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

Intel Core i5-10400F and Intel Core 5 120UL occupy the same percentile rank among all CPUs (68th), yet their benchmark profiles diverge sharply. The i5-10400F wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Core 5 120UL secures four wins, mostly in specialized workloads. The data shows a clear split: the older Comet Lake desktop chip dominates sustained multi-threaded rendering and general-purpose integer tasks, while the newer Raptor Lake-PS part counters with efficiency-oriented bursts and specific encryption and physics workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-10400F takes a commanding lead across the Cinebench suite, which stresses sustained multi-core and single-core rendering. Its wins span every Cinebench version recorded: R15 multicore (1036 vs 904), R15 singlecore (146 vs 127), R20 multicore (4318 vs 3769), R20 singlecore (609 vs 531), R23 multicore (10283 vs 8974), and R23 singlecore (1451 vs 1266). The margin is consistent, hovering around 14.6% to 15% in each case.

The Core 5 120UL counters in four specific Passmark subtests. Its largest victory comes in data encryption, scoring 7685 against 4100, a 46.6% advantage. It also wins in prime number finding (47 vs 35, a 25.5% gap), physics (807 vs 696, a 13.8% edge), and floating point math (26311 vs 25956, a narrow 1.3% margin). These wins suggest the 120UL handles certain algorithmic patterns and math-heavy operations more efficiently relative to its core count.

The i5-10400F reclaims ground in data compression, scoring 185944 versus 109090, a 70.5% lead. It also dominates extended instructions (12500 vs 5203, a 140.2% advantage) and random string sorting (23185 vs 13610, a 70.4% gap). In integer math, the i5 leads 41471 to 38060, a 9% margin. The multithread Passmark score favors the i5 at 12115 versus 10558, a 14.7% difference, and single-thread Passmark also goes to the i5 at 2541 versus 2080, a 22.2% advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel lineages. The i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake architecture on a 14 nm process node, while the Core 5 120UL uses Raptor Lake on a 10 nm node. The process difference correlates with power characteristics: the i5-10400F has a 65 W TDP, whereas the 120UL sips power at 15 W TDP, a substantial gap that explains the 120UL's efficiency-oriented design.

Core counts differ significantly. The i5-10400F packs 6 cores and 12 threads, while the 120UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, meaning the 120UL has more physical cores but the same thread count due to its hybrid configuration. Clock speeds tell a complementary story: the i5-10400F runs at a 2.90 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost, while the 120UL has a much lower 1.30 GHz base but a higher 4.60 GHz boost. This explains why the 120UL can win in bursty single-thread tasks but loses sustained workloads.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The i5-10400F has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The 120UL has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and the same 12 MB shared L3. The larger per-core L2 cache on the 120UL likely contributes to its wins in encryption and physics, which benefit from localized data reuse.

Memory support differs as well. The i5-10400F supports DDR4 only with dual-channel memory and a recorded bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The 120UL supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory, though no bandwidth figure is recorded. PCIe generation and lane counts also differ: the i5-10400F offers Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes, while the 120UL offers Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes. The 120UL also includes integrated Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units, whereas the i5-10400F has no integrated graphics (the F suffix). Both use different sockets: Socket 1200 for the i5, Socket 1700 for the 120UL.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive result is in Passmark extended instructions, where the i5-10400F scores 12500 against the 120UL's 5203, a 140.2% advantage. This is the largest percentage gap in the entire comparison and indicates the i5's instruction set handling is far more robust for workloads that leverage advanced CPU extensions. Data compression shows a similar pattern, with the i5 reaching 185944 versus 109090, a 70.5% lead, and random string sorting nearly identical at 70.4% in favor of the i5 (23185 vs 13610).

The Cinebench results are uniformly one-sided. Across all six recorded Cinebench tests, the i5-10400F wins by margins between 14.6% and 15%. The R20 multicore score of 4318 versus 3769 and the R23 multicore score of 10283 versus 8974 both demonstrate that the i5's higher base clock and 65 W TDP translate directly into sustained rendering performance. Single-core Cinebench R15 shows the i5 at 146 versus 127, a 15% lead, which is notable because the 120UL has a higher boost clock (4.60 GHz vs 4.30 GHz). This suggests the i5's architecture extracts more work per clock in this specific test.

The 120UL's wins are narrower in absolute terms but reveal specific strengths. Data encryption shows the 120UL at 7685 versus 4100, a 46.6% margin, making it the 120UL's largest win. Prime number finding gives the 120UL a 25.5% edge (47 vs 35). Physics simulation favors the 120UL by 13.8% (807 vs 696), and floating point math is nearly a tie, with the 120UL ahead by just 1.3% (26311 vs 25956). These results indicate the 120UL's newer architecture handles certain mathematical operations and encryption algorithms more efficiently per watt.

In multithread Passmark, the i5-10400F leads 12115 to 10558, a 14.7% margin that mirrors its Cinebench performance. Single-thread Passmark shows an even larger gap at 22.2% (2541 vs 2080), reinforcing that the i5-10400F is faster in most single-threaded scenarios despite the 120UL's higher boost clock. Integer math also favors the i5 at 41471 versus 38060, a 9% difference.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload type. The Intel Core i5-10400F is the stronger choice for rendering, compression, sorting, and general multi-threaded productivity. Its consistent 14.6% to 15% lead across every Cinebench test, combined with a 70.5% advantage in data compression and a 140.2% lead in extended instructions, makes it the superior processor for content creation and heavy computational tasks. The 65 W TDP and 2.90 GHz base clock provide sustained performance that the 120UL cannot match despite its higher boost clock.

The Intel Core 5 120UL wins only in encryption, prime number finding, physics, and floating point math. For users whose primary workloads involve data encryption, the 120UL's 46.6% advantage is substantial. Its 15 W TDP also makes it suitable for thermally constrained systems, though the benchmark data does not include power efficiency metrics. The 120UL's 10 cores and 12 threads, combined with its larger L2 cache, give it an edge in specific algorithmic patterns, but these wins are narrow except for encryption.

For anyone prioritizing raw performance in Cinebench, Passmark multithread, or single-thread workloads, the i5-10400F is the clear winner. For specialized encryption-heavy or physics-simulation tasks, the 120UL offers measurable benefits. The 120UL also provides integrated graphics and DDR5 support, which are absent from the i5-10400F, but these features do not appear in the benchmark scores. The i5-10400F's 68th percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 14185 versus the 120UL's 13594 (both at the 68th percentile) show that the i5 outperforms on average despite the 120UL's newer architecture.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core i5-10400F wins 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 5 120UL wins 4.

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

A: The largest gap is in Passmark extended instructions, where the i5-10400F scores 12500 versus the 120UL's 5203, a 140.2% difference in favor of the i5.

Q: In which workloads does the Core 5 120UL outperform the i5-10400F?

A: The 120UL wins in data encryption (7685 vs 4100, a 46.6% lead), prime number finding (47 vs 35, a 25.5% edge), physics simulation (807 vs 696, a 13.8% margin), and floating point math (26311 vs 25956, a 1.3% advantage).

Q: How do they compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The i5-10400F scores 10283, while the 120UL scores 8974, giving the i5 a 14.6% advantage.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The i5-10400F has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the 120UL has 10 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Do these processors support the same memory types?

A: No, the i5-10400F supports DDR4 only, while the 120UL supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory.