Intel Core 5 120U vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Core 5 120U and the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is decisively one-sided. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Core Ultra 9 386H takes the win. The database shows zero wins for the Core 5 120U. The margin of victory varies widely by workload, from a modest single-thread edge to a massive gap in prime-number finding.

The largest single delta appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test. The Core Ultra 9 386H scores 341 against the Core 5 120U's 53, a difference of 84.5%. This is a workload that responds strongly to the newer architecture and higher core count. The extended instructions test shows a 68.1% gap, with scores of 29138 versus 9299. Floating point math follows closely at 66.8% behind, as the Core Ultra 9 386H records 108527 points against 36026.

Cinebench multicore results reinforce the pattern. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core Ultra 9 386H scores 20547 versus 6659, a 67.6% deficit for the Core 5 120U. Cinebench R20 multicore shows a 58.3% gap, with 12820 against 5349. Cinebench R15 multicore delivers 3223 versus 1150.5, a 64.3% difference. The physics test also leans heavily toward the Core Ultra 9 386H, which scores 3028 against 937, a 69.1% advantage.

The single-core picture is closer but still favors the Core Ultra 9 386H. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2071.5 against 1756.5, a 15.2% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core gives 303.5 versus 245, a 19.3% gap. PassMark single-thread records 4218 against 3479, a 17.5% difference. These results indicate that the architectural advantage of the Core Ultra 9 386H persists even when only one core is active, though the gap narrows considerably compared to multicore tests.

Memory-related workloads show a similar pattern. Data compression scores 352365 versus 166432, a 52.8% difference. Data encryption delivers 27150 against 10453, a 61.5% gap. Random string sorting shows 42135 versus 19060, a 54.8% lead for the Core Ultra 9 386H. Integer math is the closest PassMark discipline, with 87284 against 52280, a 40.1% margin. PassMark multithread confirms the overall trend, scoring 35399 versus 15042, a 57.5% gap.

The average benchmark score tells the same story. The Core Ultra 9 386H averages 43210 points, while the Core 5 120U averages 17898. The percentile ranking also separates them clearly: the Core Ultra 9 386H sits at the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 120U sits at the 72nd percentile. The nearest rival list for the Core 5 120U includes the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT with an average score of 17891 and a delta of 0%, the Intel Core 5 221TE at 17860 with a 0.2% delta, the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 at 17994 with a -0.5% delta, and the Intel Core 7 350 at 17779 with a 0.7% delta. For the Core Ultra 9 386H, the nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 at 43326 with a -0.3% delta, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 at 43431 with a -0.5% delta, the Intel Core i9-12900 at 42906 with a 0.7% delta, and the Intel Core i9-12900KF at 42830 with a 0.9% delta.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multicore performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H scores 20547, while the Intel Core 5 120U scores 6659. The Core Ultra 9 386H leads by 67.6%.

Q: How large is the single-thread gap in PassMark?

A: The Core Ultra 9 386H scores 4218, and the Core 5 120U scores 3479. The Core Ultra 9 386H is ahead by 17.5%.

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

A: The Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core 5 120U has 10 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core 5 120U has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while the Core Ultra 9 386H has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Core 5 120U is slightly ahead in this single specification.

Q: How do the L3 cache sizes compare?

A: The Core Ultra 9 386H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core 5 120U has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the Core Ultra 9 386H?

A: The database records 115.2 GB/s for the Core Ultra 9 386H. No memory bandwidth figure is recorded for the Core 5 120U.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architecture families and use different process nodes. The Core 5 120U is built on Raptor Lake, specifically Raptor Lake-U, and uses a 10 nm process node. The Core Ultra 9 386H is built on Panther Lake, specifically Panther Lake-H, and uses a 3 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the process node difference is substantial.

Core counts differ as well. The Core 5 120U uses 10 cores with 12 threads, indicating a hybrid layout with some efficiency cores that do not add to the thread count. The Core Ultra 9 386H uses 16 cores with 16 threads, which suggests a different core configuration where every core contributes one thread. The cache hierarchy also reflects the newer design. 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 9 386H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 5 120U supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The memory bandwidth is recorded only for the Core Ultra 9 386H at 115.2 GB/s. PCIe support also differs: the Core 5 120U provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 9 386H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes from the CPU.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 5 120U uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units. The Core Ultra 9 386H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory. The sockets are different as well: the Core 5 120U uses Intel BGA 1744, while the Core Ultra 9 386H uses Intel BGA 2540. The release dates also separate them, with the Core 5 120U released in early 2024 and the Core Ultra 9 386H released in early 2026.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, with deltas ranging from 15.2% in Cinebench R23 single-core to 84.5% in PassMark find prime numbers. The average benchmark score of 43210 against 17898 places the Core Ultra 9 386H at the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 120U sits at the 72nd percentile.

The Core 5 120U does have a higher boost clock at 5.00 GHz versus 4.90 GHz, and it supports DDR4 memory, which could be relevant for certain system configurations. However, no benchmark in the database shows a win for the Core 5 120U. The Core Ultra 9 386H also has a lower TDP advantage in the opposite direction: the Core 5 120U has a 15 W TDP, while the Core Ultra 9 386H has a 25 W TDP. The lower power envelope of the Core 5 120U could matter for thermally constrained designs, but the performance data does not favor it.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance, the Core Ultra 9 386H is the clear choice based on the measurements. For users prioritizing lower power consumption and a higher boost clock, the Core 5 120U has specification-level advantages, but the performance gap in every recorded test remains substantial.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification field. The Core 5 120U has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The base clock differs: 1.40 GHz for the Core 5 120U versus 2.10 GHz for the Core Ultra 9 386H. The boost clock differs in the opposite direction: 5.00 GHz for the Core 5 120U versus 4.90 GHz for the Core Ultra 9 386H. The TDP is 15 W for the Core 5 120U and 25 W for the Core Ultra 9 386H.

Sockets differ: Intel BGA 1744 for the Core 5 120U versus Intel BGA 2540 for the Core Ultra 9 386H. The architecture is Raptor Lake for the Core 5 120U and Panther Lake for the Core Ultra 9 386H. The process node is 10 nm for the Core 5 120U and 3 nm for the Core Ultra 9 386H. The cache hierarchy differs across all levels: L1 is 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core, L2 is 1.25 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core, and L3 is 12 MB shared versus 18 MB shared.

Memory support differs: the Core 5 120U supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The memory bus is dual-channel for both. Memory bandwidth is recorded only for the Core Ultra 9 386H at 115.2 GB/s. PCIe support differs: Gen 4 with 8 lanes for the Core 5 120U versus Gen 5 with 12 lanes for the Core Ultra 9 386H. Integrated graphics differ: Iris Xe Graphics 80EU for the Core 5 120U versus Intel Xe3 Graphics for the Core Ultra 9 386H. The part numbers also differ: SRM7P for the Core 5 120U and SA4R5Q9EH for the Core Ultra 9 386H.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows no recorded wins for the Intel Core 5 120U across the 17 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins all of them. However, the specification differences point to distinct usage scenarios.

The Core 5 120U, with its 15 W TDP and support for DDR4 memory, fits into systems where power draw and memory compatibility are primary constraints. Its 5.00 GHz boost clock is the highest recorded boost frequency in this comparison, which could benefit lightly threaded tasks that depend on maximum single-core frequency. The 72nd percentile ranking and average score of 17898 place it in the range of processors like the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT and the Intel Core 7 350, according to the nearest rival data.

The Core Ultra 9 386H, with its 16 cores, 18 MB of L3 cache, 3 nm process node, and 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, is positioned for compute-heavy workloads. Its 88th percentile ranking and average score of 43210 put it near the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 and the Intel Core i9-12900. The largest wins for the Core Ultra 9 386H come in extended instructions, physics, and prime number finding, which are typical of scientific and simulation workloads. The smallest wins appear in single-core tests, where it leads by 15.2% to 19.3%.

For users running multi-threaded applications such as video encoding, 3D rendering, or data processing, the Core Ultra 9 386H delivers the recorded performance advantage. For users building a power-efficient mobile system with DDR4 compatibility, the Core 5 120U offers a lower TDP and a higher boost clock, though the performance data from the database does not show any benchmark where it surpasses the Core Ultra 9 386H.