Intel Core 5 120 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

The Intel Core 5 120 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H represent two distinct interpretations of Intel’s current desktop and mobile lineup. The Core 5 120 is a 6-core Raptor Lake desktop part, while the Core Ultra 9 386H is a 16-core Panther Lake mobile processor. The benchmark data shows a wide performance gulf, with the Ultra 9 386H taking 16 of 17 head-to-head tests, but the Core 5 120 holding one significant single-core victory. This analysis breaks down the architectural foundations and measured performance of both processors.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H dominates nearly every workload category in the recorded data. Its wins span Cinebench multi-core tests, PassMark integer and floating point math, data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, physics, random string sorting, and single-threaded PassMark tests. The largest margins come in compute-heavy tasks: PassMark floating point math shows a 58.2% advantage, data encryption shows a 59% advantage, and physics shows a 56% advantage. This pattern indicates a processor built for sustained throughput across parallel workloads, which aligns with its 16 cores and 16 threads.

The Intel Core 5 120 wins exactly one test: Cinebench R23 single-core, with a score of 2577 against 2071.5, a 24.4% margin. This is a notable result because it shows the desktop chip’s higher per-core frequency capability in a specific rendering workload. The Core 5 120’s boost clock of 4.50 GHz is lower than the Ultra 9 386H’s 4.90 GHz, yet the R23 single-core result favors the desktop part, suggesting architectural differences in how the two chips handle that particular instruction set.

For multi-threaded rendering, the Ultra 9 386H is clearly ahead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 20547 versus 18255, an 11.2% lead. The gap widens dramatically in older Cinebench versions: R20 multi-core shows a 40.2% lead (12820 vs 7667), and R15 multi-core shows a 42.9% lead (3223 vs 1840). The PassMark multithread score reinforces this, with the mobile chip at 35399 versus 18597, a 47.5% advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and manufacturing nodes. The Intel Core 5 120 uses Raptor Lake architecture on Intel’s 10 nm process, with a die size of 163 mm². It has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 386H uses Panther Lake architecture on Intel’s 3 nm process, with 16 cores and 16 threads, a base clock of 2.10 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Ultra 9 386H has no die size data recorded.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The Core 5 120 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 386H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and the same 18 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches on the Ultra 9 386H contribute to its strong single-threaded PassMark performance.

Memory support also splits the two. The Core 5 120 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The Core 5 120 has no memory bandwidth figure recorded. PCIe lane counts differ: the desktop chip provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the mobile chip provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 120 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 9 386H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The market segments are distinct: the Core 5 120 is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700 with a 65 W TDP, while the Ultra 9 386H is a mobile part on Intel BGA 2540 with a 25 W TDP. The power envelope difference is substantial, yet the mobile chip still outperforms the desktop chip in nearly all measured tests. The Core 5 120 has a launch MSRP of $211. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 341 against 77, a 77.4% advantage. This test is highly sensitive to integer throughput and cache behavior, and the result shows the Ultra 9 386H’s core count and cache layout delivering a massive lead. PassMark data encryption shows a 59% margin (27150 vs 11131), and floating point math shows a 58.2% margin (108527 vs 45383). Extended instructions show a 51% lead (29138 vs 14264), and random string sorting shows a 49% lead (42135 vs 21499).

The Cinebench suite shows a more nuanced picture. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ultra 9 386H wins with 303.5 against 259, a 14.7% margin. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it wins 1809 against 1082, a 40.2% margin. But in Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core 5 120 wins 2577 against 2071.5, a 24.4% margin. This reversal suggests that the newer Cinebench version stresses the desktop chip’s architecture differently, allowing the Core 5 120 to claim its only victory. The multi-core Cinebench results are consistently in favor of the Ultra 9 386H, with margins ranging from 11.2% in R23 to 42.9% in R15.

PassMark single-thread results favor the Ultra 9 386H, with a score of 4218 against 3595, a 14.8% margin. Data compression shows a 37.7% lead for the mobile chip (352365 vs 219535), and integer math shows a 30.7% lead (87284 vs 60462). The PassMark multithread score of 35399 versus 18597 confirms the overall throughput advantage. Across all 17 head-to-head tests, the Ultra 9 386H wins 16, with the Core 5 120 winning only the R23 single-core test.

The average benchmark scores place the two processors in different performance tiers. The Core 5 120 has an average benchmark score of 25362, while the Ultra 9 386H has an average of 43210. The Core 5 120 sits at the 77th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 9 386H sits at the 88th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 5 120 include the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D with an average score of 25365 and a delta of 0%, the Intel Core i7-11700KF at 25423 with a delta of -0.2%, the Intel Core i5-13400F at 25292 with a delta of 0.3%, and the AMD Ryzen 7 7840U at 25432 with a delta of -0.3%. These closely clustered scores indicate the Core 5 120 sits in a highly competitive mid-range desktop segment.

The Ultra 9 386H’s nearest rivals are all higher-scoring parts. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 scores 43326 with a delta of -0.3%, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 scores 43431 with a delta of -0.5%, the Intel Core i9-12900 scores 42906 with a delta of 0.7%, and the Intel Core i9-12900KF scores 42830 with a delta of 0.9%. The Ultra 9 386H trails these rivals by small margins, between 0.3% and 0.9%, placing it just below the top of its performance class.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H for almost any workload. Its 16-core, 16-thread configuration on the 3 nm Panther Lake architecture delivers consistently higher scores across Cinebench multi-core, PassMark math, compression, encryption, and multithreaded tests. The 25 W TDP is notably lower than the Core 5 120’s 65 W, yet the mobile chip still manages a 70.4% higher average benchmark score (43210 vs 25362). For users who prioritize multi-core throughput, data processing, or sustained compute, the Ultra 9 386H is the stronger part in every measured category except one.

The Intel Core 5 120 has a single clear strength: Cinebench R23 single-core performance. Its 2577 score beats the Ultra 9 386H by 24.4%, which could matter for specific single-threaded rendering tasks. However, the Ultra 9 386H wins the other single-core tests, including Cinebench R15 and R20 single-core, as well as PassMark single-thread. The Core 5 120 also offers a desktop socket (Intel Socket 1700), DDR4 and DDR5 support, and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, making it a more flexible platform for desktop builds. Its launch MSRP is $211.

The Core 5 120’s nearest rivals are all within 0.3% of its average score, meaning it competes directly with the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D, Intel Core i7-11700KF, Intel Core i5-13400F, and AMD Ryzen 7 7840U. The Ultra 9 386H, by contrast, sits within 0.9% of the Intel Core i9-12900 and i9-12900KF, and trails the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 and Ryzen AI 9 465 by 0.3% and 0.5% respectively. The data shows two different market positions: the Core 5 120 is a mid-range desktop processor, while the Ultra 9 386H is a high-end mobile processor that outperforms it by wide margins in most tests. The only scenario where the Core 5 120 leads is the specific R23 single-core benchmark, and even that lead does not extend to other single-threaded tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 5 120 has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Which processor won the Cinebench R23 single-core test?

A: The Intel Core 5 120 won with a score of 2577, compared to the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H’s 2071.5, a 24.4% margin.

Q: How large is the performance gap in PassMark multithread?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H scores 35399, while the Intel Core 5 120 scores 18597, giving the mobile chip a 47.5% advantage.

Q: What are the process nodes for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 5 120 uses Intel’s 10 nm process with Raptor Lake architecture. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses Intel’s 3 nm process with Panther Lake architecture.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: The Intel Core 5 120 supports DDR4 and DDR5. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X only.

Q: How do the two processors compare in average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has an average benchmark score of 43210, while the Intel Core 5 120 has an average of 25362. The Ultra 9 386H also sits at the 88th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the Core 5 120’s 77th percentile.