Intel Core 5 120UL vs Intel Core 7 350 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 5 120UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Despite fewer cores, the Core 7 350 wins the majority of benchmark comparisons.

Q: What are the base and boost clock speeds of each processor?

A: The Intel Core 5 120UL runs at a base clock of 1.30 GHz and boosts to 4.60 GHz. The Intel Core 7 350 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and boosts to 4.80 GHz.

Q: Which processor uses a more advanced manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 is built on a 3 nm process, while the Intel Core 5 120UL uses a 10 nm process. Both are fabricated by Intel.

Q: How do the processors differ in memory support?

A: The Intel Core 5 120UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus. The Intel Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 has an average benchmark score of 17779, placing it in the 71st percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 120UL has an average score of 13594, putting it in the 68th percentile.

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 wins 15 out of 17 head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core 5 120UL wins only 2.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 120UL and Intel Core 7 350 represent fundamentally different design approaches. The Core 5 120UL is based on the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, while the Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename. The process nodes diverge sharply: the Core 5 120UL is fabricated on a 10 nm node, whereas the Core 7 350 is built on a 3 nm node, a significant manufacturing advantage.

Core counts also differ notably. The Core 5 120UL offers 10 cores and 12 threads, indicating the presence of hyper-threading on some cores. The Core 7 350 provides 6 cores and 6 threads, which means no hyper-threading at all. The cache hierarchy reflects this split. The Core 5 120UL 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 7 350 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core caches on the Core 7 350 suggest a design focused on individual core performance, while the Core 5 120UL leans on aggregate cache capacity.

Memory architecture diverges as well. The Core 5 120UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus. The Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus, with a recorded bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The integrated graphics differ: the Core 5 120UL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units, while the Core 7 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The PCIe configurations also differ, with the Core 5 120UL providing Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes and the Core 7 350 providing Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes.

Socket and market positioning separate the two clearly. The Core 5 120UL uses Intel Socket 1700 and targets the desktop segment. The Core 7 350 uses Intel BGA 1516 and is classified as a mobile processor. Both are active production parts, with release dates roughly two years apart: the Core 5 120UL from April 2024 and the Core 7 350 from April 2026.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear overall winner in the Intel Core 7 350. Its average benchmark score of 17779 versus 13594 for the Core 5 120UL represents a substantial margin. The Core 7 350 also holds a higher percentile ranking, 71st versus 68th among all CPUs. The head-to-head comparison shows the Core 7 350 winning 15 of 17 tests, often by wide margins.

The Core 5 120UL does retain specific advantages in two areas: Cinebench R23 multi-core and PassMark integer math. In R23 multi-core, it scores 8974 against 8030, an 11.8% advantage. In integer math, it scores 38060 against 33734, a 12.8% lead. These wins indicate that workloads heavily dependent on parallel integer processing can favor the 10-core, 12-thread design.

However, the Core 7 350 dominates nearly everywhere else, including single-thread performance, floating-point math, encryption, compression, and physics simulations. Its single-thread scores are roughly double those of the Core 5 120UL in several tests, which reflects the 3 nm process and higher boost clock. For most mixed workloads, the data suggests the Core 7 350 is the stronger processor.

The Core 5 120UL remains relevant for desktop users who require a socketed LGA 1700 part with dual-channel memory support and more PCIe lanes (8 versus 6). The Core 7 350, being a mobile BGA part, suits compact or embedded designs where the single-channel memory and lower lane count are acceptable trade-offs for higher per-core performance.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The Core 5 120UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clocks are 1.30 GHz versus 1.50 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.60 GHz versus 4.80 GHz, both favoring the Core 7 350.

The process nodes differ: 10 nm for the Core 5 120UL and 3 nm for the Core 7 350. Cache configurations are distinct, with the Core 5 120UL using 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core plus 12 MB shared L3, versus 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2 per core plus 6 MB shared L3 on the Core 7 350.

Memory support diverges: DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel for the Core 5 120UL, versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X with single-channel for the Core 7 350. The Core 7 350 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s; the Core 5 120UL has no such figure recorded. PCIe configurations differ: Gen 4 with 8 lanes for the Core 5 120UL, Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the Core 7 350.

Integrated graphics differ: Iris Xe Graphics 80EU versus Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe). Sockets differ: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 1516. Market segments differ: Desktop versus Mobile. Release dates are April 2024 versus April 2026. The Core 7 350 has a launch MSRP of $469; the Core 5 120UL has no recorded launch MSRP. Both lack an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a sweeping victory for the Intel Core 7 350, but the scale of the wins varies considerably by workload. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core 7 350 scores 1220 against 904, a 25.9% lead. The single-core R15 test is even more lopsided: 292 versus 127, a 56.5% difference. Cinebench R20 continues the pattern, with the Core 7 350 leading by 29.9% in both multi-core (5373 versus 3769) and single-core (758 versus 531).

The R23 tests produce a split result. In multi-core R23, the Core 5 120UL wins with 8974 versus 8030, an 11.8% margin. This is the only Cinebench multi-core test the Core 5 120UL wins. In single-core R23, the Core 7 350 dominates with 2046 versus 1266, a 38.1% lead.

PassMark tests show a consistent pattern of Core 7 350 superiority. Data compression sees 143123 versus 109090, a 23.8% lead. Data encryption shows 10933 versus 7685, a 29.7% margin. Extended instructions are heavily lopsided: 12045 versus 5203, a 56.8% gap. Prime number finding follows with 107 versus 47, a 56.1% difference. Floating-point math shows 42809 versus 26311, a 38.5% lead. Multithreaded performance is 15170 versus 10558, a 30.4% margin. Physics scores 1173 versus 807, a 31.2% lead. Random string sorting is 17238 versus 13610, a 21% difference. Single-thread tests show 4100 versus 2080, a 49.3% gap.

The Core 5 120UL records two wins. PassMark integer math goes to the Core 5 120UL with 38060 versus 33734, a 12.8% margin. Cinebench R23 multi-core is the other win, as noted above. These two victories highlight the strengths of the 10-core configuration in specific parallel integer workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 350 wins across the broad majority of benchmark categories. Single-thread performance is its strongest area, with a 49.3% lead in PassMark single-thread tests and a 38.1% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core. This translates to advantages in applications that rely on per-core speed, such as encryption (29.7% lead), extended instruction processing (56.8% lead), and prime number calculations (56.1% lead). Floating-point math also favors the Core 7 350 by 38.5%, and physics simulations show a 31.2% advantage. Data compression and random string sorting are also Core 7 350 wins, with margins of 23.8% and 21% respectively. Multithreaded PassMark performance goes to the Core 7 350 by 30.4%, despite the Core 5 120UL having more cores and threads.

The Intel Core 5 120UL wins in two specific areas. Cinebench R23 multi-core is one, with an 11.8% advantage over the Core 7 350. This suggests that the R23 workload, which scales with core count and thread count, benefits from the 10-core, 12-thread configuration. PassMark integer math is the other win, showing a 12.8% margin. These two tests are the only instances where the Core 5 120UL's higher core count overcomes the Core 7 350's per-core efficiency.

For users prioritizing single-thread responsiveness, encryption, floating-point work, or compression, the data points to the Core 7 350. For workloads that heavily use integer math or Cinebench R23-style multi-threaded rendering, the Core 5 120UL holds an edge. The overall average benchmark scores, 17779 versus 13594, indicate that the Core 7 350 delivers more balanced performance across the tested spectrum.