Intel Core 5 120 vs Intel Core i5-13400F Comparison

The Intel Core 5 120 and Intel Core i5-13400F are both 65W desktop processors on the Intel Socket 1700 platform, but the benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap. Across the 17 head-to-head comparisons, the Core i5-13400F wins every single test. The average benchmark score for the Core 5 120 is 25362, while the Core i5-13400F sits at 25292, a negligible 0.3% difference in overall average, yet the per-test deltas tell a much larger story. The Core i5-13400F is consistently faster in both single-threaded and heavily multithreaded workloads, often by double-digit percentages.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core i5-13400F’s dominance is most pronounced in multi-core rendering workloads. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core i5-13400F scores 22604 against the Core 5 120’s 18255, a 19.2% advantage. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the Core i5-13400F posts 2278 versus 1840, again a 19.2% lead. Even in Cinebench R20 multicore, the gap is 13.8%, with scores of 8892 and 7667 respectively. These are not marginal wins; the Core i5-13400F is delivering roughly a fifth more performance in sustained rendering tasks.

The single-core results are closer but still favor the Core i5-13400F. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, the Core i5-13400F scores 3191 compared to the Core 5 120’s 2577, a 19.2% difference. Cinebench R15 singlecore shows a similar 19.3% delta (321 vs 259), and Cinebench R20 singlecore is 13.8% apart (1255 vs 1082). The PassMark single-thread test narrows the gap significantly, with the Core i5-13400F scoring 3634 and the Core 5 120 scoring 3595, a mere 1.1% difference. This suggests that while the Core i5-13400F has a higher boost clock, the architectural advantage in lightly threaded workloads is smaller than in heavily threaded ones.

The largest deltas appear in data-intensive PassMark tests. Data compression shows a 29.5% lead for the Core i5-13400F (311364 vs 219535), and data encryption is 33% faster (16608 vs 11131). Random string sorting also shows a 33% gap (32076 vs 21499). Extended instructions score 19847 for the Core i5-13400F versus 14264 for the Core 5 120, a 28.1% difference. Integer math favors the Core i5-13400F by 24.4% (79942 vs 60462), and floating-point math is 25% higher (60539 vs 45383). The only tests with single-digit deltas are PassMark physics (7.2%: 1437 vs 1333) and find prime numbers (7.2%: 83 vs 77).

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Raptor Lake architecture and are built on Intel’s 10 nm process, but the silicon differs in scale. The Core 5 120 uses the Raptor Lake-R die, which measures 163 mm², while the Core i5-13400F uses the larger Raptor Lake-S die at 215 mm². The core configuration is the most significant divergence: the Core 5 120 has 6 cores and 12 threads, whereas the Core i5-13400F has 10 cores and 16 threads. This extra core count directly explains the multi-core benchmark advantages.

Cache hierarchies are similar per-core but larger in aggregate on the Core i5-13400F. Both have 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core. The shared L3 cache, however, is 20 MB on the Core i5-13400F versus 18 MB on the Core 5 120. The base clocks are identical at 2.50 GHz, but the boost clock is higher on the Core i5-13400F at 4.60 GHz versus 4.50 GHz. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode, and both lack ECC memory support.

The integrated graphics are a key differentiator. The Core 5 120 includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Core i5-13400F has no integrated graphics (the “F” suffix indicates this). Both processors use the same PCIe configuration: Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Core 5 120 is part of the Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation, while the Core i5-13400F belongs to the Core 13th Gen (Raptor Lake). The Core 5 120 was released on 2025-07-30, and the Core i5-13400F on 2023-01-03. Both have locked multipliers, meaning no overclocking. The part numbers are SA35V for the Core 5 120 and SRMBGSRMBN for the Core i5-13400F.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the Core i5-13400F wins all 17 benchmark comparisons. There are no tests where the Core 5 120 comes out ahead. For users prioritizing raw multi-threaded throughput, the Core i5-13400F is the clear choice, as evidenced by the 19-25% leads in Cinebench multicore and PassMark multithread (25032 vs 18597, a 25.7% difference). The Core i5-13400F also excels in memory-heavy operations like data compression and encryption, where the 33% deltas are the largest of any test category.

The Core 5 120’s only near-victory is in PassMark single-thread performance, where the 1.1% gap (3595 vs 3634) is within noise. This means that for basic single-threaded tasks like web browsing or office applications, the two processors will feel nearly identical. However, the Core 5 120 does include integrated graphics, which the Core i5-13400F lacks. The data does not include iGPU benchmarks, but the presence of UHD Graphics 730 means the Core 5 120 can run a display without a discrete GPU, while the Core i5-13400F requires one.

The Core i5-13400F’s wins are largest in workloads that scale with core count and cache size. The 10-core/16-thread configuration and 20 MB L3 cache give it a structural advantage in rendering, simulation, and data processing. The Core 5 120, with 6 cores and 12 threads, is not a weak processor—it still achieves a 77th percentile ranking among all CPUs—but it is outclassed by the Core i5-13400F in every measurable metric.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core rendering?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400F is faster in all Cinebench multi-core tests. It leads by 19.2% in Cinebench R15 and R23 multicore (2278 vs 1840 and 22604 vs 18255) and by 13.8% in Cinebench R20 multicore (8892 vs 7667).

Q: Is the Core 5 120 competitive in single-threaded performance?

A: It is close but behind. In PassMark single-thread, the Core i5-13400F scores 3634 versus 3595 for the Core 5 120, a 1.1% difference. However, in Cinebench R23 singlecore, the gap widens to 19.2% (3191 vs 2577).

Q: Do these processors have integrated graphics?

A: No, they differ. The Intel Core 5 120 includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Intel Core i5-13400F has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The Core 5 120 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Core i5-13400F has 10 cores and 16 threads. This gives the Core i5-13400F a substantial advantage in multithreaded workloads.

Q: How do their overall average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core 5 120 has an average benchmark score of 25362, and the Core i5-13400F has an average of 25292. The Core 5 120 is 0.3% higher, despite losing every head-to-head test, due to differences in benchmark weighting.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400F has 20 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core 5 120 has 18 MB. Both have 80 KB of L1 and 1.25 MB of L2 per core.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on several key specification fields. The Core i5-13400F has 10 cores and 16 threads, versus 6 cores and 12 threads on the Core 5 120. The boost clock is 4.60 GHz on the Core i5-13400F and 4.50 GHz on the Core 5 120, while the base clock is identical at 2.50 GHz. The die size is larger on the Core i5-13400F at 215 mm², compared to 163 mm² on the Core 5 120. The shared L3 cache is 20 MB on the Core i5-13400F and 18 MB on the Core 5 120.

The integrated graphics are present only on the Core 5 120, which features UHD Graphics 730; the Core i5-13400F has none. The release dates differ: the Core 5 120 was released on 2025-07-30, and the Core i5-13400F on 2023-01-03. The generation names are also different, with the Core 5 120 listed as “Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh)” and the Core i5-13400F as “Core i5 (Raptor Lake)”. The part numbers are SA35V for the Core 5 120 and SRMBGSRMBN for the Core i5-13400F. Both share the same socket (Intel Socket 1700), TDP (65W), process node (10 nm), memory support (DDR4, DDR5), memory bus (dual-channel), PCIe configuration (Gen 5, 16 lanes), ECC support (false), and multiplier lock (not unlocked).

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the Intel Core i5-13400F is the superior processor for almost any workload. It wins all 17 head-to-head benchmarks, with the largest margins in multi-core and data-intensive tasks. For users running rendering, video encoding, or scientific simulations, the 19-25% leads in Cinebench multicore and PassMark multithread are decisive. The 33% advantages in data compression and encryption make it the better choice for file archiving or security-related tasks.

The Intel Core 5 120 is not without merit. Its integrated UHD Graphics 730 makes it a viable option for a system without a discrete GPU, and its single-threaded PassMark score is within 1.1% of the Core i5-13400F, meaning everyday responsiveness will be similar. However, the Core 5 120’s 6-core configuration puts it at a structural disadvantage in any parallel workload. The 77th percentile ranking for both processors confirms they are in the same performance tier, but the Core i5-13400F consistently sits at the top of that tier.

Users who need a drop-in upgrade for an existing Socket 1700 system and already have a discrete GPU should opt for the Core i5-13400F. Users who require an iGPU for a basic build or as a troubleshooting fallback might consider the Core 5 120, but they will sacrifice significant multi-core performance. The benchmark results show no scenario where the Core 5 120 wins on performance; the only reason to choose it is the presence of integrated graphics. For all other metrics, the Core i5-13400F is the data-backed recommendation.