CPU Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7443 and Intel Core 5 120UL occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects this stark divide. The EPYC 7443, a 24-core server processor, dominates every single benchmark in the comparison, while the Core 5 120UL, a 10-core desktop chip, trails by margins that are rarely seen in head-to-head analysis. The data shows a clear story of purpose-built hardware, with the EPYC 7443 delivering server-class throughput and the Core 5 120UL offering a low-power alternative for desktop workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results tell a remarkably consistent story across all three versions of the test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD EPYC 7443 scores 4856 against the Intel Core 5 120UL's 904, a delta of 437.2% in favor of AMD. The single-core R15 test shows a similar pattern, with the EPYC 7443 at 685 and the Core 5 120UL at 127, representing a 439.4% advantage. These are not marginal wins; they are overwhelming margins that indicate the EPYC 7443 is operating in a completely different performance class.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the gap remains consistent. The EPYC 7443 posts 20236 in multi-core versus 3769 for the Core 5 120UL, a 436.9% difference. Single-core R20 shows the EPYC 7443 at 2856 against 531, a 437.9% delta. The pattern holds in Cinebench R23 as well, with the EPYC 7443 achieving 48183 multi-core and 6802 single-core, while the Core 5 120UL manages 8974 and 1266 respectively, translating to 436.9% and 437.3% deltas. Every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison goes to the AMD EPYC 7443, with the data showing zero wins for the Intel part.

What makes these results particularly striking is the consistency of the margin. Across all six Cinebench tests, the deltaPct hovers tightly between 436.9% and 439.4%. This uniformity suggests that the performance gap is not workload-specific but rather a fundamental difference in processing capability. The EPYC 7443's 24 cores and 48 threads simply overwhelm the Core 5 120UL's 10 cores and 12 threads in every scenario measured. The average benchmark score for the EPYC 7443 sits at 13936, placing it in the 68th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 120UL averages 13594, also in the 68th percentile. Despite the massive head-to-head gap, both processors rank similarly in the broader CPU landscape, which underscores how the Core 5 120UL's low-power design still delivers competitive average performance for its class.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD EPYC 7443 in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The EPYC 7443 leads by 436.9% in Cinebench R20 multi-core and 436.9% in Cinebench R23 multi-core, with scores of 20236 and 48183 respectively, versus 3769 and 8974 for the Intel Core 5 120UL.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 120UL win any benchmark in the comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the AMD EPYC 7443 winning all 6 benchmarks, with the Intel Core 5 120UL recording zero wins across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core tests.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC 7443 scores 6802 versus 1266 for the Core 5 120UL, a 437.3% advantage. The R15 single-core test shows a 439.4% delta, with the EPYC 7443 at 685 and the Core 5 120UL at 127.

Q: How do these processors compare in their percentile rankings?

A: Both the AMD EPYC 7443 and Intel Core 5 120UL sit at the 68th percentile of all CPUs, despite the EPYC 7443 having a higher average benchmark score of 13936 compared to 13594 for the Intel part.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7443 has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Intel Core 5 120UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. This 2.4x core advantage and 4x thread advantage directly contributes to the multi-core benchmark results.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 7443 has a TDP of 200, while the Intel Core 5 120UL has a TDP of 15. This 185-point difference in TDP reflects the EPYC's server-oriented design versus the Intel chip's low-power desktop focus.

The Verdict

The data points to an unambiguous conclusion: the AMD EPYC 7443 is the superior processor for any workload that values raw compute throughput. It wins every benchmark in the comparison by margins exceeding 436%, and its 24-core, 48-thread configuration provides massive parallelism that the Intel Core 5 120UL simply cannot match. The EPYC 7443's average benchmark score of 13936 and its 68th percentile ranking indicate strong overall performance, while its nearest rivals in the data, the Intel Core i7-8750H at 13868 (0.5% delta) and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX at 13786 (1.1% delta), show it competes well even within its own performance tier.

The Intel Core 5 120UL, meanwhile, is not without merit when viewed through the lens of its own design goals. Its 15 TDP is dramatically lower than the EPYC 7443's 200, and its average benchmark score of 13594 places it in the same 68th percentile. The Core 5 120UL's nearest rivals, the Intel Core i3-12100F at 13494 (0.7% delta) and the Intel Core 3 N355 at 13492 (0.8% delta), show it performs competitively among low-power desktop chips. However, in a direct head-to-head comparison with the EPYC 7443, the Core 5 120UL is outclassed in every measurable way. The verdict is clear: choose the EPYC 7443 for performance, and only consider the Core 5 120UL if the 15 TDP power envelope is an absolute requirement.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification category. The AMD EPYC 7443 features 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Intel Core 5 120UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks differ significantly, with the EPYC 7443 running at 2.85 and the Core 5 120UL at 1.30, though the Intel chip boosts higher at 4.60 versus 4.00 for AMD. TDP is a major differentiator: the EPYC 7443 consumes 200, while the Core 5 120UL draws just 15.

The socket and architecture are entirely different. The EPYC 7443 uses AMD Socket SP3 and the Zen 3 architecture with the Milan codename, while the Core 5 120UL uses Intel Socket 1700 and the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename. The process nodes also differ, with AMD using 7 nm from TSMC and Intel using 10 nm. Cache configurations diverge substantially: the EPYC 7443 has 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 128 MB shared L3, while the Core 5 120UL has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3.

Memory support shows another major split. The EPYC 7443 supports DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC memory. The Core 5 120UL supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and no ECC support. PCIe lanes also differ, with the EPYC 7443 offering Gen 4 with 128 lanes versus the Core 5 120UL's Gen 4 with 8 lanes. The Intel chip includes integrated Iris Xe Graphics 80EU, while the EPYC 7443 has no integrated graphics. The EPYC 7443 was released in 2021-03-14 with a launch MSRP of $2010, while the Core 5 120UL was released in 2024-04-07 with no launch MSRP listed.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors reflects their intended markets. The AMD EPYC 7443 uses Zen 3 architecture on a 7 nm process from TSMC, with a die size of 4x 81 mm² and 16,600 million transistors. This server-class design prioritizes throughput, with 24 cores arranged for maximum parallel processing. The 128 MB shared L3 cache is particularly notable, providing a massive cache pool for server workloads that repeatedly access large datasets.

The Intel Core 5 120UL uses Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process from Intel. Its 10 cores and 12 threads suggest a hybrid design approach, though the data does not specify performance versus efficiency core distribution. The 12 MB shared L3 cache is substantially smaller than the EPYC 7443's 128 MB, reflecting the desktop-focused design. The Core 5 120UL's 15 TDP indicates a power-optimized architecture, likely using aggressive clock gating and power management to achieve its low consumption while still reaching a 4.60 boost clock.

The foundry and process node differences are significant. AMD leverages TSMC's 7 nm process, while Intel uses its own 10 nm process. The EPYC 7443's four-die design (4x 81 mm²) suggests a chiplet architecture typical of server processors, whereas the Core 5 120UL uses a monolithic design typical of desktop chips. The EPYC 7443's eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth are designed for memory-intensive server workloads, while the Core 5 120UL's dual-channel bus supports both DDR4 and DDR5 for flexibility in desktop builds.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7443 wins in every benchmark category measured in this comparison. Its Cinebench scores across R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core, show dominance that extends beyond mere core count advantages. The 24-core, 48-thread configuration excels in heavily parallel workloads, while even its single-core performance surpasses the Core 5 120UL by more than 437%. The EPYC 7443 is the clear choice for server environments, virtualization, database processing, and any workload that can leverage its 48 threads and 128 MB L3 cache.

The Intel Core 5 120UL, while losing every head-to-head benchmark, has its own domain where it makes sense. Its 15 TDP is dramatically lower than the EPYC 7443's 200, making it suitable for compact desktop systems, fanless designs, or applications where power consumption is the primary constraint. The integrated Iris Xe Graphics 80EU provides display output without a discrete GPU, which the EPYC 7443 cannot offer. The dual-channel DDR4 and DDR5 support and 8 PCIe Gen 4 lanes are adequate for typical desktop peripherals.

The percentile data reveals an interesting nuance: both processors rank at the 68th percentile of all CPUs, meaning each is positioned similarly within the broader CPU market despite their massive head-to-head gap. The EPYC 7443's average benchmark score of 13936 and the Core 5 120UL's 13594 place them close in aggregate performance metrics. However, the head-to-head Cinebench results show that the EPYC 7443 is in a different performance class entirely. The Core 5 120UL's wins are not in raw performance but in power efficiency, integrated graphics capability, and platform flexibility, areas not captured by the Cinebench benchmarks in this comparison.