Intel Core 5 120UL vs Intel Core 9 273PQE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a comprehensive victory for the Intel Core 9 273PQE across every single benchmark in the comparison. The Core 5 120UL does not register a single win in the 17 head-to-head tests, with the Core 9 273PQE taking all 17. The margins are substantial, but the distribution of those margins reveals distinct performance characteristics.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the Core 9 273PQE dominates multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core 9 scores 3950 against the Core 5's 904, a delta of -77.1%. The R20 multi-core test shows 16459 versus 3769, again -77.1%. R23 multi-core continues the pattern with 39190 against 8974, also -77.1%. These consistent deltas indicate a proportional advantage in multi-threaded rendering that scales uniformly across the different Cinebench versions.

Single-core performance tells a similar story, though with a slightly smaller gap. The Core 9 delivers 557 in Cinebench R15 single-core versus 127 for the Core 5, a -77.2% delta. In R20 single-core, the scores are 2323 and 531, a -77.1% delta. R23 single-core shows 5532 against 1266, again -77.1%. The near-identical deltas across both single and multi-core tests suggest the clock speed and architectural efficiency advantages of the Core 9 are consistent regardless of thread count.

The Passmark suite shows the widest variance in deltas. The most dramatic gap appears in extended instructions, where the Core 9 scores 38743 versus the Core 5's 5203, a -86.6% delta. This indicates a massive advantage in SIMD and vector processing workloads. Data compression follows closely with 585752 against 109090, a -81.4% delta. Floating point math shows 125546 versus 26311, a -79% delta. Integer math delivers 164629 against 38060, a -76.9% delta.

The smallest gaps appear in single-threaded Passmark tests. Passmark single-thread shows 4573 versus 2080, a -54.5% delta, and the duplicate singlethread test shows the same figures. This is notably smaller than the Cinebench single-core deltas, suggesting the Passmark single-thread workload is less sensitive to the architectural differences between the two processors. The physics test shows 2754 against 807, a -70.7% delta, while random string sorting shows 53167 versus 13610, a -74.4% delta. Prime number finding shows 198 versus 47, a -76.3% delta, and encryption shows 29636 against 7685, a -74.1% delta.

The average benchmark score amplifies the overall gap. The Core 9 273PQE holds an average score of 66099, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 5 120UL averages 13594, placing it in the 68th percentile. That places the Core 9 roughly 4.9 times higher in average score, a margin that reflects its dominant position across the entire test battery.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same Intel Socket 1700 and are both built on a 10 nm process node at Intel's foundry, but their internal architectures diverge significantly. The Core 5 120UL uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS codename, while the Core 9 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename. The database does not list a formal architecture name for the Core 9, but its Bartlett Lake codename indicates a distinct design lineage from the Raptor Lake-PS used in the Core 5.

Core and thread counts differ substantially. The Core 5 provides 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Core 9 offers 12 cores and 24 threads. The Core 9's thread count is double its core count, indicating simultaneous multithreading (SMT) support that the Core 5's thread count of 12 against 10 cores does not fully match. This partially explains the multi-threaded benchmark dominance of the Core 9, though the clock speed differences amplify the effect further.

Clock speeds show a major separation. The Core 5 has a base clock of 1.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Core 9 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.90 GHz. The Core 9's base clock is 2.10 GHz higher, and its boost clock is 1.30 GHz higher. This contributes directly to the single-threaded performance advantage observed in the benchmarks.

Cache hierarchies differ in both L2 and L3. Both processors use 80 KB of L1 cache per core, but the Core 5 has 1.25 MB of L2 per core while the Core 9 has 2 MB per core. The L3 cache shows an even larger gap: 12 MB shared on the Core 5 versus 36 MB shared on the Core 9. The Core 9's L3 cache is three times larger, which benefits workloads with large working sets.

Memory support is similar at the specification level, with both supporting DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. However, the Core 9 adds a measured memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, a figure not recorded for the Core 5. The Core 9 also supports ECC memory, while the Core 5 does not. PCIe capabilities differ markedly: the Core 5 provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 9 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Core 9's PCIe Gen 5 support doubles the lane count and doubles the per-lane bandwidth compared to Gen 4.

Integrated graphics differ between the two. The Core 5 uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units, while the Core 9 uses UHD Graphics 770. The Core 5's Iris Xe design targets more capable integrated graphics performance, while the Core 9's UHD 770 is a more conventional integrated solution. The Core 5 is rated at a TDP of 15 watts, while the Core 9 is rated at 125 watts, a significant power envelope difference that correlates with the Core 9's higher clock speeds and additional features.

Release dates place the two in different market windows. The Core 5 120UL launched on 2024-04-07, while the Core 9 273PQE launched on 2026-03-08, nearly two years later. The Core 9 carries a launch MSRP of $589, while no MSRP is recorded for the Core 5. Both processors are listed as Active in production status and are unlocked multipliers are not available for either, with both marked as multiplierUnlocked false.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded benchmark data, the Intel Core 9 273PQE wins in every measured category. The question is not whether it wins, but how its win margins vary across workload types. The largest advantages appear in extended instructions (-86.6%) and data compression (-81.4%), indicating that SIMD-heavy and data-intensive workloads benefit most from the Core 9's architecture. The smallest advantage appears in single-threaded Passmark tests (-54.5%), which narrows the gap but still leaves the Core 9 clearly ahead.

The Core 5 120UL's strongest relative performance comes in the Passmark single-thread test, where its 2080 score trails the Core 9's 4573 by 54.5%. In Cinebench single-core tests, the gap widens to around 77%, so the Core 5's single-thread showing is better in Passmark's workload than in Cinebench's. The physics test shows a -70.7% delta, which is the second-smallest gap, suggesting the Core 5 handles that particular workload relatively better than others.

The Core 5's 15-watt TDP (versus 125 watts for the Core 9) indicates a much lower power envelope, though the database does not record direct power consumption measurements. The Core 5's Iris Xe Graphics with 80 EU provides a more capable integrated GPU than the Core 9's UHD Graphics 770. For systems relying solely on integrated graphics, the Core 5 may offer a better visual experience despite its compute disadvantage.

The Core 9's strengths align with heavy multi-threaded and SIMD workloads. Its 12 cores with 24 threads, 36 MB of L3 cache, and 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth position it for content creation, data compression, encryption, and floating-point intensive tasks. Its PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes supports high-bandwidth peripherals. The Core 5, with its lower power draw and more capable integrated graphics, suits compact or thermally constrained systems where the CPU's compute throughput is secondary.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core 5 120UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. The Core 9's thread count is exactly double its core count, indicating full SMT support.

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

A: The Core 9 273PQE wins all single-core benchmarks. In Passmark single-thread, it scores 4573 against 2080, a -54.5% delta. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 5532 against 1266, a -77.1% delta.

Q: What is the cache difference between the two processors?

A: Both use 80 KB of L1 per core. The Core 5 has 1.25 MB of L2 per core and 12 MB of shared L3. The Core 9 has 2 MB of L2 per core and 36 MB of shared L3, making its L3 three times larger.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel configurations. However, the Core 9 additionally records a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s and supports ECC memory, while the Core 5 does not support ECC.

Q: Which processor has better integrated graphics?

A: The Core 5 120UL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units, while the Core 9 273PQE uses UHD Graphics 770. The database does not record benchmark scores for integrated graphics, so the comparison is based on specifications only.

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

A: The Core 9 273PQE has an average benchmark score of 66099, placing it in the 93rd percentile. The Core 5 120UL has an average score of 13594, placing it in the 68th percentile. The Core 9's average is approximately 4.9 times higher.

The Verdict

The data presents an unambiguous hierarchy. The Intel Core 9 273PQE outperforms the Intel Core 5 120UL in every one of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The smallest margin is 54.5% in Passmark single-thread, and the largest is 86.6% in extended instructions. For any workload measured in the database, the Core 9 is the faster processor.

The Core 5 120UL's role is defined by its non-performance characteristics. Its 15-watt TDP, Iris Xe Graphics with 80 EU, and lower clock speeds position it for systems where power draw and integrated graphics capability matter more than raw compute. The Core 9's 125-watt TDP and higher specifications target users who prioritize processing throughput.

The Core 9 273PQE's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus (average score 66159, delta -0.1%), AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (65914, delta 0.3%), and Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus (66855, delta -1.1%). The Core 5 120UL's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-12100F (13494, delta 0.7%), Intel Core 3 N355 (13492, delta 0.8%), and Intel Core i5-9500 (13452, delta 1.1%). These rival comparisons place both processors in their respective performance tiers, with the Core 9 competing at a much higher level.

System builders should select based on workload requirements. The Core 9 suits applications that demand the highest multi-threaded throughput, large cache capacities, ECC memory support, and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity. The Core 5 suits low-power systems where integrated graphics quality and thermal efficiency take precedence. The recorded data does not support any scenario where the Core 5 matches the Core 9 in raw performance.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 120UL | Intel Core 9 273PQE |

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

| Cores | 10 | 12 |

| Threads | 12 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 1.30 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 5.90 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 125 W |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-PS | Bartlett Lake |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Not listed |

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

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 89.6 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 770 |

| Release Date | 2024-04-07 | 2026-03-08 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $589 |

| Part Number | Unknown | SA4Q9 |