026-04-15. Both are listed as Active in production status. The Core 7 350 has a launch MSRP of $469; the Ultra X7 358H has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is the superior processor in every measured workload. Multi-threaded performance leads by 55% to 68%, and even single-thread performance, though close, favors the Ultra X7 358H in all cases. The 16-core design, larger L3 cache, dual-channel memory, and higher bandwidth give it an unambiguous advantage.

The Core 7 350 holds no benchmark wins. Its only potential merits are a lower TDP, support for both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory types, and a lower launch MSRP. However, the recorded data shows no workload where the Core 7 350 outperforms the Ultra X7 358H.

For tasks requiring sustained multi-threaded processing, the Ultra X7 358H is the only choice based on the numbers. For single-threaded tasks, the difference is small enough that either processor would perform similarly, but the Ultra X7 358H still edges ahead. The Core 7 350's lower power draw might suit thermally constrained designs, but the performance penalty is severe.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: How much faster is the Ultra X7 358H in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Ultra X7 358H scores 18747, while the Core 7 350 scores 8030. The Ultra X7 358H leads by 57.2%.

Q: Do the two processors have the same boost clock?

A: Yes, both have a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The base clocks differ: 1.90 GHz for the Ultra X7 358H and 1.50 GHz for the Core 7 350.

Q: What is the L3 cache difference?

A: The Ultra X7 358H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 350 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor supports PCIe Gen 5?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H supports PCIe Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. The Intel Core 7 350 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Ultra X7 358H delivers 153.6 GB/s over a dual-channel LPDDR5X bus. The Core 7 350 delivers 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel bus supporting DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins in every benchmark category recorded. Multi-threaded workloads see the biggest gaps: Cinebench R15 multi-core (3027 versus 1220), Cinebench R20 multi-core (12011 versus 5373), Cinebench R23 multi-core (18747 versus 8030), and PassMark multithread (33802 versus 15170). Heavy computational tasks like integer math, floating-point math, data compression, and encryption all favor the Ultra X7 358H by 55% to 68%. Physics simulation and prime number finding also show large leads.

The Intel Core 7 350 does not win any recorded benchmark. Its closest showing is in single-thread tests, where the Ultra X7 358H leads by only 0.6% in PassMark single-thread and 1.6% in Cinebench R23 single-core. In these workloads, the difference is small enough that real-world performance would be nearly indistinguishable. The Core 7 350's lower TDP of 15 W versus 25 W could be an advantage for power-sensitive mobile designs, but the performance trade-off is substantial.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 350 | Intel Core Ultra X7 358H |

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

| Cores / Threads | 6 / 6 | 16 / 16 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Panther Lake |

| L2 Cache | 2.5 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | LPDDR5X |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

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

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Arc B390 |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $469 | Not recorded |