Intel Core 5 120HL vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap between these two processors, with the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 winning every recorded workload by a substantial margin. The Core Ultra 9 285 posts an average benchmark score of 75,488, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 5 120HL has no recorded benchmark scores, and its percentile ranking sits at 50, indicating a mid-pack position based on its specifications rather than measured results.

In multi-core rendering workloads, the Core Ultra 9 285 delivers overwhelming advantages. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 48,945 points. The Core 5 120HL has no comparable recorded score, but the architectural disparity is evident from the core and thread counts. The Ultra 9 doubles the core count and adds eight additional threads, which translates directly into rendering throughput. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Ultra 9 achieves 20,556 points, and in the older Cinebench R15 multi-core test, it reaches 4,933 points.

Single-core performance also favors the Core Ultra 9 285, though the gap is less extreme. The Ultra 9 scores 6,909 in Cinebench R23 single-core, 2,901 in Cinebench R20 single-core, and 696 in Cinebench R15 single-core. Its boost clock of 5.60 GHz provides the frequency headroom needed for these results. The Core 5 120HL boosts to 4.70 GHz, which is lower by nearly a full gigahertz, and this clock disadvantage shows up in every single-threaded measurement.

PassMark workloads reinforce the pattern. The Core Ultra 9 285 delivers 602,121 in data compression, 46,949 in data encryption, and 45,357 in extended instructions. Integer math reaches 164,869, floating point math hits 194,988, and multithread performance scores 56,602. The single-thread PassMark result is 4,881. Physics processing scores 3,598, and random string sorting reaches 73,651. Prime number finding, a workload that stresses integer throughput, scores 459.

The nearest rivals in the database for the Core Ultra 9 285 are all AMD EPYC or Ryzen processors. The AMD EPYC 8224P scores 75,582, which is 0.1 percent ahead of the Ultra 9. The AMD EPYC 4545P scores 75,373, putting the Ultra 9 0.2 percent ahead. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D scores 75,716, 0.3 percent ahead, and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 scores 75,738, also 0.3 percent ahead. These deltas are negligible, indicating that the Core Ultra 9 285 sits in a tightly competitive performance tier.

Because the Core 5 120HL has zero recorded benchmark entries, head-to-head percentage comparisons cannot be calculated from the database. The wins column shows zero for both processors, but this reflects missing data for the Core 5 rather than parity. The available evidence, including core counts, clock speeds, and cache sizes, points to a lopsided matchup where the Core Ultra 9 285 dominates across the board.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different Intel design families. The Core 5 120HL uses Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename. This generational split is significant: the Core 5 belongs to the Core 5 (Raptor Lake-PS) generation, and the Core Ultra 9 belongs to the Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake) generation.

Process technology separates them sharply. The Core 5 120HL is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses a 3 nm process fabricated by TSMC. The Ultra 9 packs 17,800 million transistors into a 243 mm² die. The Core 5 has no transistor or die size data recorded. The smaller process node gives the Ultra 9 a density and efficiency advantage that shows in its higher core count and clock speeds.

Core and thread configurations differ dramatically. The Core 5 120HL has 12 cores and 16 threads, implying a hybrid layout with performance and efficiency cores. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, indicating no hyper-threading on any core. The Ultra 9 doubles the physical core count while keeping threads equal to cores, which is typical of Arrow Lake designs that prioritize raw core throughput over thread oversubscription.

Cache hierarchies reflect the architectural shift. The Core 5 120HL provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 285 provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 has more than double the L3 capacity and significantly larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations. For workloads that fit in cache, this difference translates directly into reduced memory latency and higher sustained throughput.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 5 120HL supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Core Ultra 9 285 supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but with a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Core 5 has no bandwidth figure recorded. The Ultra 9 also supports ECC memory, while the Core 5 does not. For error-sensitive workloads, this is a meaningful functional difference.

PCIe connectivity moves up a generation. The Core 5 120HL offers PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra 9 285 offers PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. This gives the Ultra 9 both more lanes and double the per-lane bandwidth, which matters for high-throughput expansion cards and storage devices.

Integrated graphics differ in execution unit counts. The Core 5 120HL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. Despite fewer execution units on the Ultra 9, the Arc architecture is newer and may deliver different performance characteristics, though no graphics benchmarks are recorded in the database.

Socket compatibility is not shared. The Core 5 120HL fits Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 9 285 requires Intel Socket 1851. This means system upgrades between these two parts would require a motherboard change. The Core 5 has a launch MSRP of $279, while the Core Ultra 9 has a launch MSRP of $579. Both processors are locked, with no unlocked multiplier, and both are currently marked as Active in production status. The Core 5 was released on 2024-04-07, and the Core Ultra 9 was released on 2024-12-31.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores, while the Intel Core 5 120HL has 12 cores. The Ultra 9 also has 24 threads compared to 16 threads on the Core 5.

Q: What is the maximum boost clock for each processor?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 boosts to 5.60 GHz, while the Core 5 120HL boosts to 4.70 GHz. The Ultra 9 has a 0.90 GHz higher boost ceiling.

Q: Do both processors support DDR5 memory?

A: Yes, both support DDR5. The Core 5 120HL also supports DDR4, while the Core Ultra 9 285 supports only DDR5. The Ultra 9 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory, which the Core 5 does not.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 9 285 compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Ultra 9 scores 75,488 on average. The AMD EPYC 8224P is 0.1 percent ahead, the AMD EPYC 4545P is 0.2 percent behind, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D is 0.3 percent ahead, and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 is 0.3 percent ahead. These are all sub-percent differences.

Q: What process nodes do the two processors use?

A: The Core 5 120HL uses a 10 nm process at Intel. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses a 3 nm process at TSMC. The Ultra 9 has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die.

Q: Are either of these processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Both the Core 5 120HL and the Core Ultra 9 285 are locked parts.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear hierarchy. The Core Ultra 9 285 is the substantially more capable processor, and its 95th percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database confirms its position near the top of the performance spectrum. The Core 5 120HL, with no recorded benchmark scores and a 50th percentile ranking, occupies a mid-range position that cannot compete with the Ultra 9 on any measured workload.

Users who need maximum multi-core throughput should select the Core Ultra 9 285. Its 24 cores, 36 MB of L3 cache, and 5.60 GHz boost clock drive Cinebench R23 multi-core scores to 48,945 points. The Core 5 120HL offers 12 cores, 18 MB of L3 cache, and a 4.70 GHz boost clock, which places it in a different performance class entirely.

Users who require ECC memory support must choose the Core Ultra 9 285, as the Core 5 120HL does not support ECC. The Ultra 9 also provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, versus PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes on the Core 5, making it the better choice for high-bandwidth expansion.

The Core 5 120HL has advantages in platform flexibility. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, which can ease upgrades for users with existing DDR4 modules. It also uses Socket 1700, which is a more established platform. Its launch MSRP of $279 is lower than the Ultra 9's $579, though pricing considerations are secondary to the measured performance gap.

For desktop workloads involving rendering, data compression, encryption, or any compute-intensive task, the Core Ultra 9 285 is the only rational choice from the data. The Core 5 120HL suits lighter workloads where its lower core count and smaller cache are sufficient, but the benchmark evidence does not support any scenario where the Core 5 outperforms the Ultra 9.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 120HL | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Cores | 12 | 24 |

| Threads | 16 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 2.60 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.70 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-PS | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 18 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 80EU | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Desktop |

| Production Status | Active | Active |

| Release Date | 2024-04-07 | 2024-12-31 |

| Launch MSRP | $279 | $579 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Part Number | SRPFR | SRQD4 |

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 285 wins in every benchmark category where data exists. Multi-core rendering is its strongest domain: Cinebench R23 multi-core at 48,945, Cinebench R20 multi-core at 20,556, and Cinebench R15 multi-core at 4,933. The 24-core configuration with 36 MB of shared L3 cache provides the resources needed for sustained parallel workloads.

Single-core performance also favors the Ultra 9, with Cinebench R23 single-core at 6,909 and PassMark single-thread at 4,881. The 5.60 GHz boost clock is the primary driver here. Data-heavy workloads such as compression (602,121 in PassMark data compression) and encryption (46,949) benefit from the larger cache and newer architecture.

The Core 5 120HL does not win any recorded benchmark. Its strengths are qualitative rather than measured. The dual memory support for DDR4 and DDR5 gives it flexibility in legacy systems. Its 45 W TDP is lower than the Ultra 9's 65 W, indicating a more power-efficient design for systems where thermal envelope matters. The 80EU Iris Xe Graphics has more execution units than the Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU on the Ultra 9, though no graphics benchmarks confirm a real-world advantage.

For users building around Socket 1700 with DDR4 memory, the Core 5 120HL is the compatible option. For users starting fresh with Socket 1851 and DDR5, the Core Ultra 9 285 is the clear performance pick. The database shows no overlap in performance capability: the Ultra 9 dominates every workload, and the Core 5 serves as a lower-power, lower-core-count alternative for systems that do not require the Ultra 9's throughput.