Intel Core 5 120UL vs Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a clear split between these two desktop processors. The Intel Core 5 120UL takes the majority of the head-to-head tests, winning 12 of the 17 recorded comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL secures 5 wins. However, the margins tell a more nuanced story than the raw win count.

In the Cinebench suite, the Core 5 120UL maintains a consistent but modest lead across all six tests. The multicore results show the smallest gaps: R15 multicore scores 904 versus 881, a 2.6% advantage; R20 multicore scores 3769 versus 3671, a 2.7% edge; and R23 multicore scores 8974 versus 8742, again 2.7% ahead. Single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern, with R15 at 127 versus 124 (2.4%), R20 at 531 versus 518 (2.5%), and R23 at 1266 versus 1234 (2.6%). These are consistent, repeatable wins, but they are not transformative differences.

The Passmark suite shows where each processor truly excels. The Core 5 120UL dominates several memory and compression workloads. Data compression favors the Core 5 by a substantial 16.1%, with scores of 109090 versus 93961. Data encryption swings even further, with the Core 5 winning by 20.9% (7685 versus 6354). Random string sorting produces the largest win for the Core 5 at 21.7% (13610 versus 11179). Physics testing also leans heavily toward the Core 5, which posts 807 against 718, a 12.4% margin. Prime number finding is closer, with 47 versus 44, a 6.8% edge. The overall Passmark multithread score goes to the Core 5 at 10558 versus 10285, a 2.7% margin that mirrors the Cinebench multicore results.

The Core Ultra 3 105UL, meanwhile, claims its victories in floating-point and integer math workloads. Floating-point math shows the Ultra 3 ahead by 14.4%, scoring 30750 against 26311. Integer math and extended instructions both show a 7.6% advantage for the Ultra 3, with scores of 41171 versus 38060 and 5634 versus 5203, respectively. The most dramatic difference appears in the single-thread Passmark test, where the Ultra 3 records 3382 versus 2080, a remarkable 38.5% lead. This is by far the largest delta in the entire comparison and indicates a fundamentally different performance profile.

It is importantly the overall average benchmark scores place these processors close together: the Core 5 120UL averages 13594, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL averages 13061. Both sit at the 68th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The nearest rivals for the Core 5 include the Intel Core i3-12100F (0.7% higher) and the Intel Core 3 N355 (0.8% higher), while the Core Ultra 3 105UL sits near the Intel Core i5-9400F (0.2% higher) and the Intel Core i7-10750H (0.3% higher).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and use different manufacturing processes. The Intel Core 5 120UL is built on Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS codename, and uses a 10 nm process node. The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL belongs to the Meteor Lake family, with the Meteor Lake-PS codename, and uses a smaller 7 nm node. Both are fabricated by Intel, but the process difference is meaningful for power and density characteristics.

Core and thread counts differ as well. The Core 5 120UL provides 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL offers 8 cores and 10 threads. This two-core and two-thread advantage for the Core 5 likely contributes to its multicore wins, though the margins remain modest. Clock speeds also favor the Core 5, which has a base clock of 1.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Core Ultra 3 starts higher at 1.50 GHz base but tops out lower at 4.20 GHz boost.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Core 5 uses 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 12 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 3 has larger per-core allocations: 112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2, but a smaller 10 MB shared L3. The combined L2 plus L3 picture favors the Core 5 in total capacity, but the Ultra 3's larger per-core L2 may benefit certain workloads.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 5 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 3 supports DDR5 only, with the exact support depending on the motherboard. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The Core Ultra 3 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while no such figure is recorded for the Core 5. Both processors use PCIe Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes and do not support ECC memory.

The integrated graphics differ significantly. The Core 5 pairs with Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units, while the Core Ultra 3 uses Arc Xe-LPG graphics with 48 execution units. This suggests the Core 5 may have an advantage in graphics-heavy tasks, though the database does not include specific graphics benchmarks. The Core Ultra 3 carries a launch MSRP of $295, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Core 5.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 120UL is the clear choice for workloads that stress memory operations, compression, encryption, and general multithreaded throughput. Its wins in data compression (16.1% ahead), data encryption (20.9% ahead), and random string sorting (21.7% ahead) point to strong memory subsystem performance. The physics test result, 12.4% higher, also suggests an advantage in simulation or physics-based applications. For users running archive tools, encryption software, or database-style workloads that involve heavy string manipulation, the data consistently favors the Core 5.

The Core 5 also holds a steady, if narrow, lead across all Cinebench versions, both single-core and multicore. These results indicate that for rendering tasks in applications like Cinema 4D, the Core 5 will deliver slightly better performance, typically in the 2.4% to 2.7% range. The multithread Passmark score (10558 versus 10285) confirms this trend across a broader set of parallel workloads.

The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL wins in a different domain: raw math throughput. Its 38.5% advantage in single-thread Passmark is striking and suggests that for lightly threaded applications that depend on a single core's efficiency, the Ultra 3 is substantially faster. The floating-point math win of 14.4% and the integer math win of 7.6% indicate that scientific computing, financial modeling, or any workload with heavy arithmetic operations will run better on the Ultra 3. The extended instructions win of 7.6% further supports this, as such workloads often leverage SIMD and other specialized instruction sets.

For users who prioritize single-thread responsiveness, such as in older games or legacy applications that do not scale across cores, the Ultra 3's 3382 single-thread score versus 2080 makes it the stronger option. However, the Core 5's higher boost clock of 4.60 GHz versus 4.20 GHz might suggest otherwise, but the recorded benchmark data clearly shows the Ultra 3 winning that test by a wide margin, likely due to architectural efficiency rather than raw clock speed.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multicore performance?

A: The Intel Core 5 120UL wins all multicore benchmarks. Cinebench R23 multicore scores 8974 versus 8742, a 2.7% advantage, and the Passmark multithread score is 10558 versus 10285, also 2.7% ahead.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL faster in single-threaded tasks?

A: Yes, significantly. The Passmark single-thread test shows the Ultra 3 at 3382 versus 2080 for the Core 5, a 38.5% lead. However, in Cinebench single-core tests, the Core 5 wins by about 2.4% to 2.6%.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 5 120UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL has 8 cores and 10 threads.

Q: How do these processors compare in memory-sensitive workloads?

A: The Core 5 120UL dominates. Data compression scores 109090 versus 93961 (16.1% ahead), data encryption scores 7685 versus 6354 (20.9% ahead), and random string sorting scores 13610 versus 11179 (21.7% ahead).

Q: What are the integrated graphics specifications?

A: The Core 5 120UL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL uses Arc Xe-LPG graphics with 48 execution units.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 5 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 3 supports DDR5 only, with the specific support depending on the motherboard.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several specification fields. The Core 5 120UL uses the Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL uses the Intel Socket 1851. This means they are not interchangeable in existing motherboards. The Core 5 has a Raptor Lake architecture with a 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 3 uses Meteor Lake on a 7 nm node. Core counts differ at 10 versus 8, and threads at 12 versus 10. Base clocks are 1.30 GHz for the Core 5 and 1.50 GHz for the Ultra 3, while boost clocks are 4.60 GHz and 4.20 GHz, respectively.

Cache configurations vary: the Core 5 has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3; the Ultra 3 has 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 10 MB shared L3. Memory support differs, with the Core 5 accepting DDR4 and DDR5 while the Ultra 3 only accepts DDR5. The Ultra 3 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, a figure not available for the Core 5. Integrated graphics differ: 80EU Iris Xe for the Core 5 versus 48EU Arc Xe-LPG for the Ultra 3. The Ultra 3 has a launch MSRP of $295, while no MSRP is recorded for the Core 5. The part number for the Ultra 3 is SRN9D, while the Core 5's part number is listed as unknown. Both processors share a 15W TDP, dual-channel memory bus, PCIe Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes, no ECC support, and are not multiplier-unlocked.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on workload priorities. The Intel Core 5 120UL is the better all-round processor for multitasking, memory-heavy applications, and any workload that benefits from additional cores and threads. Its wins span 12 of the 17 head-to-head tests, including all Cinebench results and major Passmark categories like compression, encryption, sorting, physics, and multithread. Users who run parallel workloads, manage large datasets, or use applications that compress or encrypt data should select the Core 5.

The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL is the choice for users whose applications are dominated by arithmetic computation or single-threaded performance. The 38.5% lead in Passmark single-thread indicates a substantial advantage for legacy software, many games, and interactive applications that rely on one primary thread. The 14.4% lead in floating-point math and 7.6% leads in integer math and extended instructions make it attractive for scientific, engineering, and financial workloads that stress the math units. Its smaller core count and lower boost clock do not hinder it in these specific tasks.

Both processors occupy the same performance tier, sitting at the 68th percentile among all CPUs. The average benchmark scores differ by only 533 points (13594 versus 13061), roughly 4%. The decision ultimately comes down to whether the user values consistent multi-core throughput and memory bandwidth (Core 5) or raw single-thread speed and math execution (Ultra 3). For a desktop system handling varied daily workloads, the Core 5's broader win count makes it the safer default. For a specialized system tuned for computation, the Ultra 3's math and single-thread results are compelling.