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

The Intel Core 5 120UL and Intel Core 9 273PTE occupy different tiers within the same Intel Socket 1700 platform, and the benchmark data shows a decisive performance separation. The Core 9 273PTE wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with the smallest advantage appearing in single-threaded workloads and the largest in extended instruction throughput. The Core 5 120UL, despite its lower scores, maintains a distinct position as a low-power desktop part with a 15 TDP, while the Core 9 273PTE operates at a 45 TDP. The Core 9 273PTE also posts an average benchmark score of 31143, placing it in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Core 5 120UL averages 13594 and sits in the 68th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The multi-core Cinebench results establish the overall hierarchy. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core 9 273PTE scores 2060 against the Core 5 120UL’s 904, a 56.1% deficit for the smaller chip. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the Core 9 scores 8586 versus 3769, and in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the Core 9 posts 20445 against 8974. Each of these multicore results shows a delta of approximately 56.1%, indicating a consistent scaling advantage for the Core 9 across rendering workloads.

Single-core performance shows a similar but slightly narrower gap. The Core 9 273PTE scores 290 in Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core 5 120UL scores 127, a 56.2% difference. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Core 9 scores 1212 versus 531, and in Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core 9 scores 2886 against 1266, both at a 56.1% delta. The PassMark single-thread test shows the smallest overall gap: the Core 9 scores 3433 while the Core 5 scores 2080, a 39.4% difference. This indicates the Core 9’s higher boost clock of 5.50 GHz, compared to the Core 5’s 4.60 GHz, contributes to a relatively stronger single-core result, but still a commanding lead.

Data compression and encryption workloads reveal where the Core 9’s additional cores matter most. In PassMark data compression, the Core 9 scores 258704 against 109090, a 57.8% delta. In data encryption, the Core 9 scores 14253 versus 7685, a 46.1% delta. The encryption gap is smaller than compression, suggesting that per-core efficiency plays a larger role there, while compression benefits more from the thread count advantage.

The largest relative wins for the Core 9 appear in extended instruction throughput and prime number finding. PassMark extended instructions shows the Core 9 scoring 15952 against 5203, a 67.4% delta. PassMark find prime numbers shows the Core 9 at 142 versus 47, a 66.9% delta. These workloads are highly sensitive to both core count and instruction-level parallelism, and the Core 9’s 12 cores and 24 threads versus the Core 5’s 10 cores and 12 threads explains the magnitude of the gap.

Floating-point and integer math also favor the Core 9 substantially. PassMark floating point math: 60673 for the Core 9, 26311 for the Core 5, a 56.6% delta. PassMark integer math: 82411 versus 38060, a 53.8% delta. PassMark multithread: 24054 versus 10558, a 56.1% delta. PassMark physics: 1917 versus 807, a 57.9% delta. PassMark random string sorting: 28973 versus 13610, a 53% delta. In every case, the Core 9 delivers at least double the score of the Core 5, with the closest margins in integer math and random string sorting.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 273PTE wins every recorded workload, so the distinction is not about which chip wins a given test, but about the magnitude of the win and the use case that suits each part. For multi-threaded productivity tasks such as video rendering, software compilation, and data compression, the Core 9’s advantage exceeds 56% across the board. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20445 against 8974 indicates a processor that can handle sustained all-core loads with roughly 2.3 times the throughput of the Core 5.

The Core 5 120UL, while losing every test, still holds relevance in scenarios where its 15 TDP is a constraint. The data shows it scores 2080 in PassMark single-thread, which is 39.4% behind the Core 9, but that is its closest result. For basic desktop responsiveness, office applications, and light browsing, the Core 5’s single-core performance is adequate, and its lower power envelope makes it suitable for compact or thermally limited builds. The Core 5 also uses Intel Socket 1700, so it fits the same motherboards as the Core 9, but its 10 cores and 12 threads target efficiency rather than peak performance.

The Core 9 273PTE, with a 45 TDP, is the clear choice for workloads that can use its 24 threads. The PassMark multithread score of 24054 versus 10558 shows a processor designed for parallel tasks. The Core 9 also supports ECC memory, which the Core 5 does not, making it viable for error-sensitive computing environments. The Core 9’s Gen 5 PCIe with 16 lanes, versus the Core 5’s Gen 4 with 8 lanes, gives it an advantage for high-bandwidth storage and GPU connectivity.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a 10 nm process node and Intel as the foundry, but their underlying designs differ. The Core 5 120UL uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, while the Core 9 273PTE uses the Bartlett Lake codename with no specific architecture listed in the database. The Core 5 belongs to the Core 5 generation (Raptor Lake-PS), and the Core 9 belongs to the Core 9 generation (Bartlett Lake).

Core and thread counts are the primary architectural split. The Core 5 has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Core 9 has 12 cores and 24 threads. This means the Core 9 supports Hyper-Threading across all its cores, doubling the thread count, whereas the Core 5 only gains 2 extra threads over its core count. The L2 cache also differs: the Core 5 has 1.25 MB per core, while the Core 9 has 2 MB per core. The L3 cache is substantially larger on the Core 9, at 36 MB shared, compared to 12 MB shared on the Core 5.

Base and boost clocks reflect the performance tier. The Core 5 runs at 1.30 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost, while the Core 9 runs at 1.40 GHz base and 5.50 GHz boost. The Core 9’s higher clocks, combined with its larger cache and thread count, explain its benchmark dominance. Both chips use DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel support, but the Core 9 has a listed memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Core 5 does not have a bandwidth figure in the data.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 uses Iris Xe Graphics 80EU, while the Core 9 uses UHD Graphics 730. The Core 5’s Iris Xe part typically offers more execution units, but the benchmark data does not include graphics tests, so any performance comparison is not supported by the recorded numbers. The Core 9 supports ECC memory, while the Core 5 does not. The Core 9 also provides Gen 5 PCIe with 16 lanes, versus Gen 4 with 8 lanes on the Core 5.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PTE has 24 threads, while the Intel Core 5 120UL has 12 threads. The Core 9 also has 12 cores versus the Core 5’s 10 cores.

Q: What is the largest benchmark gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark extended instructions, where the Core 9 273PTE scores 15952 against the Core 5 120UL’s 5203, a 67.4% difference.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel buses. The Core 9 273PTE also supports ECC memory, which the Core 5 120UL does not.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PTE has a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 120UL has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz.

Q: What is the smallest performance difference between the two?

A: The smallest difference is in the PassMark single-thread test, where the Core 9 273PTE scores 3433 and the Core 5 120UL scores 2080, a 39.4% gap.

Q: Are both processors on the same socket?

A: Yes, both use Intel Socket 1700. The Core 5 120UL uses the Raptor Lake-PS codename, and the Core 9 273PTE uses the Bartlett Lake codename.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward choice for performance-oriented builds. The Intel Core 9 273PTE wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with an average benchmark score of 31143 that places it in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-12700F with a 0.2% higher average score, and the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS with a 0.2% higher score, meaning the Core 9 sits directly in the performance tier of those established desktop and mobile parts. The Core 9’s 12 cores, 24 threads, 36 MB L3 cache, and 5.50 GHz boost clock make it the superior option for rendering, compilation, data processing, and any workload that scales with thread count.

The Intel Core 5 120UL, with its 68th percentile ranking and average score of 13594, sits among rivals like the Intel Core i3-12100F (0.7% higher) and the Intel Core i5-9500 (1.1% higher). Its 10 cores and 12 threads, 12 MB L3 cache, and 4.60 GHz boost clock deliver roughly half the multi-threaded performance of the Core 9, as seen in the Cinebench R23 multicore score of 8974 versus 20445. For users constrained by a 15 TDP envelope, the Core 5 offers a functional desktop experience, but the benchmark results show no scenario where it outperforms the Core 9. The Core 9 273PTE carries a launch MSRP of $549, and it is the recommended part when peak throughput is the priority.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Cores | 10 | 12 |

| Threads | 12 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 1.30 GHz | 1.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 45 W |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-PS | Bartlett Lake |

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

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

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 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 730 |

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