Intel Core 5 120UL vs Intel Core 5 211E Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two Intel Socket 1700 processors into a clear pattern: the Intel Core 5 211E dominates almost every workload category, while the Intel Core 5 120UL secures exactly two specific wins. Out of 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Core 5 211E takes 15, leaving the Core 5 120UL with a narrow 2-win margin.

The Core 5 120UL claims victory in passmark_find_prime_numbers with a score of 47 against 43, a 9.3% advantage. It also wins passmark_physics, scoring 807 versus 702, a 15% lead. These two results point toward a specific strength in prime-number generation and physics simulation workloads, where the lower-power chip manages to outperform its higher-power sibling despite the broader performance gap elsewhere.

Every other benchmark category falls to the Core 5 211E. The largest single margin comes in passmark_extended_instructions, where the 211E scores 21592 against 5203, a 75.9% deficit for the 120UL. Data compression shows a 68.5% gap, floating point math a 60.4% gap, and random string sorting a 60.3% gap. These are not marginal differences; they represent fundamentally different performance tiers.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. The Core 5 120UL suits workloads that emphasize prime-number computation and physics calculations, where its efficiency-oriented design still delivers competitive results. The Core 5 211E suits everything else: multi-threaded rendering, encryption, compression, integer math, and single-thread responsiveness. For Cinebench workloads, the 211E is consistently 56% ahead across R15, R20, and R23 in both multi-core and single-core tests. That consistency across every rendering benchmark makes the 211E the clear choice for content creation and CPU-bound productivity.

PassMark single-thread results reinforce the same story. The 211E scores 4006, the 120UL scores 2080, a 48.1% gap. In multithreaded PassMark, the 211E scores 23833 against 10558, a 55.7% gap. The 211E also ranks at the 86th percentile among all CPUs, while the 120UL sits at the 68th percentile. Average benchmark scores confirm the separation: 37829 for the 211E versus 13594 for the 120UL.

Architecture Differences

Both processors use Intel as the foundry and share a 10 nm process node, but their underlying designs diverge significantly. The Core 5 120UL comes from the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename. The Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, with no architecture field recorded in the database. Both use the Intel Socket 1700, so they are physically interchangeable in compatible motherboards.

Core counts match at 10 cores each, but thread counts differ. The 120UL supports 12 threads, while the 211E supports 16 threads. That four-thread advantage comes from the 211E's configuration, which enables more simultaneous processing. Base clocks also differ: the 120UL runs at 1.30 GHz, the 211E at 2.70 GHz. Boost clocks show a smaller gap: 4.60 GHz for the 120UL versus 4.90 GHz for the 211E. The 211E therefore starts higher and finishes higher.

Cache hierarchies follow the same pattern of the 211E having more. L1 cache is identical at 80 KB per core. L2 cache jumps from 1.25 MB per core on the 120UL to 2 MB per core on the 211E. L3 cache increases from 12 MB shared to 20 MB shared. The 211E also reports a die size of 257 mm², while the 120UL has no recorded die size.

Power envelopes differ dramatically. The 120UL carries a 15 W TDP, while the 211E carries a 65 W TDP. That 50 W difference explains much of the performance gap: the 211E has far more thermal headroom to sustain higher clocks under load. Memory bandwidth also favors the 211E, which records 76.8 GB/s, while the 120UL has no bandwidth figure in the database. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode, but only the 211E supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The 120UL provides Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes. The 211E provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, doubling both the lane count and the interface generation. Integrated graphics also differ: the 120UL uses Iris Xe Graphics 80EU, while the 211E uses UHD Graphics 730. The 120UL released on April 7, 2024, while the 211E released on January 12, 2025. The 211E has a recorded launch MSRP of $221, while the 120UL has no launch MSRP in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a remarkably uniform 56% advantage for the Core 5 211E across all six tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 211E scores 2055 against 904, a 56% deficit for the 120UL. Single-core R15 shows 289 versus 127, a 56.1% gap. R20 multi-core shows 8563 versus 3769, single-core 1208 versus 531, both at 56%. R23 multi-core shows 20389 versus 8974, and single-core 2878 versus 1266, again 56%. This uniformity suggests the 211E's advantage scales evenly across both single-thread and multi-thread rendering, rather than being driven solely by its extra threads.

PassMark data compression is the second-largest margin. The 211E scores 346757, the 120UL scores 109090, a 68.5% gap. This workload benefits heavily from the 211E's larger cache and higher clocks. Data encryption shows a 57.2% gap, with 17938 against 7685. Extended instructions, which stress SIMD and specialized instruction paths, show the largest gap of all: 21592 versus 5203, a 75.9% deficit for the 120UL.

Floating point math favors the 211E at 66402 versus 26311, a 60.4% gap. Integer math favors the 211E at 88117 versus 38060, a 56.8% gap. Multithreaded PassMark shows 23833 versus 10558, a 55.7% gap. Random string sorting shows 34308 versus 13610, a 60.3% gap. Single-thread PassMark shows 4006 versus 2080, a 48.1% gap, the smallest margin among the 211E's wins but still substantial.

The two 120UL wins deserve attention because they break the pattern. In passmark_find_prime_numbers, the 120UL scores 47 against 43, a 9.3% win. In passmark_physics, it scores 807 against 702, a 15% win. These results indicate that the 120UL's architecture, despite lower clocks and fewer threads, handles certain integer-heavy or physics-specific instruction patterns more efficiently than the 211E. They are narrow wins, but they are consistent and repeatable in the recorded data.

The nearest rival data places each chip in a different competitive neighborhood. The 120UL's closest rivals include the Intel Core i3-12100F at 0.7% higher average score, the Intel Core 3 N355 at 0.8% higher, and the Intel Core 3 304 at 1.1% lower. The 211E's closest rivals are all AMD parts and a high-end Intel: the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 at 0.1% higher, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 at 0.2% higher, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 at 0.2% lower, and the Intel Core i9-14901E at 0.2% lower. The 211E competes with embedded and AI-focused processors, while the 120UL competes with budget desktop parts.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E scores 20389 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Core 5 120UL scores 8974. The 211E leads by 56%.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Intel Core 5 120UL wins?

A: Yes. The 120UL wins passmark_find_prime_numbers with 47 against 43, a 9.3% advantage, and passmark_physics with 807 against 702, a 15% advantage.

Q: What explains the performance difference between the two chips?

A: The 211E has a 65 W TDP versus 15 W for the 120UL, a 2.70 GHz base clock versus 1.30 GHz, 16 threads versus 12, 20 MB L3 cache versus 12 MB, and 2 MB L2 per core versus 1.25 MB.

Q: Do both processors use the same socket?

A: Yes, both use Intel Socket 1700. They also share a 10 nm process node and support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode.

Q: What is the single largest performance gap in the head-to-head results?

A: PassMark extended instructions shows the largest gap. The 211E scores 21592, the 120UL scores 5203, a 75.9% deficit for the 120UL.

Q: How do the two compare in single-thread PassMark performance?

A: The 211E scores 4006, the 120UL scores 2080, a 48.1% gap in favor of the 211E.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 120UL | Intel Core 5 211E |

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

| Codename | Raptor Lake-PS | Bartlett Lake |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Not recorded |

| Threads | 12 | 16 |

| Base clock | 1.30 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.60 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 65 W |

| L2 cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 12 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |

| Die size | Not recorded | 257 mm² |

| Memory bandwidth | Not recorded | 76.8 GB/s |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 8 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 80EU | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Release date | April 7, 2024 | January 12, 2025 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $221 |

Shared specifications include 10 cores, 80 KB L1 cache per core, DDR4 and DDR5 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, Intel Socket 1700, 10 nm process node, Intel as foundry, and a locked multiplier on both parts.