Intel Core 5 120 vs Intel Core i7-11850H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 120 and the Intel Core i7-11850H are separated by more than just their socket choices. The data reveals a clear split: the Core 5 120 dominates in single-threaded and lightly threaded workloads, while the i7-11850H takes the lead in certain multi-threaded and data-intensive tasks. This is not a case where one chip is simply faster everywhere; each has a defined territory.

The Core 5 120 wins 10 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. Its victories are concentrated in Cinebench rendering tests, floating-point math, physics simulations, and every single-thread metric. The i7-11850H counters with 7 wins, all in PassMark workloads that favor its higher core count and specific instruction handling: integer math, data compression, encryption, random string sorting, and extended instructions.

For a builder prioritizing responsiveness in everyday applications, the Core 5 120 is the obvious choice. Its single-thread score of 3595 in PassMark is 17.1% ahead of the i7-11850H's 3069, which translates to snappier UI interaction and faster single-threaded game logic. Conversely, for workloads that scale with threads and involve heavy data manipulation, the i7-11850H's 8 cores and 16 threads provide a measurable edge, particularly in integer math where it leads by 16%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench rendering tests?

A: The Intel Core 5 120 wins every Cinebench comparison. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 18255 versus 16673 for the i7-11850H, a 9.5% advantage. Single-core scores show the same pattern: 2577 versus 2353, again 9.5% ahead.

Q: Does the i7-11850H ever beat the Core 5 120 in multi-threaded workloads?

A: Yes, but only in specific PassMark tests. The i7-11850H wins PassMark multithread (20059 versus 18597, a 7.3% edge), integer math (71996 versus 60462, 16% ahead), and data compression (236949 versus 219535, 7.3% ahead). However, it loses in Cinebench multi-core and floating-point math.

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

A: The Core 5 120 is consistently faster. Its PassMark single-thread score is 3595 versus 3069, a 17.1% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap is 9.5% (2577 versus 2353). The Core 5 120's higher base clock of 2.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.50 GHz contribute to this advantage.

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

A: The largest single delta is in PassMark physics, where the Core 5 120 scores 1333 versus 954 for the i7-11850H, a 39.7% lead. The largest win for the i7-11850H is in random string sorting, where it leads by 24.3% (28395 versus 21499).

Q: Are these processors in the same performance class overall?

A: The database places both at the 77th percentile among all CPUs. The Core 5 120 has an average benchmark score of 25362, while the i7-11850H sits at 24935. The Core 5 120's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (delta 0%) and Intel Core i5-13400F (delta 0.3%), while the i7-11850H sits near the Intel Core i7-13620H (delta 0.1%).

Q: Which chip has better integrated graphics?

A: The i7-11850H features UHD Graphics 750, while the Core 5 120 uses UHD Graphics 730. The database does not include graphics benchmarks for either, so relative GPU performance cannot be determined from the recorded data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent 9.5% advantage for the Core 5 120 across the board. In R15 multi-core, the Core 5 120 scores 1840 versus 1680. R20 multi-core shows 7667 versus 7002, and R23 multi-core shows 18255 versus 16673. Single-core deltas are identical: 9.3% in R15 (259 versus 237) and 9.5% in both R20 and R23. This consistency suggests a fundamental architectural advantage in instruction throughput rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The PassMark suite tells a more nuanced story. The Core 5 120 wins floating-point math by 6.7% (45383 versus 42540) and physics by 39.7% (1333 versus 954). Its single-thread score of 3595 beats the i7-11850H's 3069 by 17.1%, the largest single-thread delta recorded.

The i7-11850H's wins are substantial where they occur. Integer math shows a 16% lead (71996 versus 60462). Random string sorting is its strongest result at 24.3% ahead (28395 versus 21499). Data compression and encryption both show around 7.3% and 8.9% leads respectively (236949 versus 219535, and 12214 versus 11131). Extended instructions favor the i7-11850H by 9.7% (15788 versus 14264), and prime number finding by 11.5% (87 versus 77).

The PassMark multithread score is interesting: the i7-11850H wins 20059 versus 18597, a 7.3% margin. Yet in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 5 120 wins by 9.5%. This divergence highlights that "multi-threaded" is not a single workload. Cinebench scales well with the Core 5 120's architecture, while PassMark's multithread test favors the i7-11850H's additional cores.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ fundamentally in their target platforms. The Core 5 120 is a desktop part using Intel Socket 1700, while the i7-11850H is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1787. This is not a comparison between two interchangeable components; they serve different system builds.

Core and thread counts differ: the Core 5 120 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the i7-11850H has 8 cores and 16 threads. Clock speeds favor the newer desktop chip: 2.50 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost versus 2.10 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. The i7-11850H has a higher peak boost despite the lower base.

Thermal design power differs dramatically: 65W for the Core 5 120 versus 35W for the i7-11850H. This reflects the mobile nature of the i7-11850H, which is designed for laptops where power draw is constrained. The desktop part can sustain higher power consumption.

Cache allocation also differs. Both have 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core. L3 cache, however, is 18 MB shared for the Core 5 120 versus 24 MB shared for the i7-11850H, a 6 MB advantage for the older mobile chip.

Memory support is another differentiator. The Core 5 120 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the i7-11850H supports only DDR4. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The i7-11850H has a listed memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s; the Core 5 120's bandwidth is not recorded.

PCIe capabilities differ: the Core 5 120 offers Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the i7-11850H offers Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes. Neither supports ECC memory. Both have locked multipliers. The Core 5 120 launched with an MSRP of $211, while the i7-11850H carried a $395 launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The Core 5 120 is built on Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-R, and belongs to the Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. The i7-11850H uses Tiger Lake architecture, specifically Tiger Lake-H, from the Core 11th Gen family. Both are fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process, but they are separated by roughly four years of design and implementation. The Core 5 120 was released in 2025, while the i7-11850H dates to 2021.

Die sizes differ: the Core 5 120 measures 163 mm², while the i7-11850H is larger at 190 mm². Despite the larger die, the i7-11850H packs 24 MB of L3 cache versus 18 MB for the Core 5 120. The Core 5 120 compensates with higher clock speeds and newer architectural improvements.

The Core 5 120 supports DDR5 memory, a significant generational leap over the i7-11850H's DDR4-only support. It also uses PCIe Gen 5 for CPU lanes, doubling the theoretical bandwidth of the i7-11850H's PCIe Gen 4. These are platform-level differences that matter for system expansion and future-proofing.

Both chips integrate graphics, but different tiers: UHD Graphics 730 for the Core 5 120 and UHD Graphics 750 for the i7-11850H. Neither is designed for serious gaming without a discrete GPU, but the i7-11850H's higher-tier iGPU may offer modestly better display output capabilities.

The Verdict

The choice between these two processors depends entirely on the intended use case and platform constraints. The data does not suggest a universal winner.

For a desktop builder, the Core 5 120 is the rational pick. It wins 10 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, including every Cinebench test and all single-thread metrics. Its 9.5% lead across Cinebench R23 multi-core and 17.1% lead in PassMark single-thread make it the better processor for general productivity, rendering, and any workload that benefits from high clock speeds. The 39.7% lead in PassMark physics is particularly notable for simulation or physics-based tasks. It also supports DDR5 and PCIe Gen 5, which the i7-11850H cannot.

The i7-11850H makes sense only if the system must be a laptop or a compact mobile device. Its 35W TDP is suited for thin-and-light designs where the Core 5 120's 65W desktop TDP would be impractical. In that context, the i7-11850H's wins matter: 16% ahead in integer math, 24.3% in random string sorting, and 7.3% in multithread suggest it handles data-heavy mobile workloads well. Its 24 MB of L3 cache versus 18 MB helps in cache-sensitive applications.

However, for any user choosing between these two for a fixed desktop build, the i7-11850H's advantages do not overcome its deficits. The Core 5 120 is faster in the workloads most users encounter daily. The i7-11850H's niche is mobile data processing, where its core count and cache size compensate for lower clock speeds. The recorded data shows the Core 5 120 as the stronger performer on a per-clock basis, and the newer platform support reinforces that conclusion.