Intel Core 5 120 vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Core 5 120 and the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H is decisively one-sided. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H takes the win. The Core 5 120 does not register a single victory in any measured workload.

The largest margin appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test. The Core Ultra X9 378H scores 357, while the Core 5 120 manages only 77. That result places the Ultra part 78.4% ahead of the desktop chip. The gap indicates a substantial advantage in integer-heavy, latency-sensitive processing. The Core 5 120 trails by 62.7% in data encryption, scoring 11131 against 29840. Encryption workloads often scale with core count and per-core throughput, and both metrics favor the Ultra X9 378H.

In floating-point math, the Ultra X9 378H records 114500 versus 45383, a 60.4% advantage. Physics simulation shows a similar pattern, with the Ultra part at 3404 and the Core 5 120 at 1333, a 60.8% gap. Extended instruction workloads, which exercise SIMD and specialized execution paths, put the Ultra X9 378H 54.4% ahead with 31315 points against 14264.

The Cinebench suite mirrors these results. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra X9 378H scores 32553, while the Core 5 120 reaches 18255. That is a 43.9% lead for the mobile processor. Single-core Cinebench R23 shows 4595 for the Ultra part versus 2577 for the Core 5 120, again a 43.9% delta. The pattern holds across R15 and R20, with the same 43.9% margin in both multi-core and single-core variants for each version.

The smaller but still meaningful gaps appear in integer math and single-thread performance. PassMark integer math puts the Ultra X9 378H at 92603 compared to 60462, a 34.7% advantage. PassMark single-thread scores are 4453 versus 3595, a 19.3% gap. Random string sorting shows the Ultra part ahead by 51.8%, with 44648 against 21499. Multithread performance in PassMark is 38298 versus 18597, a 51.4% difference.

Data compression workloads favor the Ultra X9 378H by 43.2%, scoring 386591 against 219535. The average benchmark score tells a similar story: the Core Ultra X9 378H sits at 47468, while the Core 5 120 averages 25362. The Ultra part lands in the 89th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 120 sits at the 77th percentile.

The nearest rival data reinforces the positioning of each chip. The Core 5 120's average score of 25362 places it within 0.3% of the Intel Core i5-13400F, 0.2% below the Intel Core i7-11700KF, and 0.3% below the AMD Ryzen 7 7840U, with the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D matching it at a 0% delta. The Core Ultra X9 378H, by contrast, competes in a higher performance class. Its 47468 average is 0.3% above the Intel Core i7-13700KF, 0.6% above the Intel Core i9-12900F, and within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945, while trailing the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T by 0.5%.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H is the faster processor in every measured category. There is no benchmark in this comparison where the Intel Core 5 120 comes out ahead. The smallest margin is 19.3% in single-thread performance, and the largest is 78.4% in prime number calculation. For any workload that relies on raw compute throughput, the Core Ultra X9 378H delivers the higher score.

The Core 5 120 remains a functional desktop processor within its own performance class. Its average benchmark score of 25362 places it alongside the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D and Intel Core i5-13400F, with deltas of 0% and 0.3% respectively. Those results suggest that the Core 5 120 is a reasonable performer for its segment, but it does not approach the output of the Core Ultra X9 378H.

The Core Ultra X9 378H sits in the 89th percentile of all CPUs in the database, a full 12 percentile points above the Core 5 120. Its average score of 47468 is roughly 87% higher than the Core 5 120's 25362 average. The nearest rivals for the Ultra part include the Intel Core i7-13700KF and the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945, both of which are high-end parts. That placement confirms the Core Ultra X9 378H as a top-tier mobile processor.

The choice between these two depends entirely on the target platform and workload priority. For a desktop system where the user expects a conventional socketed processor with DDR4 or DDR5 memory support, the Core 5 120 fits that role. For a mobile system requiring significantly higher compute performance, the Core Ultra X9 378H is the stronger option by every recorded metric.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H has an average benchmark score of 47468, while the Intel Core 5 120 averages 25362.

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 Core Ultra X9 378H scores 357 against the Core 5 120's 77, a 78.4% difference.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Core Ultra X9 378H scores 32553, while the Core 5 120 scores 18255, giving the Ultra part a 43.9% lead.

Q: What is the smallest margin between the two in any benchmark?

A: The smallest margin is 19.3% in PassMark single-thread performance, with the Core Ultra X9 378H scoring 4453 versus 3595.

Q: How does the Core 5 120 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core 5 120's average of 25362 matches the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D at 0% delta, sits 0.3% above the Intel Core i5-13400F, and 0.2% below the Intel Core i7-11700KF.

Q: How does the Core Ultra X9 378H compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core Ultra X9 378H's average of 47468 is 0.3% above the Intel Core i7-13700KF, 0.6% above the Intel Core i9-12900F, 0.1% below the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945, and 0.5% below the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. The Intel Core 5 120 uses 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H uses 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core 5 120 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The Core Ultra X9 378H has a lower base clock of 2.00 GHz but a higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

Thermal design power differs substantially. The Core 5 120 is rated at 65 watts, while the Core Ultra X9 378H is rated at 25 watts. The Core 5 120 uses the Intel Socket 1700, whereas the Core Ultra X9 378H uses the Intel BGA 2540, indicating a socketed desktop design versus a mobile soldered package.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 5 120 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Core Ultra X9 378H supports LPDDR5X memory, also dual-channel, and carries a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The Core 5 120 has no listed memory bandwidth figure.

PCIe lanes differ: the Core 5 120 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra X9 378H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics also differ, with the Core 5 120 using UHD Graphics 730 and the Core Ultra X9 378H using Arc B390.

The release dates are distinct. The Core 5 120 launched on 2025-07-30 and carries a launch MSRP of $211. The Core Ultra X9 378H launched on 2026-04-03 with no recorded launch MSRP. Both processors are listed as Active in production status and both have locked multipliers.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 120 is built on Intel's Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R update within the Core 5 series. It uses a 10 nm process node and has a die size of 163 mm². The Core Ultra X9 378H uses the Panther Lake codename, belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 generation, and is fabricated on a 3 nm process node. Its die size is not recorded.

Cache layouts differ in the lower levels. The Core 5 120 provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core. The Core Ultra X9 378H provides 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core. Both processors share 18 MB of L3 cache.

The market segments are different. The Core 5 120 is a desktop part, while the Core Ultra X9 378H is a mobile part. The Core 5 120's part number is SA35V, while the Core Ultra X9 378H's part number is listed as unknown. The Core 5 120's generation is described as Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh), and the Core Ultra X9 378H's generation is described as Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H).

The process node difference is notable: 10 nm for the Core 5 120 versus 3 nm for the Core Ultra X9 378H. Both processors are produced by Intel. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has a 3D V-Cache option listed. The architecture field for the Core Ultra X9 378H is null in the database, so no formal architecture name is recorded beyond the Panther Lake codename.