Intel Core 5 120UL vs Intel Core 7 160UL Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data splits these two Raptor Lake-PS desktop processors into clear roles. The Intel Core 7 160UL is the stronger all-round performer, winning 13 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests. Its single-thread advantage is decisive, with a 63% lead over the Core 5 120UL in PassMark single-thread testing (3391 versus 2080). That gap is far larger than the 4.7% delta seen in Cinebench R15 single-core, suggesting the Core 7 160UL sustains higher clocks more consistently under lighter workloads. The Core 5 120UL, by contrast, wins only 4 tests, all in PassMark workloads, and those wins are either narrow or workload-specific.

For users running Cinebench-class rendering or integer-heavy compute, the Core 7 160UL is the clear choice. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 9386 is 4.6% ahead of the Core 5 120UL's 8974, and its PassMark integer math result of 47515 is a massive 24.8% higher than the 38060 posted by the Core 5 120UL. Those are not small differences; they indicate the Core 7 160UL has a meaningful performance advantage in workloads that scale with instruction throughput and clock speed.

The Core 5 120UL is only preferable in specific niche scenarios. It leads in PassMark data encryption (7685 versus 7146, a 7% advantage), random string sorting (13610 versus 11843, a 13% advantage), floating-point math (26311 versus 25670, a 2.4% advantage), and data compression (109090 versus 108953, a marginal 0.1% edge). These wins suggest the Core 5 120UL has some workload-specific strengths, particularly in encryption and sorting tasks, but the pattern is inconsistent. Its single-thread score of 2080 in PassMark is dramatically lower than the Core 7 160UL's 3391, which will hurt in any latency-sensitive or lightly threaded application.

The overall database averages reinforce this hierarchy. The Core 7 160UL averages 14232 across all recorded benchmarks, placing it in the 69th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 120UL averages 13594, sitting in the 68th percentile. The Core 7 160UL's nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C, averages 14277, a 0.3% gap in favor of the AMD part. The Core 5 120UL's closest competitor, the Intel Core i3-12100F, averages 13494, meaning the Core 5 120UL is 0.7% ahead of that part. In direct comparison, the Core 7 160UL is the better buy for anyone needing maximum compute throughput, while the Core 5 120UL only makes sense for workloads that specifically benefit from its encryption or sorting strengths.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental design. They are built on Intel's 10 nm process at Intel's foundry, use the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, and fit the Intel Socket 1700. Both have 10 cores and 12 threads, with identical cache hierarchies: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, both lack ECC support, and both provide PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU. Both are locked processors, meaning the multiplier is not unlocked, and both are desktop parts currently listed as Active in production status. Their release dates are identical, both appearing in the database on the same day in April 2024.

The differentiators are clock speeds and integrated graphics. The Core 7 160UL has a base clock of 1.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, while the Core 5 120UL has a base clock of 1.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. That 0.60 GHz boost advantage for the Core 7 160UL explains most of its single-thread performance lead. The integrated graphics also differ: the Core 7 160UL carries Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the Core 5 120UL has Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units. The Core 7 160UL therefore has a 20% larger execution unit count in its iGPU, which may matter for light graphics workloads or media tasks. Both processors share the same 15 W TDP, meaning the Core 7 160UL achieves its higher clocks and larger iGPU within the same power envelope as the Core 5 120UL. Neither processor has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Core 7 160UL leads in every Cinebench multi-core test. It scores 946 in Cinebench R15 multi-core versus 904 for the Core 5 120UL, 3942 versus 3769 in R20, and 9386 versus 8974 in R23. The advantage is a consistent 4.6% in each test.

Q: Why is the single-thread gap so large in PassMark but small in Cinebench?

A: The Core 7 160UL scores 3391 in PassMark single-thread, which is 63% higher than the Core 5 120UL's 2080. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the gap is only 4.7% (133 versus 127). The PassMark test appears to be far more sensitive to the boost clock difference, since the Core 7 160UL boosts to 5.20 GHz while the Core 5 120UL peaks at 4.60 GHz.

Q: Does the Core 5 120UL win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins 4 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests. These are PassMark data encryption (7685 versus 7146, a 7% lead), random string sorting (13610 versus 11843, a 13% lead), floating-point math (26311 versus 25670, a 2.4% lead), and data compression (109090 versus 108953, a 0.1% lead).

Q: Are the two processors built on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, are built on Intel's 10 nm process, have 10 cores and 12 threads, and share the same 12 MB L3 cache. The differences are clocks, iGPU execution units, and measured performance.

Q: Which processor has better integrated graphics?

A: The Core 7 160UL has Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the Core 5 120UL has Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units. The Core 7 160UL has more execution units, which typically benefits graphics throughput.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Core 7 160UL averages 14232, which is 0.3% behind the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14277) and 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i5-10400F (14185). The Core 5 120UL averages 13594, which is 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core i3-12100F (13494) and 0.8% ahead of the Intel Core 3 N355 (13492).

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show only a handful of differences between the two processors. The Core 7 160UL has a base clock of 1.80 GHz compared to 1.30 GHz for the Core 5 120UL, and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz compared to 4.60 GHz. The integrated graphics differ, with the Core 7 160UL featuring Iris Xe Graphics 96EU and the Core 5 120UL featuring Iris Xe Graphics 80EU. All other specifications are identical: 10 cores, 12 threads, 15 W TDP, Intel Socket 1700, Raptor Lake architecture, Raptor Lake-PS codename, 10 nm process, 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, 12 MB shared L3, DDR4 and DDR5 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, no ECC, PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes, locked multiplier, desktop market segment, Active production status, and identical release dates. Neither processor has a recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core 7 160UL dominates the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 946 against the Core 5 120UL's 904, a 4.6% advantage. In R15 single-core, the scores are 133 and 127, a 4.7% edge. The pattern repeats in R20 multi-core (3942 versus 3769, 4.6%) and R20 single-core (556 versus 531, 4.7%). Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 9386 versus 8974, again 4.6%, and R23 single-core shows 1325 versus 1266, again 4.7%. These consistent deltas suggest the Core 7 160UL's clock advantage translates evenly across Cinebench's rendering workloads.

The PassMark suite tells a more varied story. The Core 7 160UL wins PassMark multithread with 11043 versus 10558, a 4.6% margin. Its PassMark integer math score of 47515 is 24.8% higher than the Core 5 120UL's 38060, the largest multi-threaded delta in the entire comparison. The Core 7 160UL also leads in extended instructions (5832 versus 5203, 12.1%), find prime numbers (50 versus 47, 6.4%), physics (819 versus 807, 1.5%), and single-thread (3391 versus 2080, 63%). The single-thread PassMark result is the standout data point, showing a massive advantage for the Core 7 160UL that is not reflected in the Cinebench single-core tests.

The Core 5 120UL's wins are concentrated in four PassMark subtests. Its most significant victory is in random string sorting, where it scores 13610 against the Core 7 160UL's 11843, a 13% advantage. It also wins data encryption with 7685 versus 7146, a 7% lead, and floating-point math with 26311 versus 25670, a 2.4% edge. Its narrowest win is data compression, 109090 versus 108953, a marginal 0.1% difference that is essentially noise. These wins do not offset the Core 7 160UL's broader dominance, but they do indicate that the Core 5 120UL has specialized strengths in sorting and encryption workloads that could matter for specific enterprise or data-processing tasks. Overall, the recorded data shows the Core 7 160UL as the higher-performing processor in the majority of tests, with its largest advantages in single-thread throughput and integer math.