Intel Core 5 120HL vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus enters the comparison with a fully populated benchmark suite, while the Intel Core 5 120HL has no recorded scores in the database. This asymmetry defines the entire analysis: the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus delivers measurable results across Cinebench and Passmark tests, and the Core 5 120HL currently has no data points for direct comparison.

Focusing on the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus alone, the recorded data shows a processor that performs strongly in both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score reaches 39684, while the single-core score lands at 2356. These figures place the chip at the 95th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 79574. The nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-14900KF, posts an average score of 79371, which is 0.3% lower. The AMD EPYC 7413 records 80041, a 0.6% advantage over the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus. The Intel Core i9-14900K trails by 0.6% with 79097, and the Intel Xeon w5-2565X leads by 1.4% with 80671.

The Cinebench R20 results reinforce the same pattern. The multi-core score of 21198 and the single-core score of 2992 both indicate strong performance. In Cinebench R15, the multi-core score of 5981 and the single-core score of 340 follow the same trend. The single-core Cinebench scores climb consistently across R15, R20, and R23, moving from 340 to 2992 to 2356 respectively, which suggests the boost clock of 5.50 GHz contributes meaningfully to lightly threaded tasks.

Passmark results for the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus show varied strengths. The multithread score of 59439 and the single-thread score of 4951 confirm the chip handles both parallel and serial workloads. The floating point math score of 201773 is notably higher than the integer math score of 164839, indicating a particular strength in floating-point operations. Data compression scores 658724, while data encryption reaches 50008. Extended instructions score 51290, random string sorting records 80327, and find prime numbers posts 519. The physics score of 3387 rounds out the suite.

Because the Core 5 120HL has zero recorded benchmarks and no nearest rivals listed, the head-to-head comparison cannot produce win counts. The database shows winsA as 0 and winsB as 0, meaning neither processor has a measurable victory over the other in recorded tests. The practical consequence is that all quantitative analysis must center on the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus and its position relative to its named rivals.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus?

A: The average benchmark score is 79574, placing it at the 95th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus compare to the Intel Core i9-14900KF?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus records an average score of 79574, which is 0.3% higher than the Core i9-14900KF's 79371.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 120HL have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No, the database lists no benchmarks for the Intel Core 5 120HL, and its average benchmark score is 0.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts between the two processors?

A: The Core 5 120HL has 12 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus boosts to 5.50 GHz, compared to the Core 5 120HL's 4.70 GHz.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The Core 5 120HL uses Intel's 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses TSMC's 3 nm process.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The Intel Core 5 120HL is built on Raptor Lake, with the codename Raptor Lake-PS, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 family. The Core 5 120HL is part of the Core 5 generation, specifically Raptor Lake-PS, whereas the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus sits in the Ultra 9 generation under Arrow Lake-HX.

The process node difference is substantial. The Core 5 120HL uses Intel's 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses TSMC's 3 nm process. This node advantage likely contributes to the transistor count difference, as the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus packs 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 5 120HL has no transistor count or die size recorded in the database.

Cache hierarchies differ in both capacity and distribution. The Core 5 120HL has 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 290HX Plus has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core caches and double the L3 capacity give the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus a structural advantage in data-heavy workloads.

The integrated graphics also differ. The Core 5 120HL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. Despite the lower EU count, the Arc Xe-LPG architecture represents a different graphics family.

The socket and form factor mark another architectural split. The Core 5 120HL uses Intel Socket 1700 and is classified as a desktop processor. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Intel BGA 2114 and is classified as a mobile processor. This distinction affects system integration, as the desktop part can be swapped on a socketed board, while the mobile part is soldered.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ significantly. The Core 5 120HL provides 12 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus provides 24 cores and 24 threads. The thread count equality in the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus indicates no hyperthreading, whereas the Core 5 120HL's 16 threads from 12 cores implies hyperthreading is active.

Base and boost clocks differ in both starting point and ceiling. The Core 5 120HL has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus offers both a higher idle clock and a substantially higher maximum clock.

Thermal design power differs by 10 watts. The Core 5 120HL has a TDP of 45, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a TDP of 55. This reflects the higher core count and clock speeds of the latter.

Memory support diverges. The Core 5 120HL supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports only DDR5. Both use a dual-channel memory bus, but the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the Core 5 120HL has no bandwidth figure in the database. ECC memory support also differs: the Core 5 120HL does not support ECC, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus does.

PCIe connectivity favors the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus. The Core 5 120HL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The newer PCIe generation and higher lane count give the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus more headroom for expansion.

The multiplier unlock status differs. The Core 5 120HL has a locked multiplier, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an unlocked multiplier, allowing user overclocking.

The release dates differ by nearly two years. The Core 5 120HL launched on 2024-04-07, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus launched on 2026-03-16. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 120HL is $279, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has no launch MSRP recorded.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split between the two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a fully documented performance profile, sitting at the 95th percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 79574. Its nearest rivals, the Core i9-14900KF and Core i9-14900K, are within 0.6% of its score, which confirms the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus belongs in the top tier of desktop-class performance despite its mobile classification.

The Intel Core 5 120HL has no benchmarks, no nearest rivals, and an average score of zero. The database cannot confirm any performance characteristic for this processor. Its specifications suggest a mid-range desktop part with 12 cores, 16 threads, and a 4.70 GHz boost clock, but without recorded scores, any performance claim remains unverified.

For users selecting between these two parts, the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the only one with measurable performance data. It delivers a multi-core Cinebench R23 score of 39684 and a single-core score of 2356, both of which place it among the top 5% of all CPUs in the database. The Core 5 120HL cannot be assessed on the same terms.

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus also offers architectural advantages that are not merely speculative. Its 3 nm process, 36 MB of L3 cache, DDR5-only support with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, and ECC memory support all represent newer or wider capabilities compared to the Core 5 120HL's 10 nm process, 18 MB of L3, dual DDR4/DDR5 support, PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes, and no ECC.

The Core 5 120HL does retain one clear advantage: the desktop socket. Intel Socket 1700 allows for board-level upgrades and cooling flexibility, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses a soldered BGA 2114 package. For a fixed desktop build, the Core 5 120HL offers a conventional upgrade path. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, despite its mobile form factor, outperforms in every recorded metric.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins in every category where the database has measurements. Its Cinebench results across R15, R20, and R23 all show strong multi-core and single-core scores. The Passmark suite confirms this across multithread, single-thread, floating point math, integer math, data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, random string sorting, find prime numbers, and physics tests. The 95th percentile ranking and average score of 79574 place it ahead of the Core i9-14900KF and Core i9-14900K, and within 1.4% of the Xeon w5-2565X.

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus also wins on architectural specifications. It has double the cores (24 vs 12), a higher boost clock (5.50 GHz vs 4.70 GHz), larger caches at every level, a smaller process node (3 nm vs 10 nm), PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes vs Gen 4 with 8 lanes, ECC memory support, and a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. Its unlocked multiplier adds overclocking flexibility that the Core 5 120HL lacks.

The Intel Core 5 120HL wins in areas not covered by benchmarks. It supports DDR4 memory, which can lower system cost for users with existing DDR4 modules. Its desktop socket, Intel Socket 1700, allows for independent CPU upgrades on compatible motherboards, whereas the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus requires a BGA 2114 board with the processor soldered in place. The 45 TDP is 10 watts lower than the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, which may matter for compact desktop builds with modest cooling. Its launch MSRP of $279 provides a reference point, though no comparable price exists for the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus.

For workloads that depend on multi-threaded throughput, the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the only processor with recorded evidence of capability. The same applies to single-threaded tasks, memory bandwidth, and PCIe expansion. The Core 5 120HL remains a specification sheet without a performance record, so any use case that relies on measured results must favor the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus. The only scenarios where the Core 5 120HL holds an edge are those tied to its socket type, DDR4 compatibility, and lower power envelope, none of which have benchmark confirmation.