Intel Core 5 120 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records a decisive, one-sided contest. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core 5 120, with the database showing zero wins for the Core 5 120. The margin of victory varies widely by workload, from a comparatively narrow single-thread lead to massive multi-core and specialized instruction advantages.

The largest single gap appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 459 against 77 for the Core 5 120, a delta of -83.2%. This workload, which stresses integer-heavy algorithmic loops, shows the Core Ultra 9 285 delivering more than five times the throughput. Floating point math tells a similar story: the Core Ultra 9 285 posts 194,988 versus 45,383, a -76.7% difference. Data encryption favors the Core Ultra 9 285 by -76.3% (46,949 versus 11,131), and extended instructions show a -68.6% gap (45,357 versus 14,264).

Multi-core rendering benchmarks reinforce the pattern. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 reaches 48,945 against 18,255 for the Core 5 120, a -62.7% difference. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 20,556 versus 7,667, and Cinebench R15 multi-core records 4,933 versus 1,840, both with the same -62.7% delta. The consistency of that percentage across all three Cinebench multi-core tests indicates a structural performance advantage rather than workload-specific variability.

PassMark multithread shows a -67.1% gap (56,602 versus 18,597), while random string sorting delivers -70.8% (73,651 versus 21,499). Integer math posts 164,869 versus 60,462, a -63.3% difference. Physics simulation in PassMark records 3,598 versus 1,333, a -63% delta.

The narrowest margin appears in single-threaded tests. PassMark single thread shows the Core Ultra 9 285 at 4,881 versus 3,595 for the Core 5 120, a -26.3% difference. Cinebench R23 single-core records 6,909 versus 2,577, Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2,901 versus 1,082, and Cinebench R15 single-core posts 696 versus 259, all at -62.7%. The PassMark single-thread gap is notably smaller than the Cinebench single-core gaps, suggesting the two processors are closer in lightly threaded integer workloads than in floating-point-heavy single-core rendering tasks.

Data compression shows the Core Ultra 9 285 at 602,121 versus 219,535, a -63.5% difference. Across every recorded test, the Core Ultra 9 285 holds the lead, with no benchmark category where the Core 5 120 comes out ahead.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core 5 120 records zero wins in the database.

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

A: The smallest gap is in PassMark single thread, where the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4,881 versus 3,595 for the Core 5 120, a -26.3% difference. All other tests show gaps of at least -62.7%.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945 versus 18,255 for the Core 5 120, a -62.7% difference. Similar margins appear in Cinebench R20 multi-core (20,556 versus 7,667) and Cinebench R15 multi-core (4,933 versus 1,840).

Q: What does the average benchmark score indicate?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75,488, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 120 has an average score of 25,362, placing it in the 77th percentile.

Q: How does each processor compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 sits within 0.3% of the AMD EPYC 8224P (75,582), AMD EPYC 4545P (75,373), AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D (75,716), and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 (75,738). The Core 5 120 sits within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (25,365), Intel Core i7-11700KF (25,423), Intel Core i5-13400F (25,292), and AMD Ryzen 7 7840U (25,432).

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 boosts to 5.60 GHz, while the Core 5 120 boosts to 4.50 GHz. Both have a base clock of 2.50 GHz.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 dominates across every benchmark category, with margins ranging from -26.3% in single-threaded PassMark to -83.2% in prime number finding. Its average benchmark score of 75,488 versus 25,362 for the Core 5 120 reflects a roughly threefold overall advantage, and the 95th percentile ranking versus 77th percentile confirms its position in the broader CPU landscape.

For multi-core workloads, rendering, encryption, and math-heavy tasks, the Core Ultra 9 285 is the only choice based on this data. The -62.7% to -76.7% gaps in Cinebench multi-core, floating point math, and data encryption indicate a processor designed for sustained heavy throughput. The Core Ultra 9 285 also leads in single-thread performance, though the -26.3% margin in PassMark single thread suggests the Core 5 120 is comparatively more competitive in lightly threaded integer tasks.

The Core 5 120, with its lower average score and 77th percentile placement, records no wins in any head-to-head test. Its nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D and Intel Core i5-13400F, show average scores within 0.3%, indicating it performs in line with mid-range desktop processors. The data does not support selecting the Core 5 120 over the Core Ultra 9 285 for any measured workload.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The Core 5 120 uses 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses 24 cores and 24 threads. Boost clocks differ: 4.50 GHz for the Core 5 120 versus 5.60 GHz for the Core Ultra 9 285, though both share a 2.50 GHz base clock. TDP is identical at 65 watts for both.

Socket compatibility diverges completely. The Core 5 120 uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851. Memory support also differs: the Core 5 120 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 285 supports only DDR5. The Core Ultra 9 285 adds ECC memory support, which the Core 5 120 lacks, and records a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s where the Core 5 120 lists no bandwidth figure.

PCIe lanes differ as well. The Core 5 120 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 9 285 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are different: UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 5 120 versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU on the Core Ultra 9 285. Release dates show the Core Ultra 9 285 arriving earlier, with the Core 5 120 launching later.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures are generations apart. The Core 5 120 uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-R, on a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, on a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. The Core Ultra 9 285 lists 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm², while the Core 5 120 lists no transistor count and a die size of 163 mm².

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Core 5 120 provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 285 provides 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 285 therefore has more than double the L3 cache and significantly larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations.

The Core Ultra 9 285 belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation, while the Core 5 120 belongs to the Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The production status for both is listed as Active. The part numbers differ: SA35V for the Core 5 120 and SRQD4 for the Core Ultra 9 285. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 120 is $211, and for the Core Ultra 9 285 it is $579.