Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins all 17 recorded benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core 7 350. The most decisive margin appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the X9 378H scores 32553 against 8030, a 75.3% advantage. That is the largest single delta in the entire dataset. The gap narrows considerably in single-threaded workloads, but even there the Ultra part remains ahead.

The multi-core Cinebench results tell a consistent story. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the X9 378H delivers 3281 versus 1220, a 62.8% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 13672 against 5373, a 60.7% margin, and Cinebench R23 multi-core repeats that pattern with the 75.3% gap noted above. The single-core Cinebench tests follow the same direction but with smaller deltas: R15 single-core has the X9 378H at 462 versus 292, a 36.8% lead, while R20 single-core shows 1929 against 758, a 60.7% gap, and R23 single-core records 4595 versus 2046, a 55.5% margin.

PassMark results reinforce the multi-core dominance. The X9 378H scores 386591 in data compression against 143123, a 63% lead. Data encryption shows 29840 versus 10933, a 63.4% gap. Extended instructions favor the X9 378H at 31315 against 12045, a 61.5% margin. Floating point math delivers 114500 versus 42809, a 62.6% lead. Integer math follows at 92603 versus 33734, a 63.6% gap. The physics test records 3404 against 1173, a 65.5% advantage. Random string sorting has the X9 378H at 44648 versus 17238, a 61.4% margin. Find prime numbers shows the widest relative swing after R23 multi-core: 357 versus 107, a 70% gap.

The single-thread PassMark tests are the closest comparison in the entire set. The X9 378H posts 4453 against 4100, a 7.9% lead. That is the only benchmark under 36% in favor of the Ultra part. The multi-thread PassMark score shows 38298 versus 15170, a 60.4% gap. Every recorded measurement, from Cinebench rendering to PassMark math and sorting workloads, places the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H ahead.

The average benchmark score puts the difference in perspective. The X9 378H averages 47468, while the Core 7 350 averages 17779. In the database percentile ranking, the X9 378H sits at the 89th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 350 sits at the 71st percentile. The nearest rivals for the X9 378H include the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 with an average score of 47527 and a delta of -0.1%, plus the Intel Core i9-12900F at 47176 with a delta of 0.6%. The Core 7 350 sits near the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT, which averages 17891 with a delta of -0.6%, and the Intel Core 5 120U at 17898 with a delta of -0.7%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons recorded in the database.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the X9 378H leads by 75.3%, scoring 32553 against 8030.

Q: Is the single-threaded performance gap as large as the multi-threaded gap?

A: No. In PassMark single-thread, the X9 378H leads by only 7.9%, scoring 4453 versus 4100. The multi-thread PassMark gap is 60.4%.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The X9 378H averages 47468, while the Core 7 350 averages 17779.

Q: Where does each processor rank among all CPUs?

A: The X9 378H is at the 89th percentile of all CPUs, and the Core 7 350 is at the 71st percentile.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each chip?

A: The X9 378H sits near the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 (average 47527, delta -0.1%) and Intel Core i7-13700KF (average 47330, delta 0.3%). The Core 7 350 sits near the Intel Core 5 221TE (average 17860, delta -0.5%) and AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (average 17891, delta -0.6%).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel codename families. The Intel Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename with a generation listed as Core 5 (Wildcat Lake), while the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H uses the Panther Lake codename with a generation listed as Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H). Both are built on a 3 nm process node at Intel's foundry.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 7 350 provides 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyper-threading overhead. The X9 378H provides 16 cores and 16 threads, also without extra threads per core. That core count difference drives most of the multi-threaded benchmark margins.

Cache hierarchies share the same per-core structure but diverge at the shared level. Both list 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core. The L3 cache differs: the Core 7 350 has 6 MB shared, while the X9 378H has 18 MB shared. The X9 378H therefore has three times the shared L3 capacity, which supports larger working sets in rendering and data-heavy workloads.

Memory architecture differs in width and bandwidth. The Core 7 350 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth and supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory. The X9 378H uses a dual-channel memory bus with 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth and supports LPDDR5X memory. The X9 378H more than doubles the memory bandwidth, which helps feed its 16 cores.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 7 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The X9 378H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 7 350 carries Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the X9 378H carries Arc B390 graphics.

Neither processor supports ECC memory. Both are locked multipliers. Both target the mobile market segment and remain in active production. The release dates differ by less than two weeks: the Core 7 350 released on 2026-04-15, and the X9 378H released on 2026-04-03.

Specification Differences

The socket is a clear differentiator. The Core 7 350 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the X9 378H uses Intel BGA 2540. They are not socket-compatible.

Clock speeds differ in both base and boost. The Core 7 350 runs a 1.50 GHz base clock and boosts to 4.80 GHz. The X9 378H runs a 2.00 GHz base clock and boosts to 5.00 GHz. The X9 378H starts higher and ends higher.

Power draw differs. The Core 7 350 has a 15 W TDP, while the X9 378H has a 25 W TDP. The higher TDP aligns with the larger core count and higher clocks.

Core and thread counts differ as noted: 6 cores and 6 threads for the Core 7 350, 16 cores and 16 threads for the X9 378H.

L3 cache differs at 6 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory bus width differs at single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth differs at 59.7 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s. Memory support differs: the Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the X9 378H supports only LPDDR5X. PCIe generation and lane count differ at Gen 4 with 6 lanes versus Gen 5 with 4 lanes. Integrated graphics differ at Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) versus Arc B390.

The launch MSRP is available only for the Core 7 350, listed at $469. The X9 378H has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The part number for the Core 7 350 is SAE3F, while the X9 378H lists its part number as unknown. The Core 7 350 belongs to no named series, while the X9 378H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is defined by the magnitude of its advantages rather than by alternative winners.

For heavily multi-threaded workloads, the X9 378H is the clear choice. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 75.3% lead, and PassMark find prime numbers shows a 70% lead. These workloads benefit from the 16 cores, 18 MB L3, and dual-channel memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. Rendering, physics simulation, and prime-number computation all fall into this category.

For data-heavy operations, the X9 378H also dominates. Data compression scores 386591 versus 143123, a 63% lead. Data encryption shows 29840 versus 10933, a 63.4% gap. Extended instructions deliver 31315 versus 12045, a 61.5% margin. Integer math and floating point math follow with 63.6% and 62.6% leads respectively.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the X9 378H still wins but by a much smaller margin. PassMark single-thread shows only a 7.9% lead, and Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 55.5% lead. The boost clock difference of 5.00 GHz versus 4.80 GHz explains part of this, but the Core 7 350 remains competitive in lightly threaded tasks. The X9 378H also wins the Cinebench R15 single-core test by 36.8% and R20 single-core by 60.7%.

The Core 7 350 offers a lower TDP of 15 W versus 25 W, which makes it the more power-frugal option for systems where thermal envelope matters. Its single-channel memory and 6-core configuration point toward lighter mobile designs. The database records no benchmark where the Core 7 350 comes out ahead, so its case rests on power draw and platform simplicity rather than performance.

The X9 378H also carries the higher percentile ranking at 89 versus 71, and its average benchmark score of 47468 places it alongside desktop-class rivals like the Intel Core i7-13700KF and Intel Core i9-12900F. The Core 7 350 averages 17779, near the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT and Intel Core 5 120U.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a single conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H is the faster processor by every measured metric. It wins all 17 head-to-head benchmarks, holds a 75.3% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core, and averages 47468 against 17779. Its 16 cores, 18 MB L3, dual-channel memory, and 5.00 GHz boost clock deliver consistent advantages across rendering, math, encryption, compression, and sorting workloads.

The Intel Core 7 350 is not without a role. It operates at a 15 W TDP versus 25 W, uses a single-channel memory bus, and carries 6 cores. The database shows no benchmark win for it, but its lower power draw and BGA 1516 socket target a different class of mobile system. Its 71st percentile ranking and average score near the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT indicate it competes with mid-range desktop processors from prior generations, which is notable for a low-power mobile chip.

Buyers choosing between these two should base the decision on the workload. If the task involves multi-threaded rendering, data compression, encryption, or physics, the X9 378H provides a 60% to 75% advantage and sits at the 89th percentile of all CPUs. If the system demands the lowest possible power envelope and only light single-threaded duties, the Core 7 350 remains viable, but the X9 378H still beats it in every recorded single-thread test, with a 7.9% lead in PassMark single-thread and a 55.5% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core.

The X9 378H also offers more headroom in cache and memory bandwidth. Its 18 MB L3 cache triples the Core 7 350's 6 MB, and its 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth more than doubles the Core 7 350's 59.7 GB/s. Those resources feed the larger core count and explain the wide multi-threaded margins. The Core 7 350 supports DDR5 in addition to LPDDR5X, while the X9 378H supports only LPDDR5X, but that does not appear in any benchmark result as an advantage for the Core 7 350.

The launch MSRP of $469 for the Core 7 350 is the only pricing data recorded. The X9 378H has no launch MSRP in the database. The comparison therefore rests on performance data, and that data points consistently to the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H as the stronger mobile processor.