Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has a recorded average benchmark score of 40518, while the Intel Core 7 350 scores 17779. The Ultra X7 368H sits at the 87th percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Core 7 350 is at the 71st percentile.

Q: Which chip wins in single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 edges out the Ultra X7 368H in PassMark single-thread testing with a score of 4100 versus 4005, a margin of 2.4%. However, the Ultra X7 368H wins every Cinebench single-core test by substantial margins: 401 versus 292 in R15, 1673 versus 758 in R20, and 3984 versus 2046 in R23.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each processor?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither chip supports simultaneous multithreading.

Q: How does memory bandwidth differ between the two?

A: The Core 7 350 uses single-channel memory with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Ultra X7 368H uses dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The memory support also differs: the Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Ultra X7 368H supports only LPDDR5X.

Q: What are the launch details for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 was released on 2026-04-15 with a launch MSRP of $469. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H was released on 2026-01-04, and no launch MSRP is recorded in the database.

Q: Which processor has the larger shared L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has an 18 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 7 350 has a 6 MB shared L3 cache. Both use the same per-core L1 and L2 cache sizes: 192 KB and 2.5 MB respectively.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows an almost complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H. It wins 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, with the Intel Core 7 350 winning only two tests, both being the PassMark single-thread measurement.

The Ultra X7 368H dominates in every multi-threaded workload. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 28221 versus 8030, a delta of 71.5%. PassMark integer math shows 88083 versus 33734, a 61.7% advantage. Floating-point math delivers 105681 versus 42809, a 59.5% lead. Data compression results are 312927 versus 143123, a 54.3% gap. Even in physics simulation, where the gap is slightly smaller, the Ultra X7 368H still leads by 58.9% with 2857 against 1173.

The Core 7 350's only wins come in PassMark single-thread and singlethread tests, both recording 4100 versus 4005. That 2.4% margin is small, but it is a genuine victory in a specific workload. However, the Cinebench single-core results tell a different story: the Ultra X7 368H leads by 27.2% in R15, 54.7% in R20, and 48.6% in R23. The PassMark single-thread result appears to be an outlier relative to the Cinebench data.

For workloads that rely on sustained multi-core performance, the Ultra X7 368H is clearly the stronger option. The Core 7 350 offers a minor single-thread advantage in one specific test but falls far behind in every other metric. The data indicates that the Ultra X7 368H is designed for throughput-heavy tasks, while the Core 7 350 may serve lighter mobile workloads where its lower thread count is sufficient.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different architectural branches within Intel's mobile lineup. The Core 7 350 is based on the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation. The Ultra X7 368H uses the Panther Lake architecture and belongs to the Ultra X7 generation under the Panther Lake-H family.

Both are built on Intel's 3 nm process node, but the similarities end there. The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Ultra X7 368H doubles that to 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither supports multithreading, meaning each core handles exactly one thread.

Cache hierarchy shows a notable difference in L3 capacity. The Core 7 350 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Ultra X7 368H has 18 MB. Both share the same per-core L1 (192 KB) and L2 (2.5 MB) allocations.

The integrated graphics differ significantly. The Core 7 350 features Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Ultra X7 368H uses Arc B390 graphics. This indicates a different GPU architecture, but the database does not include GPU benchmark comparisons.

The memory controllers also differ. The Core 7 350 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus. The Ultra X7 368H supports only LPDDR5X but uses dual-channel memory, which explains its much higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Core 7 350 uses Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra X7 368H uses Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra X7 368H has a newer PCIe generation but fewer lanes.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ across nearly every specification field. The Core 7 350 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Ultra X7 368H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

Thermal design power differs: the Core 7 350 is rated at 15 TDP, while the Ultra X7 368H is rated at 25 TDP. This aligns with the Ultra X7 368H's higher core count and clock speeds.

The socket types are different. The Core 7 350 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Ultra X7 368H uses Intel BGA 2540.

Memory bandwidth shows a large gap: 59.7 GB/s for the Core 7 350 versus 153.6 GB/s for the Ultra X7 368H. This is directly tied to the memory bus configuration, single-channel versus dual-channel.

The integrated graphics differ as noted: Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) versus Arc B390.

The release dates differ by several months. The Ultra X7 368H was released on 2026-01-04, and the Core 7 350 was released on 2026-04-15. The Core 7 350 has a recorded launch MSRP of $469, while no launch MSRP is listed for the Ultra X7 368H.

Both processors are active in production, both are mobile market segments, both have locked multipliers, and neither supports ECC memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single victory for the Ultra X7 368H comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 28221 against the Core 7 350's 8030. That is a delta of 71.5%, the widest margin in the entire comparison. The R20 multi-core test shows a 54.7% gap with 11852 versus 5373, and R15 multi-core shows a 57.1% gap with 2844 versus 1220.

In single-core Cinebench tests, the Ultra X7 368H also leads decisively. R15 single-core shows 401 versus 292, a 27.2% delta. R20 single-core shows 1673 versus 758, a 54.7% delta. R23 single-core shows 3984 versus 2046, a 48.6% delta.

PassMark workloads follow the same pattern. Data compression: 312927 versus 143123, a 54.3% lead for the Ultra X7 368H. Data encryption: 25228 versus 10933, a 56.7% lead. Extended instructions: 25669 versus 12045, a 53.1% lead. Prime number finding: 321 versus 107, a 66.7% lead. Floating-point math: 105681 versus 42809, a 59.5% lead. Integer math: 88083 versus 33734, a 61.7% lead. Multithread: 32956 versus 15170, a 54% lead. Physics: 2857 versus 1173, a 58.9% lead. Random string sorting: 38093 versus 17238, a 54.7% lead.

The only victory for the Core 7 350 comes in PassMark single-thread and singlethread tests, where it scores 4100 versus 4005. That 2.4% delta is small but consistent across both identical test entries.

The average benchmark scores reflect this overall pattern: the Ultra X7 368H averages 40518, putting it near rivals like the Intel Core 7 253PE (40557, delta 0.1%) and AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (40431, delta 0.2%). The Core 7 350 averages 17779, placing it near the Intel Core 5 221TE (17860, delta 0.5%) and AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (17891, delta 0.6%).

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins 15 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks and delivers an average score that is more than double that of the Intel Core 7 350: 40518 versus 17779.

The Ultra X7 368H is the choice for any workload that benefits from parallel execution. Its 16 cores, 18 MB L3 cache, dual-channel memory, and 153.6 GB/s bandwidth give it overwhelming advantages in multi-threaded Cinebench tests, PassMark math workloads, data compression, encryption, and physics simulation. The margins are consistently around 50% to 70% across these tests.

The Core 7 350 has a single narrow advantage: PassMark single-thread performance at 4100 versus 4005. But the Cinebench single-core results contradict this, showing the Ultra X7 368H leading by 27% to 55% in those tests. The PassMark single-thread result appears isolated and does not reflect the broader single-core picture.

For users selecting a mobile processor based on recorded benchmark data, the Ultra X7 368H offers superior performance in nearly every measurable category. The Core 7 350 may serve in lighter roles where its 15 TDP and single-channel memory suffice, but the benchmark evidence shows a processor in a different performance class. The Core 7 350's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT and Intel Core 5 120U, while the Ultra X7 368H competes with the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H and Intel Core 7 253PE. That comparison alone indicates the intended performance tiers of these two chips.