Intel Core 5 120 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison
Intel Core 5 120
Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 5 120 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus
The Verdict
The benchmark data divides these two Intel processors clearly by workload type. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins 16 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 5 120 claims only a single victory. The Ultra 9's average benchmark score of 79574 places it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Core 5 120 scores 25362 on average, landing in the 77th percentile. The Ultra 9 is the clear choice for multithreaded and compute-heavy tasks, as its scores range from roughly 2.2 to 6.7 times those of the Core 5 120 across most tests. The Core 5 120 does hold one notable advantage: it wins the Cinebench R23 single-core test with a score of 2577 versus 2356 for the Ultra 9, a 9.4% margin. This makes the Core 5 120 preferable for lightly threaded workloads that depend on single-core performance, though its overall benchmark profile lags far behind. The Core 5 120 also carries a launch MSRP of $211, but the database records no launch MSRP for the Ultra 9 290HX Plus.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different Intel design generations and manufacturing processes. The Core 5 120 uses the Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm node, with the Raptor Lake-R codename and the Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation label. It is built by Intel and has a die size of 163 mm². The Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename under the Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-HX) generation, fabricated on a 3 nm process by TSMC. Its die size is 243 mm², and it contains 17,800 million transistors. The Core 5 120 targets the desktop segment with an Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus is a mobile part using Intel BGA 2114.
Core and thread counts differ substantially. The Core 5 120 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Ultra 9 does not use simultaneous multithreading, so its thread count equals its core count. Cache hierarchies also differ: the Core 5 120 provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. Both support dual-channel memory, but the Ultra 9 supports only DDR5 while the Core 5 120 supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The Ultra 9 also has a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and supports ECC memory, which the Core 5 120 does not. PCIe lanes differ as well: the Core 5 120 offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 9 offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ: the Core 5 120 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 9 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus boosts to 5.50 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 120 boosts to 4.50 GHz.
Q: Does the Intel Core 5 120 support ECC memory?
A: No, the Core 5 120 does not support ECC memory. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus does support ECC memory.
Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?
A: The Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, double the 18 MB shared L3 on the Core 5 120.
Q: What is the market segment for each processor?
A: The Core 5 120 is a desktop processor, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus is a mobile processor.
Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?
A: The Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an average benchmark score of 79574, compared to 25362 for the Core 5 120.
Q: Which processor wins the Cinebench R23 single-core test?
A: The Core 5 120 wins with a score of 2577, a 9.4% advantage over the Ultra 9's 2356.
Specification Differences
The recorded specifications show several key differences between the two processors. The Core 5 120 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 2.50 GHz for the Core 5 120 and 2.70 GHz for the Ultra 9. Boost clocks are 4.50 GHz and 5.50 GHz, respectively. TDP values are 65 watts for the Core 5 120 and 55 watts for the Ultra 9. The process node is 10 nm for the Core 5 120 and 3 nm for the Ultra 9, with the foundry being Intel for the former and TSMC for the latter. Die size is 163 mm² for the Core 5 120 and 243 mm² for the Ultra 9. The Ultra 9 has 17,800 million transistors; the Core 5 120 has no recorded transistor count.
Cache configurations differ in every level. L1 cache is 80 KB per core on the Core 5 120 versus 192 KB per core on the Ultra 9. L2 cache is 1.25 MB per core versus 3 MB per core. L3 cache is 18 MB shared versus 36 MB shared. Memory support shows the Core 5 120 accepting DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 9 accepts only DDR5. The Ultra 9 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while no bandwidth figure is recorded for the Core 5 120. ECC support is present only on the Ultra 9. PCIe lanes are 16 on the Core 5 120 and 20 on the Ultra 9, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 5 120 and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU on the Ultra 9. The market segment is desktop for the Core 5 120 and mobile for the Ultra 9. The multiplier is locked on the Core 5 120 and unlocked on the Ultra 9. Release dates differ: July 30, 2025 for the Core 5 120 and March 16, 2026 for the Ultra 9.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The head-to-head data shows a dominant performance gap in favor of the Ultra 9 290HX Plus across nearly every test. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 9 scores 5981 against 1840 for the Core 5 120, a delta of 69.2% in favor of the Ultra 9. The R15 single-core test shows a smaller gap: 340 versus 259, a 23.8% advantage for the Ultra 9. Cinebench R20 follows a similar pattern: multicore scores are 21198 versus 7667 (63.8% delta), and single-core scores are 2992 versus 1082 (also 63.8% delta). Cinebench R23 multicore shows 39684 versus 18255, a 54% delta. The single exception appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core 5 120 scores 2577 versus 2356 for the Ultra 9, giving the Core 5 120 a 9.4% win.
Passmark tests reinforce the Ultra 9's wide lead. Data compression scores are 658724 for the Ultra 9 versus 219535 for the Core 5 120, a 66.7% delta. Data encryption shows 50008 versus 11131, a 77.7% delta. Extended instructions score 51290 versus 14264, a 72.2% delta. Find prime numbers shows 519 versus 77, the largest proportional gap at 85.2%. Floating point math scores 201773 versus 45383, a 77.5% delta. Integer math scores 164839 versus 60462, a 63.3% delta. Multithread scores are 59439 versus 18597, a 68.7% delta. Physics scores 3387 versus 1333, a 60.6% delta. Random string sorting shows 80327 versus 21499, a 73.2% delta. Single-thread Passmark scores are 4951 versus 3595, a 27.4% delta. The database records 16 wins for the Ultra 9 and 1 win for the Core 5 120.
Where Each One Wins
The Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins decisively in every multithreaded and most single-threaded workloads recorded. Its 24 cores and 24 threads, combined with a 5.50 GHz boost clock, deliver between 2.2 and 6.7 times the performance of the Core 5 120 in the tested scenarios. The largest leads appear in prime number finding, data encryption, floating point math, and extended instructions, where the Ultra 9's advantages range from 72% to 85%. The Ultra 9 also leads in data compression, random string sorting, and multithread tests, all with deltas above 66%. For any workload that scales across cores, including rendering, encryption, compression, or physics simulation, the data points to the Ultra 9 as the stronger part. Its higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and larger 36 MB L3 cache likely contribute to these results, though the recorded tests do not isolate those factors directly.
The Core 5 120 wins only the Cinebench R23 single-core test, with a 9.4% margin over the Ultra 9. This result indicates that for a narrow set of lightly threaded tasks, the Core 5 120 can outperform the Ultra 9 despite having fewer cores and a lower boost clock. The Core 5 120 also carries a lower TDP of 65 watts versus 55 watts for the Ultra 9, though the Ultra 9 still delivers far higher performance per watt in the measured tests. In terms of ecosystem fit, the Core 5 120 uses the desktop Socket 1700, which allows it to pair with DDR4 or DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 9 is a mobile BGA 2114 part limited to DDR5. The Core 5 120's single-core win in R23, plus its support for two memory types, gives it a specific niche in cost-conscious desktop builds that prioritize single-threaded responsiveness over multithreaded throughput. The Ultra 9, by contrast, dominates the majority of benchmark categories and sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the Core 5 120's 77th percentile.