Intel Core 5 120U vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison
Intel Core 5 120U
Core Ultra 9 285
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 5 120U vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The benchmark data presents a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285, which wins all 17 recorded comparisons against the Intel Core 5 120U. The largest margins appear in multi-threaded workloads, where the Core Ultra 9 285's additional cores produce substantial deltas. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945 against 6,659 for the Core 5 120U, a delta of 86.4%. That is the single largest gap in the tested suite. The Core Ultra 9 285 also leads Cinebench R15 multi-core by 76.7%, scoring 4,933 versus 1,150.5, and Cinebench R20 multi-core by 74%, scoring 20,556 versus 5,349.
Single-core performance favors the Core Ultra 9 285 by smaller but still decisive margins. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the Core Ultra 9 285 at 6,909 against 1,756.5, a 74.6% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2,901 versus 755, also a 74% gap, and Cinebench R15 single-core shows 696 versus 245, a 64.8% gap. The narrowest margin in the entire dataset is PassMark single-thread, where the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4,881 and the Core 5 120U scores 3,479, a 28.7% lead. This indicates that even in workloads that stress a single thread, the newer architecture and higher boost clock deliver a meaningful advantage, though the gap is much smaller than in multi-core tests.
PassMark sub-tests reinforce the pattern. The Core Ultra 9 285 leads data compression by 72.4% (602,121 versus 166,432), data encryption by 77.7% (46,949 versus 10,453), extended instructions by 79.5% (45,357 versus 9,299), floating point math by 81.5% (194,988 versus 36,026), integer math by 68.3% (164,869 versus 52,280), multi-thread by 73.4% (56,602 versus 15,042), physics by 74% (3,598 versus 937), and random string sorting by 74.1% (73,651 versus 19,060). The prime numbers test shows the largest single delta at 88.5%, with the Core Ultra 9 285 scoring 459 against 53 for the Core 5 120U. Across the board, the Core Ultra 9 285 delivers between roughly 1.4 times and 8.7 times the performance of the Core 5 120U depending on the workload, with the smallest relative advantage in single-thread tasks and the largest in heavily parallel integer workloads.
The average benchmark score in the database places the Core Ultra 9 285 at 75,488, which ranks in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 120U averages 17,898 and sits in the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 9 285 include AMD EPYC 8224P at 75,582 (0.1% ahead), AMD EPYC 4545P at 75,373 (0.2% behind), AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D at 75,716 (0.3% ahead), and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 at 75,738 (0.3% ahead). The Core 5 120U's nearest rivals are AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT at 17,891 (0% delta), Intel Core 5 221TE at 17,860 (0.2% ahead), AMD Ryzen 5 1600 at 17,994 (0.5% ahead), and Intel Core 7 350 at 17,779 (0.7% behind). These groupings show that each processor competes in a distinct performance tier despite sharing the Intel brand.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different design generations and target different market segments. The Intel Core 5 120U uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-U codename, and is built on Intel's 10 nm process node. It is a mobile part with 10 cores and 12 threads, a base clock of 1.40 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC, and it is a desktop part with 24 cores and 24 threads, a base clock of 2.50 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 285 has no hyper-threading on its 24 cores, while the Core 5 120U has 10 cores and 12 threads, indicating two of its cores support extra threads.
Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Core 5 120U provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 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 cache. The Core Ultra 9 285 also has a much larger transistor count at 17,800 million on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 5 120U has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database. The Core Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the Core 5 120U supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode with no bandwidth figure recorded. ECC memory is supported on the Core Ultra 9 285 but not on the Core 5 120U.
PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the Core 5 120U uses PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 5 120U uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851, while the Core 5 120U uses Intel BGA 1744. The Core Ultra 9 285 belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 family, whereas the Core 5 120U has no series designation in the database. The Core Ultra 9 285 has a launch MSRP of $579.
FAQ
Q: Which processor is faster in single-core workloads?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every single-core test. PassMark single-thread shows 4,881 versus 3,479 (28.7% ahead), Cinebench R23 single-core shows 6,909 versus 1,756.5 (74.6% ahead), Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2,901 versus 755 (74% ahead), and Cinebench R15 single-core shows 696 versus 245 (64.8% ahead).
Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?
A: The Core Ultra 9 285 leads by 86.4% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (48,945 versus 6,659), by 76.7% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (4,933 versus 1,150.5), and by 74% in Cinebench R20 multi-core (20,556 versus 5,349). PassMark multi-thread shows a 73.4% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285.
Q: Does the Core 5 120U win any benchmark?
A: No. The head-to-head dataset contains 17 tests, and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all of them. The Core 5 120U records zero wins.
Q: What are the core and thread counts?
A: The Core 5 120U has 10 cores and 12 threads. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning it does not use simultaneous multi-threading.
Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?
A: The Core Ultra 9 285 averages 75,488 across the database, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 120U averages 17,898, placing it in the 72nd percentile.
Q: Which processor has more cache?
A: The Core Ultra 9 285 has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 192 KB of L1 per core. The Core 5 120U has 12 MB of shared L3 cache, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 80 KB of L1 per core.
The Verdict
The data indicates a decisive performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the stronger processor in every measured category, with particularly large advantages in multi-threaded workloads where its 24 cores and larger caches come into play. Its average benchmark score of 75,488 places it in the 95th percentile, surrounded by server and workstation-class AMD EPYC parts. The Core 5 120U, with an average of 17,898, sits in the 72nd percentile among a group of mainstream desktop and mobile processors. The two chips do not overlap in performance; the slowest recorded margin for the Core Ultra 9 285, 28.7% in PassMark single-thread, is still a substantial lead.
The Core 5 120U is a mobile processor designed around a 15 W TDP, while the Core Ultra 9 285 is a desktop processor with a 65 W TDP. The Core Ultra 9 285 also uses a newer 3 nm process at TSMC, a larger L3 cache, PCIe Gen 5 support, and ECC memory support. The Core 5 120U supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, which may be relevant in certain mobile system designs, but it lacks the bandwidth figure recorded for the Core Ultra 9 285 (102.4 GB/s). For workloads that benefit from high core counts, large caches, or single-thread speed, the Core Ultra 9 285 is the clear pick based on benchmark results. For low-power mobile systems where the 15 W TDP and BGA socket are requirements, the Core 5 120U is the only one of the two that fits that form factor.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification. The Core 5 120U uses Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm process from TSMC. Core counts are 10 versus 24, and threads are 12 versus 24. Base clocks are 1.40 GHz versus 2.50 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.00 GHz versus 5.60 GHz. TDP is 15 W versus 65 W. Sockets are Intel BGA 1744 versus Intel Socket 1851.
Cache differs at every level: L1 is 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core, L2 is 1.25 MB per core versus 3 MB per core, and L3 is 12 MB shared versus 36 MB shared. Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR5 only, with the Core Ultra 9 285 recording 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is absent on the Core 5 120U and present on the Core Ultra 9 285. PCIe is Gen 4 with 8 lanes versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics are Iris Xe Graphics 80EU versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The market segment is mobile versus desktop. The Core Ultra 9 285 also records a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the Core 5 120U does not have those figures in the database. The release dates are January 7, 2024 for the Core 5 120U and December 31, 2024 for the Core Ultra 9 285.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every benchmark in the head-to-head dataset, so the use-case split is defined by the nature of the workloads rather than by any benchmark victory for the Core 5 120U. The Core Ultra 9 285 delivers its largest margins in multi-threaded and parallel workloads: prime number finding (88.5% lead), Cinebench R23 multi-core (86.4%), floating point math (81.5%), extended instructions (79.5%), data encryption (77.7%), and Cinebench R15 multi-core (76.7%). These results point to rendering, scientific computing, data compression, and encryption tasks as areas where the Core Ultra 9 285 is dramatically stronger.
The Core Ultra 9 285 also leads single-threaded workloads by a smaller margin, with PassMark single-thread at 28.7% ahead. This suggests that even lightly threaded applications, such as everyday desktop responsiveness or older software, will run faster on the Core Ultra 9 285, though the relative improvement is less pronounced than in parallel tasks. The Core 5 120U, while losing all benchmarks, still holds a place in the database as a mobile processor with a 15 W TDP and BGA 1744 socket, suited for systems where the 65 W desktop TDP and Socket 1851 of the Core Ultra 9 285 are not viable. The Core 5 120U's support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory also gives it flexibility in memory selection that the DDR5-only Core Ultra 9 285 does not offer. For any performance-sensitive desktop workload, the data consistently favors the Core Ultra 9 285.