Intel Core 5 120UL vs Intel Core i5-10400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results paint a fascinating, split personality picture. The Intel Core 5 120UL wins the majority of the direct comparisons, taking 10 of 17 recorded tests, but the Intel Core i5-10400 counters with decisive victories in several specialized workloads. The most striking outcome is in data compression, where the i5-10400 posts a score of 187207 against the 120UL's 109090, a massive 71.6% advantage. This is the single largest margin in either direction across the entire comparison. Similarly, in extended instructions, the i5-10400 nearly doubles the 120UL's output, scoring 12501 versus 5203, a 140.3% difference that dwarfs every other gap.

However, the 120UL answers back in encryption. The data encryption test shows the 120UL at 7685 versus the i5-10400's 4078, a 46.9% lead. This is a workload where the newer architecture's capabilities clearly shine through, and it is the second-largest proportional margin recorded. The pattern suggests that the 120UL excels at tasks that benefit from modern instruction-level efficiency, while the i5-10400 retains a substantial edge in memory-heavy or legacy-optimized operations.

In the Cinebench suite, the 120UL wins every single iteration. The R15 multicore result is 904 versus 838, a 7.3% lead, and the single-core test shows 127 versus 118, a 7.1% advantage. The R20 results mirror this: 3769 versus 3492 in multicore and 531 versus 493 in single-core, both roughly 7.2% to 7.3% gaps. The R23 test continues the trend with 8974 versus 8316 in multicore and 1266 versus 1174 in single-core. These are consistent, narrow margins that indicate a genuine generational improvement in rendering and general compute efficiency rather than a single isolated win.

The PassMark suite tells a different story. The i5-10400 wins multithread with 12006 against 10558, a 13.7% advantage, and integer math with 41715 versus 38060, a 9.6% lead. The random string sorting test goes to the i5-10400 at 23206 versus 13610, a 70.5% gap. Single-thread performance, surprisingly, also favors the i5-10400 at 2560 versus 2080, a 23.1% margin. This is notable because the 120UL has a higher boost clock, yet the older chip still dominates in this particular PassMark measurement.

The 120UL counters with wins in find prime numbers (47 versus 34, a 27.7% lead), physics (807 versus 669, a 17.1% edge), and floating-point math (26311 versus 26080, a narrow 0.9% margin). The physics result is particularly interesting, as it suggests the 120UL handles simulation-style workloads more effectively despite losing the broader multithread test. The floating-point win is razor-thin, almost a statistical tie, but it still counts in the 120UL's favor.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-10400 holds the higher average at 14037, while the Intel Core 5 120UL sits at 13594. This places the i5-10400 roughly 3.2% ahead in overall average performance, despite losing more individual head-to-head tests.

Q: How does the 120UL compare to its closest rivals?

A: The 120UL's nearest rival is the Intel Core i3-12100F, which it beats by 0.7% in average score. It also edges out the Intel Core 3 N355 by 0.8% and the Intel Core i5-9500 by 1.1%, while trailing the Intel Core 3 304 by 1.1%. The i5-10400, by comparison, sits within 1% of several server-class chips, including the AMD EPYC 7552 and Intel Xeon 6756E.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap in the comparison?

A: The extended instructions test shows the largest delta at 140.3% in favor of the i5-10400. The second-largest is data compression at 71.6%, also favoring the i5-10400. The 120UL's largest win is 46.9% in data encryption.

Q: Which processor wins the Cinebench R23 multicore test?

A: The Intel Core 5 120UL wins with 8974 points against the i5-10400's 8316, a 7.3% advantage. This is consistent with its wins across the entire Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 suite.

Q: Are there any tests where the two processors are nearly identical?

A: The floating-point math test is extremely close, with the 120UL scoring 26311 and the i5-10400 scoring 26080, a difference of only 0.9%. This is the narrowest margin in the entire head-to-head set.

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread PassMark score?

A: The i5-10400 wins this test decisively with 2560 points against the 120UL's 2080, a 23.1% lead. This result is counterintuitive given the 120UL's higher boost clock, but the recorded data is unambiguous.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-10400 is the clear choice for data-heavy workloads. Its 71.6% lead in data compression and 70.5% lead in random string sorting indicate strong memory bandwidth utilization and efficient handling of large in-memory datasets. The 140.3% margin in extended instructions further cements its position for cryptography, SIMD-heavy code, or legacy x86 optimizations. The integer math win at 9.6% and the multithread win at 13.7% round out a profile suited for general productivity, database operations, and traditional desktop multitasking.

The 120UL, meanwhile, is the winner for rendering and physics simulation. Its consistent 7% to 8% lead across all Cinebench iterations makes it the better option for 3D rendering, video encoding, and any workload that scales with modern CPU architecture. The 46.9% encryption advantage is significant for security-related tasks, VPN throughput, or encrypted storage operations. The find prime numbers win at 27.7% suggests superior integer throughput in specific algorithmic patterns, and the physics win at 17.1% points to better simulation performance in gaming or scientific contexts.

For single-threaded PassMark performance, the i5-10400 wins by 23.1%, which is a surprising result that may matter for legacy applications that rely on high-frequency single-core execution. However, the 120UL counters with a 7.3% single-core win in Cinebench R23, indicating that the outcome depends heavily on the specific benchmark methodology.

Specification Differences

The core counts are the most obvious divergence. The i5-10400 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the 120UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. Both support 12 threads, but the 120UL achieves this with a hybrid core arrangement, while the i5-10400 uses traditional symmetric cores. The base clock differs dramatically: the i5-10400 runs at 2.90 GHz, while the 120UL is rated at just 1.30 GHz. The boost clocks reverse this relationship, with the 120UL reaching 4.60 GHz versus the i5-10400's 4.30 GHz.

The TDP is a major differentiator. The i5-10400 is rated at 65 watts, while the 120UL sips just 15 watts. This makes the 120UL far more suitable for compact or passively cooled systems. The sockets are incompatible: the i5-10400 uses Intel Socket 1200, while the 120UL uses Intel Socket 1700. Memory support also diverges, with the i5-10400 limited to DDR4 and the 120UL supporting both DDR4 and DDR5. The memory bandwidth is recorded at 42.7 GB/s for the i5-10400, while the 120UL has no recorded bandwidth figure.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The i5-10400 offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes, while the 120UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes. The integrated graphics are different tiers: the i5-10400 has UHD Graphics 630, and the 120UL has Iris Xe Graphics 80EU. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both are listed as Active in production status.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap spans two generations. The i5-10400 is built on Comet Lake, a 14 nm process from Intel, while the 120UL uses Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS variant, on a 10 nm node. This process shrink explains some of the efficiency gains in the 120UL, particularly its dramatically lower TDP despite having more cores.

The cache hierarchy is markedly different. The i5-10400 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The 120UL has 80 KB of L1 per core and a much larger 1.25 MB of L2 per core, but the same 12 MB shared L3. The larger L2 cache is likely a factor in the 120UL's encryption and physics wins, as more data can be held closer to the execution units.

The release dates are four years apart. The i5-10400 launched on 2020-04-29, while the 120UL arrived on 2024-04-07. The 120UL also supports a wider range of memory technologies with its DDR4 and DDR5 support, whereas the i5-10400 is locked to DDR4. The PCIe generation upgrade from Gen 3 to Gen 4 on the 120UL provides higher per-lane bandwidth, though the 120UL offers fewer CPU lanes (8 versus 16). The i5-10400 has a recorded part number of SRH3CSRH78, while the 120UL's part number is listed as unknown.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear use-case split. The Intel Core i5-10400 is the better choice for workloads involving data compression, string sorting, integer math, and extended instruction sets. Its 140.3% advantage in extended instructions and 71.6% lead in data compression are too large to ignore for any application that depends on these operations. The 23.1% single-thread PassMark win also makes it appealing for legacy software that is sensitive to that specific measurement.

The Intel Core 5 120UL is the better option for rendering, physics, encryption, and power-sensitive deployments. Its consistent 7.3% lead across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 shows a broad architectural advantage in modern compute workloads. The 46.9% encryption win is substantial, and the 17.1% physics lead matters for simulation. The 15-watt TDP, against the i5-10400's 65 watts, makes it the obvious pick for small-form-factor or fanless systems, and the DDR5 support future-proofs memory upgrades.

Both chips sit at the 68th percentile among all CPUs, and their average scores are close (14037 versus 13594). The i5-10400 wins 7 head-to-head tests, the 120UL wins 10. The verdict depends entirely on whether the user's workload aligns with the 120UL's rendering and encryption strengths or the i5-10400's compression and legacy instruction advantages. There is no universal winner, only the right tool for a specific job.