CPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data presents a complete sweep for the AMD EPYC 9374F across all eight head-to-head benchmark tests, with the Intel Core 5 120U never taking a single win. The most lopsided result comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC scores 69,707 against the Core 5's 6,659, a -90.4% delta that reflects the sheer scale of the AMD part's 32-core/64-thread configuration versus the Intel's 10-core/12-thread setup. Even in single-core tests, where mobile parts often close the gap, the EPYC dominates: Cinebench R23 single-core shows 9,841 versus 1,756.5, a -82.2% delta. That is not a marginal difference; it is a generational gulf in raw computational throughput.

The single-core story is slightly less brutal in Geekbench, where the EPYC's 2,306 beats the Core 5's 1,727 by a -25.1% delta. This is the closest margin in the entire head-to-head set, and it hints that the Intel part's 5.00 GHz boost clock does help in lightly threaded workloads. Still, the EPYC's 4.30 GHz boost on a 5 nm Zen 4 core is enough to stay ahead, and the delta widens dramatically as thread counts scale. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC posts 7,026 versus 1,150.5 (-83.6%), and in R20 multi-core it hits 29,276 versus 5,349 (-81.7%). The pattern is consistent: the more cores engaged, the larger the EPYC's lead.

Geekbench multi-core tells the same tale with 18,263 versus 5,888 (-67.8%). The EPYC's 256 MB of shared L3 cache and twelve-channel DDR5 memory bus clearly feed its cores far better than the Core 5's 12 MB L3 and dual-channel memory. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC's 991 versus 245 (-75.3%) is striking, that is nearly a four-fold advantage in a test that should favor higher clocks. The R20 single-core result (4,133 versus 755, -81.7%) reinforces that the EPYC's per-core performance is not just competitive but decisively superior.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9374F wins every benchmark category represented in the data, so the segmentation is not about which chip takes specific tests but rather about workload characteristics. For multi-threaded compute, rendering, scientific simulation, database processing, virtualization hosts, the EPYC's 32 cores and 64 threads deliver 69,707 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is roughly 10.5 times the Core 5's score. The EPYC's 256 MB L3 cache and 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth make it purpose-built for data-heavy server workloads where cache misses are costly. Its ECC memory support and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) further cement its role as a server/workstation part, per the market segment field.

The Intel Core 5 120U, by contrast, is a mobile part with a 15 W TDP, according to the spec data, and integrated Iris Xe Graphics 80EU. Its wins, if any, would come from power efficiency and portability rather than raw compute, the fact pack lists no benchmarks where it beats the EPYC, but its 10-core/12-thread design with a 5.00 GHz boost clock gives it a niche in bursty, single-threaded tasks like light productivity or web browsing. The data shows its PassMark single-thread score of 3,479 and Geekbench single-core of 1,727, which are respectable for a mobile chip but far behind the EPYC. The Core 5's 166,432 in PassMark data compression suggests it handles everyday file operations competently, but the EPYC's absence from that specific PassMark suite means no direct comparison exists there.

For a builder choosing between these two, the use case is everything. The EPYC is for a rack-mounted server or a workstation that crunches numbers all day. The Core 5 is for a thin-and-light laptop where battery life and low heat output matter more than absolute performance. The data does not show a single test where the Intel part wins, so the only reason to pick it is the mobile form factor and integrated graphics, not benchmark superiority.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design philosophies. The Intel Core 5 120U is built on Intel's 10 nm process (Raptor Lake-U architecture) with a 15 W TDP, while the AMD EPYC 9374F uses TSMC's 5 nm process (Zen 4, Genoa) with a 320 W TDP. The EPYC packs 32 cores and 64 threads, versus the Core 5's 10 cores and 12 threads. The transistor count tells the scale story: the EPYC has 52,560 million transistors across eight 72 mm² chiplets, while the Core 5's transistor count is not listed in the data.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The EPYC offers 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB shared L3, a total that dwarfs the Core 5's 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. That 244 MB difference in L3 is the single biggest architectural gap, and it explains why the EPYC sustains such high multi-threaded scores. Memory support further separates them: the EPYC runs DDR5 across a twelve-channel bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core 5 supports DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with no bandwidth figure listed. The EPYC also supports ECC memory; the Core 5 does not.

PCIe connectivity differs by generation and lane count. The EPYC provides PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), whereas the Core 5 offers PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). This makes the EPYC suitable for massive GPU arrays or NVMe storage farms, while the Core 5's 8 lanes barely cover a single discrete GPU. The EPYC has no integrated graphics, relying on a discrete GPU or server BMC for display output; the Core 5 includes Iris Xe Graphics 80EU. Socket and packaging also differ: the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5, while the Core 5 is on Intel BGA 1744, meaning the former is socketed for server boards and the latter is soldered to mobile motherboards. Release dates show the EPYC launched in November 2022, while the Core 5 arrived in January 2024, a year apart, yet the older part is vastly faster in every measured test.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9374F outperforms the Intel Core 5 120U in every single benchmark recorded. If your workload is compute-bound, the EPYC delivers 69,707 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 6,659, and it wins single-core by margins ranging from -25.1% (Geekbench) to -75.3% (Cinebench R15). The EPYC's 32 cores, 64 threads, 256 MB L3, and 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth are simply in a different class. The Core 5's 72nd percentile ranking among all CPUs versus the EPYC's 71st percentile, a near tie in aggregate percentile, reflects that the Intel part is a competent mid-range mobile chip, but the head-to-head deltas show the EPYC is not just better; it is overwhelmingly better.

Who should pick the Intel Core 5 120U? Only a builder targeting a mobile platform with a 15 W TDP, integrated graphics, and a BGA 1744 socket. The data shows no performance advantage for the Intel part, so the decision rests entirely on form factor and power envelope. Who should pick the AMD EPYC 9374F? Anyone building a server or workstation where multi-threaded throughput, ECC memory, and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity matter. The EPYC's launch MSRP is $4850, and while this is a significant sum, the benchmark results justify it for enterprise workloads. The verdict from the numbers alone: the EPYC 9374F is the superior processor in every measurable way, and the Core 5 120U is only viable when portability and low power consumption are non-negotiable.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 9374F scores 69,707 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, compared to the Intel Core 5 120U's 6,659, giving the EPYC a -90.4% delta advantage.

Q: Is the AMD EPYC 9374F also faster in single-core tests?

A: Yes, the EPYC wins all four single-core head-to-head tests. In Geekbench single-core, it scores 2,306 versus 1,727 (-25.1% delta), and in Cinebench R23 single-core, 9,841 versus 1,756.5 (-82.2% delta).

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 5 120U has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9374F has 32 cores and 64 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 9374F supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 5 120U does not. The EPYC also uses a twelve-channel DDR5 memory bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, versus the Core 5's dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 support.

Q: How do their integrated graphics compare?

A: The Intel Core 5 120U includes Iris Xe Graphics 80EU, while the AMD EPYC 9374F has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU or server management controller for display.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the AMD EPYC 9374F?

A: The launch MSRP for the AMD EPYC 9374F is $4850. The Intel Core 5 120U has no launch MSRP listed in the data.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 120U | AMD EPYC 9374F |

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

| Cores | 10 | 32 |

| Threads | 12 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 1.40 GHz | 3.85 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 320 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Zen 4 |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-U | Genoa |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 52,560 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 8x 72 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Twelve-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 460.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 80EU | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2024-01-07 | 2022-11-09 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $4850 |

| Part Number | SRM7P | 100-100000792 |