Intel Core 5 120 vs Intel Core 9 273PTE Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PTE records an average benchmark score of 31143, while the Intel Core 5 120 scores 25362. That places the Core 9 273PTE at the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 77th percentile for the Core 5 120.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Core 5 120 wins the PassMark single-thread test with a score of 3595, giving it a 4.7% advantage over the Core 9 273PTE's 3433. However, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core 9 273PTE leads 2886 to 2577, so the result depends on the benchmark methodology.

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

A: The biggest difference appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the Core 9 273PTE scores 142 versus 77 for the Core 5 120, a 45.8% advantage. The Core 9 273PTE also leads by 30.5% in PassMark physics (1917 vs 1333).

Q: Do both processors use the same socket?

A: Yes, both use Intel Socket 1700. They also both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, and both offer PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PTE has 12 cores and 24 threads, double the 6 cores and 12 threads of the Intel Core 5 120. The Core 9 273PTE also has a larger L3 cache at 36 MB shared, versus 18 MB shared.

Q: Do both processors include integrated graphics?

A: Yes, both integrate UHD Graphics 730. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both are listed as Active in production status.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 120 belongs to the Raptor Lake family, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, while the Intel Core 9 273PTE uses the Bartlett Lake codename. Both are fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process node and built by Intel's foundry, but the architectural lineage diverges considerably. The Core 5 120 is a 6-core, 12-thread part with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The Core 9 273PTE doubles the core count to 12 and threads to 24, with a lower base clock of 1.40 GHz but a substantially higher boost clock of 5.50 GHz.

Cache organization differs as well. Both processors use 80 KB of L1 cache per core, and both use 1.25 MB or 2 MB of L2 per core respectively. The Core 5 120 has 1.25 MB L2 per core, while the Core 9 273PTE has 2 MB per core. Shared L3 also doubles: 18 MB on the Core 5 120 versus 36 MB on the Core 9 273PTE. The die size for the Core 5 120 is recorded as 163 mm², while no die size is listed for the Core 9 273PTE.

The Core 9 273PTE adds ECC memory support, a feature absent from the Core 5 120. It also lists a memory bandwidth figure of 89.6 GB/s, whereas the Core 5 120 has no bandwidth value recorded. The Core 9 273PTE carries a higher TDP despite its lower base clock? No, the opposite: the Core 5 120 has a 65 W TDP, while the Core 9 273PTE is rated at 45 W. That lower TDP with double the cores and a higher boost clock suggests a different power delivery and binning strategy in the Bartlett Lake design.

The release dates differ by several months. The Core 5 120 launched on 2025-07-30, while the Core 9 273PTE followed on 2026-03-08. The part numbers also differ: SA35V for the Core 5 120 and SA4QJ for the Core 9 273PTE. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 120 is $211, and the Core 9 273PTE's launch MSRP is $549.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a dominant sweep for the Core 9 273PTE across most workloads, but the single-thread PassMark result provides an interesting counterpoint. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, the Core 9 273PTE wins both multi-core and single-core tests by a consistent 10.7% margin. For example, Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 20445 for the Core 9 273PTE versus 18255 for the Core 5 120, and single-core shows 2886 versus 2577.

The PassMark suite tells a more varied story. The Core 9 273PTE wins data compression 258704 to 219535, a 15.1% gap. Data encryption goes to the Core 9 273PTE by 21.9% (14253 vs 11131). Extended instructions favor the Core 9 273PTE by 10.6% (15952 vs 14264). The largest multi-threaded gaps appear in find prime numbers (45.8% advantage), physics (30.5%), floating point math (25.2%), integer math (26.6%), multithread (22.7%), and random string sorting (25.8%). The Core 9 273PTE's multithread score of 24054 versus 18597 reflects the doubled core and thread counts.

The single exception is PassMark single-thread, where the Core 5 120 scores 3595 against the Core 9 273PTE's 3433, a 4.7% win for the Core 5 120. This result appears in both the passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread entries, confirming it is not an anomaly. The Core 5 120's higher 2.50 GHz base clock likely contributes to this single-thread advantage, even though the Core 9 273PTE has a higher 5.50 GHz boost clock.

Of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks recorded, the Core 9 273PTE wins 15, and the Core 5 120 wins 2. The wins for the Core 5 120 are both single-thread PassMark variants. The overall pattern is clear: the Core 9 273PTE dominates threaded workloads by margins ranging from roughly 10% to nearly 46%, while the Core 5 120 holds a modest lead in one specific single-thread test.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several core specifications. The Core 5 120 uses 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Core 9 273PTE uses 12 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks differ substantially: 2.50 GHz for the Core 5 120 versus 1.40 GHz for the Core 9 273PTE. Boost clocks also differ: 4.50 GHz versus 5.50 GHz. TDP ratings go in the opposite direction: 65 W for the Core 5 120, 45 W for the Core 9 273PTE.

Cache amounts differ at both L2 and L3. The Core 5 120 has 1.25 MB L2 per core and 18 MB shared L3. The Core 9 273PTE has 2 MB L2 per core and 36 MB shared L3. L1 cache is identical at 80 KB per core. ECC memory support is present only on the Core 9 273PTE. Memory bandwidth is listed as 89.6 GB/s for the Core 9 273PTE, with no figure recorded for the Core 5 120. Die size is 163 mm² for the Core 5 120, with no die size listed for the Core 9 273PTE.

The codenames and generations differ: Raptor Lake-R for the Core 5 120 versus Bartlett Lake for the Core 9 273PTE. Part numbers differ (SA35V vs SA4QJ), as do release dates (2025-07-30 vs 2026-03-08) and launch MSRP values ($211 vs $549). The architecture field is recorded as Raptor Lake for the Core 5 120, while the Core 9 273PTE has no architecture entry.

Identical specifications include the socket (Intel Socket 1700), process node (10 nm), foundry (Intel), memory support (DDR4 and DDR5), memory bus (dual-channel), PCIe configuration (Gen 5, 16 lanes CPU only), integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 730), market segment (Desktop), production status (Active), and multiplier lock state (both locked).

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates the Intel Core 9 273PTE is the stronger processor in nearly every measured workload. Its 15 wins out of 17 head-to-head tests, combined with a 31143 average benchmark score versus 25362 for the Core 5 120, place it firmly ahead in overall performance. The 82nd percentile ranking versus 77th percentile reinforces this position.

The Core 5 120 does hold one meaningful advantage: single-thread PassMark performance. Its 3595 score beats the Core 9 273PTE's 3433 by 4.7%. For workloads that rely heavily on single-threaded PassMark-style operations, the Core 5 120 delivers a measurable edge. However, Cinebench single-core tests show the opposite result, with the Core 9 273PTE leading by 10.7% in R15, R20, and R23. This inconsistency suggests the single-thread advantage is workload-specific rather than universal.

The Core 9 273PTE also brings ECC memory support, which the Core 5 120 lacks, and a higher memory bandwidth figure of 89.6 GB/s. Its 36 MB L3 cache doubles the Core 5 120's 18 MB, and its 2 MB L2 per core exceeds the 1.25 MB per core on the Core 5 120. These cache and memory advantages likely contribute to the large margins in data compression, encryption, and math workloads.

The Core 5 120, by contrast, offers a lower launch MSRP of $211 versus $549, though the price difference is not the focus of this analysis. The 65 W TDP versus 45 W TDP means the Core 5 120 draws more power at the package level despite having fewer cores, which is notable for system-level planning.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 273PTE wins in all multi-threaded and most single-threaded Cinebench tests. Its largest margins appear in PassMark find prime numbers (45.8% ahead), physics (30.5% ahead), integer math (26.6% ahead), and random string sorting (25.8% ahead). These results point to workloads involving heavy arithmetic, physics simulation, and sorting algorithms as clear strengths. Data compression and encryption also favor the Core 9 273PTE by 15.1% and 21.9% respectively, suggesting file archiving and cryptographic tasks benefit from the additional cores and larger cache.

The Core 5 120 wins only the PassMark single-thread tests, with a 4.7% margin. This makes it the better choice for narrowly single-threaded PassMark-style workloads, though the Cinebench single-core results contradict that conclusion. The Core 5 120's higher base clock of 2.50 GHz compared to 1.40 GHz may explain why it performs better in certain latency-sensitive single-threaded tasks that do not boost as aggressively.

For users prioritizing multi-core throughput, the Core 9 273PTE is the clear selection. Its 24054 PassMark multithread score versus 18597, and its 20445 Cinebench R23 multi-core score versus 18255, show consistent leadership in threaded applications. The Core 5 120 remains relevant for single-threaded PassMark scenarios, but the breadth of the Core 9 273PTE's wins across Cinebench and PassMark suites makes it the more versatile processor in the recorded data.