Intel Core 5 120 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Intel Core 5 120 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between these two Intel processors. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with margins ranging from a modest 10.2% in single-threaded tests to a dominant 76% in prime number computation. The Core 5 120, a desktop part with a 65-watt design, trails the mobile Ultra X7 368H across every measured workload, from Cinebench rendering to Passmark encryption and math routines. The Ultra X7 368H also holds a higher overall percentile rank at 87 versus the Core 5 120's 77, and its average benchmark score of 40518 far exceeds the Core 5 120's 25362.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant victories for the Ultra X7 368H occur in compute-heavy Passmark sub-tests. In the `find_prime_numbers` test, the Ultra X7 368H scores 321 against the Core 5 120's 77, a 76% lead. Floating point math shows a 57.1% gap, with the Ultra X7 368H scoring 105681 versus 45383. Data encryption shows a 55.9% difference (25228 vs 11131), and physics simulation shows a 53.3% lead (2857 vs 1333). These results indicate that the Ultra X7 368H has a substantial advantage in workloads that rely on raw arithmetic throughput and parallel execution.

Cinebench results follow a consistent pattern. Across R15, R20, and R23, the Ultra X7 368H leads by approximately 35.3% in both single-core and multi-core tests. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra X7 368H scores 28221 against the Core 5 120's 18255. In single-core R23, the scores are 3984 versus 2577. The consistency of the 35.3% delta across these rendering workloads suggests a structural advantage in the Ultra X7 368H's architecture rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

Other Passmark tests show narrower but still decisive margins. Data compression shows a 29.8% lead for the Ultra X7 368H (312927 vs 219535). Integer math shows a 31.4% lead (88083 vs 60462). Extended instructions show a 44.4% lead (25669 vs 14264). Random string sorting and multithread tests both show a 43.6% lead, with scores of 38093 and 32956 respectively for the Ultra X7 368H.

The smallest margin appears in single-thread performance. The Ultra X7 368H scores 4005 in Passmark single-thread, against the Core 5 120's 3595, a 10.2% lead. This indicates that while the Ultra X7 368H has a clear per-core advantage, its greatest strength lies in multi-threaded and vectorized workloads. The Core 5 120's best relative showing is in single-threaded tasks, but it still loses every comparison in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has an average benchmark score of 40518, while the Intel Core 5 120 has an average score of 25362.

Q: How many head-to-head benchmarks does the Core 5 120 win?

A: The Core 5 120 wins zero head-to-head benchmarks. The Ultra X7 368H wins all 17 recorded comparisons.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in the Passmark `find_prime_numbers` test, where the Ultra X7 368H leads by 76% with a score of 321 versus 77.

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

A: The smallest gap is in Passmark single-thread performance, where the Ultra X7 368H leads by 10.2% with a score of 4005 versus 3595.

Q: How do the Cinebench multi-core scores compare?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra X7 368H scores 28221, which is 35.3% higher than the Core 5 120's 18255. Similar 35.3% deltas appear in R15 and R20 multi-core tests.

Q: Which processor has a higher percentile rank among all CPUs?

A: The Ultra X7 368H ranks in the 87th percentile, while the Core 5 120 ranks in the 77th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families and target different market segments. The Core 5 120 uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, and is built on a 10 nm process node. It is a desktop processor with 6 cores and 12 threads, a base clock of 2.50 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. Its thermal design power is 65 watts, and it uses the Intel Socket 1700.

The Ultra X7 368H uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically the Panther Lake-H variant, and is built on a 3 nm process node. It is a mobile processor with 16 cores and 16 threads, a base clock of 2.00 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Its thermal design power is 25 watts, and it uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket. The Ultra X7 368H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 family.

Cache configurations differ notably. The Core 5 120 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra X7 368H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and also 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches on the Ultra X7 368H contribute to its single-thread advantage.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 5 120 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Ultra X7 368H supports LPDDR5X memory in a dual-channel configuration and has a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The Core 5 120's memory bandwidth is not recorded in the database.

PCIe connectivity differs. The Core 5 120 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra X7 368H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 5 120 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra X7 368H uses Arc B390.

Both processors are currently marked as Active in production status. The Core 5 120 was released on 2025-07-30, and the Ultra X7 368H was released on 2026-01-04. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear choice for users prioritizing raw performance. The Ultra X7 368H wins every recorded benchmark, and its 87th percentile rank places it well above the Core 5 120's 77th percentile. Its 16 cores and 16 threads, combined with a 5.00 GHz boost clock and a 3 nm process node, deliver substantially higher scores in rendering, encryption, math, and compression workloads. The 35.3% lead in Cinebench multi-core tests and the 76% lead in prime number finding show that the Ultra X7 368H handles both sustained multi-threaded loads and specialized arithmetic tasks with far greater efficiency.

The Core 5 120 remains a functional desktop processor with 6 cores and 12 threads, a 4.50 GHz boost clock, and support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. Its 65-watt TDP and Intel Socket 1700 make it suitable for standard desktop builds. However, its closest rivals in the database are the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D and the Intel Core i5-13400F, both with average scores near 25362, indicating that it competes in the mid-range desktop space rather than against the Ultra X7 368H.

For users who need maximum throughput in a mobile form factor, the Ultra X7 368H is the appropriate selection based on the measured data. Its 25-watt TDP and BGA 2540 socket indicate a laptop-oriented design, yet it outperforms the desktop Core 5 120 in every recorded metric, including single-thread performance where the gap is smallest. The Ultra X7 368H also shows a 0.2% lead over the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H and a 0.2% lead over the Intel Xeon 6507P in average score, placing it among high-performance mobile parts. The Core 5 120, by contrast, sits within 0.3% of the Intel Core i5-13400F and within 0.2% of the Intel Core i7-11700KF, confirming its position in the desktop mid-range.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Core 5 120 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.50 GHz for the Core 5 120 and 2.00 GHz for the Ultra X7 368H. Boost clocks are 4.50 GHz and 5.00 GHz, respectively.

Thermal design power differs significantly: the Core 5 120 is rated at 65 watts, and the Ultra X7 368H at 25 watts. The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 5 120 and Intel BGA 2540 for the Ultra X7 368H. The Core 5 120 uses a 10 nm process node, while the Ultra X7 368H uses a 3 nm process node. The die size is 163 mm² for the Core 5 120; no die size is recorded for the Ultra X7 368H.

Cache per core differs: the Core 5 120 has 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core, while the Ultra X7 368H has 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2 per core. Both share 18 MB of L3 cache. Memory support differs: the Core 5 120 accepts DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra X7 368H accepts LPDDR5X. The Ultra X7 368H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s; the Core 5 120 has none recorded.

PCIe lane counts differ: the Core 5 120 has 16 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra X7 368H has 4 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 for the Core 5 120 and Arc B390 for the Ultra X7 368H. Release dates differ: 2025-07-30 for the Core 5 120 and 2026-01-04 for the Ultra X7 368H. The Core 5 120 has a launch MSRP of $211; the Ultra X7 368H has no recorded launch MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.