Intel Core 5 120UL vs Intel Core 7 360 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core 7 360, which wins 16 of the 17 recorded tests. The Intel Core 5 120UL manages a single win in PassMark integer math, where it scores 38060 against 34238, a margin of 11.2%. That is the only test where the Core 5 120UL leads.

The most striking gap appears in single-threaded workloads. In PassMark single thread, the Core 7 360 scores 4274 versus 2080, a 51.3% advantage. Cinebench R23 single core shows a similar pattern: the Core 7 360 scores 1924 against 1266, again a 34.2% difference. The Core 7 360's boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 4.60 GHz for the Core 5 120UL helps explain part of this, but the architecture differences play a larger role, as detailed below.

Multi-core performance also favors the Core 7 360 consistently. In Cinebench R23 multi core, the Core 7 360 scores 13634 versus 8974, a 34.2% lead. Cinebench R20 multi core shows 5726 versus 3769, and Cinebench R15 multi core shows 1374 versus 904, both also 34.2% gaps. PassMark multi thread records 15544 for the Core 7 360 against 10558 for the Core 5 120UL, a 32.1% difference.

Some of the largest deltas appear in specialized workloads. PassMark extended instructions shows the Core 7 360 scoring 12390 versus 5203, a 58% advantage. PassMark find prime numbers is even more lopsided: 120 versus 47, a 60.8% gap. Floating point math favors the Core 7 360 by 41.5%, with scores of 44963 versus 26311. Data encryption shows a 31.2% lead for the Core 7 360 (11164 versus 7685), while data compression shows a smaller 23.6% gap (142877 versus 109090). Random string sorting sees the Core 7 360 ahead by 22.8% (17636 versus 13610). PassMark physics records 1213 versus 807, a 33.5% lead for the Core 7 360.

The average benchmark score confirms the overall picture: the Core 7 360 averages 18374, while the Core 5 120UL averages 13594. In the database's percentile ranking, the Core 7 360 sits at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 120UL sits at the 68th percentile. For context, the Core 7 360's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-13100 (0% delta), Intel Core 5 330 (0.2% delta), and Intel Core i3-14100 (0.3% delta). The Core 5 120UL's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-12100F (0.7% delta) and Intel Core i5-9500 (1.1% delta), but it also trails the Intel Core 3 304 by 1.1%.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design generations. The Core 5 120UL uses Raptor Lake architecture with the codename Raptor Lake-PS, built on Intel's 10 nm process. The Core 7 360 uses Wildcat Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process. This process node difference is substantial and explains much of the performance gap, particularly in single-threaded and power-sensitive workloads.

Core counts differ in an interesting way. The Core 5 120UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Despite having fewer cores and no hyper-threading, the Core 7 360 wins every multi-threaded benchmark in the head-to-head data. This indicates that the newer architecture's per-core efficiency more than compensates for the raw core count disadvantage.

Cache configurations also differ significantly. The Core 5 120UL has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 360 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 6 MB of shared L3. The Core 7 360's per-core cache is larger, which helps explain its strong single-threaded scores. The Core 5 120UL's larger total L3 (12 MB versus 6 MB) does not translate into a benchmark win in any recorded test.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 5 120UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus. The Core 7 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but only has a single-channel memory bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core 5 120UL's memory bandwidth is not listed in the database, so a direct comparison is not possible from the data. Despite the single-channel limitation, the Core 7 360 still outperforms in all memory-sensitive benchmarks recorded.

The integrated graphics differ. The Core 5 120UL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units. The Core 7 360 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. No graphics benchmarks are recorded in the head-to-head data, so the practical difference remains unmeasured here.

Socket and form factor also separate these chips. The Core 5 120UL uses Intel Socket 1700 and is classified as a desktop part. The Core 7 360 uses Intel BGA 1516 and is classified as a mobile part. This means the Core 5 120UL is intended for socketed desktop builds, while the Core 7 360 is designed for soldered mobile applications. Both have a 15 W TDP and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The Core 7 360's PCIe configuration offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU, while the Core 5 120UL offers Gen 4 with 8 lanes. The Core 7 360 has a recorded launch MSRP of $426. The Core 5 120UL has no listed launch MSRP in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the Intel Core 7 360 is the faster processor in nearly every measurable way. It wins 16 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, including every Cinebench test, every PassMark test except integer math, and all single-threaded workloads. The margins range from 22.8% to 60.8%, which are substantial gaps, not marginal differences.

The Core 5 120UL's only win comes in PassMark integer math, where it leads by 11.2%. That single result does little to offset the broader pattern. If the workload is heavily integer-oriented and the Core 5 120UL's specific instruction scheduling happens to align, it can win that one test. But for general computing, rendering, encryption, compression, physics simulation, or any single-threaded task, the Core 7 360 is the clear choice based on recorded data.

The Core 7 360 also sits higher in the database's percentile ranking (72nd versus 68th) and has a significantly higher average benchmark score (18374 versus 13594). Its nearest rivals include the Core i3-13100 and Core i3-14100, which suggests it competes with recent desktop quad-core parts despite being a mobile chip. The Core 5 120UL's nearest rivals include older desktop parts like the Core i5-9500.

For a builder choosing between these two, the decision depends on platform. The Core 5 120UL fits Socket 1700 desktop boards, while the Core 7 360 uses BGA 1516, which means it is not a drop-in replacement for any socketed motherboard. The Core 7 360's performance advantage is real and consistent, but it only matters if the platform supports it.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 5 120UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: Does the Core 5 120UL ever beat the Core 7 360 in any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins PassMark integer math with a score of 38060 versus 34238, an 11.2% advantage. It loses all other 16 recorded head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: How large is the single-threaded performance gap?

A: In PassMark single thread, the Core 7 360 scores 4274 versus 2080, a 51.3% lead. In Cinebench R23 single core, the Core 7 360 scores 1924 versus 1266, a 34.2% lead.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 5 120UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus. The Core 7 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus and a recorded bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The Core 5 120UL uses Intel's 10 nm process. The Core 7 360 uses Intel's 3 nm process.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core 7 360 boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the Core 5 120UL boosts to 4.60 GHz. The base clocks are 1.50 GHz for the Core 7 360 and 1.30 GHz for the Core 5 120UL.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 360 wins across the vast majority of workload categories. In rendering and multi-threaded compute, it leads by 34.2% in every Cinebench test (R15, R20, R23, both single and multi core). In data compression, it scores 142877 versus 109090, a 23.6% lead. In data encryption, it scores 11164 versus 7685, a 31.2% lead. In extended instruction workloads, it leads by 58%. In prime number finding, it leads by 60.8%. In floating point math, it leads by 41.5%. In physics simulation, it leads by 33.5%. In random string sorting, it leads by 22.8%. In multi-threaded PassMark, it leads by 32.1%. In single-threaded PassMark, it leads by 51.3%.

The Intel Core 5 120UL wins exactly one category: integer math. Its score of 38060 beats the Core 7 360's 34238 by 11.2%. This is a narrow but real advantage. For workloads that are dominated by integer arithmetic, such as certain database operations or compression algorithms that rely on integer branches, the Core 5 120UL can outperform the Core 7 360. However, the data compression test, which often uses integer operations, still goes to the Core 7 360 by 23.6%, so this integer math win does not translate to a broader pattern.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two processors differ in the database:

| Specification | Intel Core 5 120UL | Intel Core 7 360 |

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

| Cores | 10 | 6 |

| Threads | 12 | 6 |

| Base Clock | 1.30 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Wildcat Lake |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-PS | Wildcat Lake |

| Generation | Core 5 (Raptor Lake-PS) | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 59.7 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 80EU | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2024-04-07 | 2026-04-15 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $426 |

| Part Number | unknown | SAE3E |

Both processors share a 15 W TDP, Intel as the foundry, no ECC memory support, locked multipliers, and active production status. The Core 7 360's later release date and smaller process node align with its superior benchmark performance across nearly all recorded tests.