Intel Core 5 120U vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H across every recorded test. Out of 17 head-to-head comparisons, the Core Ultra 5 336H wins all 17, while the Intel Core 5 120U records zero victories. This is not a close contest; the margin of victory varies by workload, but the direction is consistent throughout.

The largest gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core Ultra 5 336H scores 23991 against 6659 for the Core 5 120U. That is a 72.2% deficit for the older chip, meaning the Core Ultra 5 336H delivers roughly three and a half times the multi-threaded rendering throughput in this specific test. A similar pattern emerges in Cinebench R20 multi-core, with 10076 versus 5349, a 46.9% gap. The single-core results are closer but still favor the newer part: Cinebench R23 single-core shows 3387 versus 1756.5, a 48.1% difference, while Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1422 versus 755, also a 46.9% gap.

The PassMark suite tells a more nuanced story. The smallest margin is in integer math, where the Core Ultra 5 336H scores 62070 against 52280, a 15.8% advantage. Single-thread performance in PassMark shows 4013 versus 3479, a 13.3% lead. These modest gaps suggest that per-core efficiency improvements exist but are not dramatic. The larger wins come in workloads that stress parallelism or specialized instruction paths. Prime number finding shows 299 versus 53, an 82.3% gap, which is the largest percentage difference in the entire dataset. Extended instructions show 24542 versus 9299, a 62.1% gap. Physics simulation shows 2682 versus 937, a 65.1% gap. Floating point math shows 82415 versus 36026, a 56.3% gap.

Data compression and encryption also favor the Core Ultra 5 336H substantially. Compression scores 280340 versus 166432, a 40.6% gap. Encryption scores 21291 versus 10453, a 50.9% gap. Random string sorting shows 34402 versus 19060, a 44.6% gap. The multi-thread PassMark score is 28545 versus 15042, a 47.3% gap. Across the board, the Core Ultra 5 336H holds a commanding lead, with the smallest advantage still exceeding 13%.

The average benchmark score reinforces this picture. The Core Ultra 5 336H has an average score of 34485, placing it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 5 120U has an average score of 17898, placing it in the 72nd percentile. The nearest rival for the Core Ultra 5 336H is the Intel Core i7-13700HX with an average score of 34554, a 0.2% difference. For the Core 5 120U, the closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT with an average score of 17891, a negligible 0.0% delta.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins in multi-core rendering workloads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H wins decisively. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 23991 versus 6659, a 72.2% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it scores 10076 versus 5349, a 46.9% advantage.

Q: Is the single-core performance gap as large as the multi-core gap?

A: No, the single-core gap is smaller but still favors the Core Ultra 5 336H. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 48.1% difference, while PassMark single-thread shows only a 13.3% difference. The Core Ultra 5 336H still wins, but the margin narrows considerably.

Q: How do the two chips compare in encryption and compression workloads?

A: The Core Ultra 5 336H leads in both. Data compression scores 280340 versus 166432, a 40.6% gap. Data encryption scores 21291 versus 10453, a 50.9% gap.

Q: What is the worst-case scenario for the Core 5 120U?

A: The largest deficit is in PassMark's prime number finding test, where the Core 5 120U scores 53 versus 299, an 82.3% gap. This indicates the Core Ultra 5 336H is vastly better at this specific mathematical workload.

Q: Where is the Core 5 120U closest to matching the Core Ultra 5 336H?

A: The smallest gap is in PassMark integer math, with 52280 versus 62070, a 15.8% difference. PassMark single-thread is close behind at 13.3% difference. These are the only tests where the Core 5 120U stays within a reasonable striking distance.

Q: Does the Core 5 120U win any benchmark at all?

A: No. The recorded data shows 17 head-to-head benchmarks, and the Core Ultra 5 336H wins all 17. The Core 5 120U has zero wins in this comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations with fundamentally different designs. The Intel Core 5 120U uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-U codename, built on Intel's 10 nm process node. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H uses Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake-H codename, built on a 3 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the process node difference represents a significant generational leap.

The core counts differ substantially. The Core 5 120U has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Notably, the Core 5 120U has fewer cores than threads, indicating Hyper-Threading support, while the Core Ultra 5 336H has equal core and thread counts, suggesting a different threading approach. The cache hierarchy also differs. The Core 5 120U has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 336H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Each level of cache is larger on the Core Ultra 5 336H.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 5 120U supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus. The Core Ultra 5 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, also on a dual-channel bus, and has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The Core 5 120U has no recorded memory bandwidth figure in the database. The integrated graphics differ: the Core 5 120U uses Iris Xe Graphics 80EU, while the Core Ultra 5 336H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. Both are mobile-market parts, but they target different performance envelopes.

PCIe support also marks a clear generation gap. The Core 5 120U provides PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 5 336H provides PCIe Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). This gives the newer chip more bandwidth for connected devices and faster interconnect speeds. The sockets differ as well: Intel BGA 1744 for the Core 5 120U and Intel BGA 2540 for the Core Ultra 5 336H. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 10 (Core 5 120U) versus 16 (Core Ultra 5 336H)
• Threads: 12 (Core 5 120U) versus 16 (Core Ultra 5 336H)
• Base clock: 1.40 GHz (Core 5 120U) versus 1.90 GHz (Core Ultra 5 336H)
• Boost clock: 5.00 GHz (Core 5 120U) versus 4.60 GHz (Core Ultra 5 336H)
• TDP: 15 W (Core 5 120U) versus 25 W (Core Ultra 5 336H)
• Socket: Intel BGA 1744 (Core 5 120U) versus Intel BGA 2540 (Core Ultra 5 336H)
• Architecture: Raptor Lake (Core 5 120U) versus Panther Lake (Core Ultra 5 336H)
• Process node: 10 nm (Core 5 120U) versus 3 nm (Core Ultra 5 336H)
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core (Core 5 120U) versus 192 KB per core (Core Ultra 5 336H)
• L2 cache: 1.25 MB per core (Core 5 120U) versus 2.5 MB per core (Core Ultra 5 336H)
• L3 cache: 12 MB shared (Core 5 120U) versus 18 MB shared (Core Ultra 5 336H)
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 (Core 5 120U) versus DDR5, LPDDR5X (Core Ultra 5 336H)
• Memory bandwidth: Not recorded (Core 5 120U) versus 115.2 GB/s (Core Ultra 5 336H)
• PCIe: Gen 4, 8 lanes (Core 5 120U) versus Gen 5, 12 lanes (Core Ultra 5 336H)
• Integrated graphics: Iris Xe Graphics 80EU (Core 5 120U) versus Intel Xe3 Graphics (Core Ultra 5 336H)
• Generation: Core 5 (Raptor Lake-U) (Core 5 120U) versus Ultra 5 (Panther Lake-H) (Core Ultra 5 336H)
• Part number: SRM7P (Core 5 120U) versus SA4RD (Core Ultra 5 336H)
• Release date: 2024-01-07 (Core 5 120U) versus 2026-01-04 (Core Ultra 5 336H)

Both chips lack ECC memory support and have locked multipliers. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 336H wins every benchmark category in the recorded data, so the use-case split is straightforward. For any workload that benefits from more cores, higher thread counts, or larger caches, the Core Ultra 5 336H is the clear choice. Multi-core rendering in Cinebench R23 shows a 72.2% advantage, making it strong for video rendering, 3D modeling, or any parallel compute task. The 16-core, 16-thread configuration with 18 MB of L3 cache directly supports these workloads.

The Core Ultra 5 336H also dominates in specialized math and encryption tasks. Prime number finding shows an 82.3% gap, extended instructions show a 62.1% gap, and encryption shows a 50.9% gap. These results indicate strong execution units and better instruction-level throughput. Data compression at 40.6% ahead and random string sorting at 44.6% ahead further confirm its superiority in data-heavy tasks. The 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth likely contributes to these results, giving the Core Ultra 5 336H faster access to working sets.

The Core 5 120U has no benchmark category where it wins, but its profile still suggests a specific role. With a 15 W TDP versus 25 W for the Core Ultra 5 336H, the Core 5 120U consumes less power. Its lower base clock of 1.40 GHz and higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz indicate a design that spikes briefly for single-threaded responsiveness but idles efficiently. For systems where battery life and thermal limits take priority over raw throughput, the Core 5 120U offers a lighter power envelope. The 10-core, 12-thread configuration with 12 MB of L3 cache is adequate for general productivity and light multi-tasking, but the recorded data shows it trails the Core Ultra 5 336H in every measured performance metric.

The closest contests, integer math at 15.8% and single-thread at 13.3%, suggest that the Core 5 120U is not completely outclassed in lightly threaded, integer-heavy code. For basic office work, web browsing, or legacy software that cannot use many cores, the gap narrows. However, the Core Ultra 5 336H still wins these tests, so there is no scenario in the data where the Core 5 120U takes the lead.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation between these two mobile processors. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H is the faster chip in every measured benchmark, with an average score of 34485 versus 17898 for the Intel Core 5 120U. The 84th percentile ranking versus the 72nd percentile ranking places the Core Ultra 5 336H in a higher performance tier overall. Its nearest rivals, the Intel Core i7-13700HX and Intel Core i5-13450HX, are both high-end mobile HX-series parts, confirming that the Core Ultra 5 336H competes in the upper echelon of laptop processors.

The Intel Core 5 120U, by contrast, sits alongside mid-range desktop and mobile parts like the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT and Intel Core 5 221TE. Its 72nd percentile ranking is respectable, but it does not approach the performance class of the Core Ultra 5 336H. The 17-0 sweep in head-to-head benchmarks is unambiguous.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload priorities rather than benchmark wins, since the Core Ultra 5 336H claims all of them. Systems requiring heavy multi-threaded performance, such as content creation, scientific computing, or data processing, should use the Core Ultra 5 336H. Its 16 cores, 16 threads, larger caches, and newer 3 nm process node deliver the recorded performance advantages. The 25 W TDP is higher, but the performance return is substantial, especially in Cinebench R23 multi-core where it reaches 23991 points.

The Intel Core 5 120U suits a different class of machine. Its 15 W TDP and older Raptor Lake architecture position it for thin-and-light laptops where power efficiency matters more than peak throughput. The 5.00 GHz boost clock gives it respectable single-thread burst capability, and its PassMark single-thread score of 3479 is within 13.3% of the Core Ultra 5 336H. For email, document editing, and media playback, the Core 5 120U is adequate, and its lower power draw may extend battery life compared to the 25 W Core Ultra 5 336H.

The database shows no scenario where the Core 5 120U outperforms the Core Ultra 5 336H in raw performance. The only advantages for the Core 5 120U are qualitative: lower TDP, older and potentially cheaper platform, and support for DDR4 memory which may reduce system cost. None of these appear in the benchmark scores, but they matter for system design. The Core Ultra 5 336H is the performance pick; the Core 5 120U is the efficiency pick. The benchmark data does not support any other conclusion.