Intel Core 5 120UL vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the most significant performance gap between the Intel Core 5 120UL and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus?

A: The largest recorded delta is in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 452 versus 47 for the Core 5 120UL, a difference of 89.6% in favor of the Ultra part. This indicates a massive advantage in integer-heavy, single-threaded computation loops.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-threaded Cinebench performance?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 6030, while the Core 5 120UL scores 1266, giving the Ultra part a 79% lead. The R15 single-core test shows a similar 79.1% gap, with scores of 607 and 127 respectively.

Q: Are there any benchmark categories where the Core 5 120UL comes out ahead?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins all 17 recorded benchmark comparisons. The Core 5 120UL records zero wins in the dataset.

Q: What is the difference in overall benchmark standing between the two chips?

A: The Core 5 120UL sits at the 68th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus ranks at the 93rd percentile. The average benchmark score for the Core 5 120UL is 13594, compared to 66159 for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The database places it within 1.1% of the AMD EPYC 4465P and within 1% of the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. It sits slightly ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D by 0.4% and the Intel Core 9 273PQE by 0.1%.

Q: What are the closest competitors to the Core 5 120UL?

A: The nearest rival is the Intel Core 3 304, which scores 13745, a 1.1% advantage over the Core 5 120UL's 13594. The Intel Core i3-12100F trails by 0.7%, and the Intel Core 3 N355 trails by 0.8%.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent radically different design generations. The Intel Core 5 120UL uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, built on Intel's 10 nm process node. It belongs to the Core 5 generation and uses the Intel Socket 1700. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, by contrast, is built on the Arrow Lake Refresh codename with the Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) generation, fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm process node, and uses the Intel Socket 1851.

The core configuration diverges sharply. The Core 5 120UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement where some cores lack hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, suggesting a design where each core operates with a single thread, likely prioritizing raw core count over simultaneous multithreading. The transistor count for the Ultra part is listed at 17,800 million with a die size of 243 mm², while the Core 5 120UL has no recorded transistor or die size data.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Core 5 120UL provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. This larger cache allocation across all levels aligns with the Ultra part's higher core count and more advanced process node.

Memory and I/O capabilities also set the two apart. The Core 5 120UL supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports only DDR5. The Ultra part lists a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, whereas the Core 5 120UL has no recorded bandwidth figure. ECC memory is supported on the Ultra part but not on the Core 5 120UL. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core 5 120UL offers Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

The integrated graphics situation is a notable differentiator. The Core 5 120UL includes Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units, making it a viable option for systems without a discrete GPU. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics, as indicated by the "N/A" field, meaning a separate graphics card is mandatory.

Clock speeds and power targets reflect the performance positioning. The Core 5 120UL has a base clock of 1.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, with a TDP of 15 watts. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus runs at a base clock of 4.20 GHz and boosts to 5.30 GHz, with a TDP of 125 watts. The multiplier is unlocked on the Ultra part, while the Core 5 120UL remains locked. The release dates also differ, with the Core 5 120UL launching in April 2024 and the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus launching in March 2026.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data tells a one-sided story. Across all 17 head-to-head comparisons, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus records the win, with deltas ranging from 55.7% to 89.6%. The Core 5 120UL secures no victories in any test category.

Cinebench results reveal the scale of the multi-threaded advantage. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 42718 against 8974 for the Core 5 120UL, a 79% gap. The R20 multi-core test shows 17941 versus 3769, again a 79% difference, and R15 multi-core shows 4305 versus 904, a 79% delta. The consistency of these percentages across all three Cinebench versions indicates a uniform scaling advantage, likely driven by the Ultra part's additional 8 cores and higher clock speeds.

Single-threaded Cinebench performance follows the same pattern. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus delivers 6030 in R23 single-core versus 1266 for the Core 5 120UL, a 79% lead. R20 single-core shows 2532 versus 531, and R15 single-core shows 607 versus 127. These results suggest that even on a per-thread basis, the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture holds a substantial IPC and frequency advantage over Raptor Lake.

PassMark's integer math test shows the narrowest margin of the entire comparison, with the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scoring 123030 against 38060, a 69.1% lead. This is still a decisive win, but it is the closest any test comes to narrowing the gap. At the other extreme, the find prime numbers test shows an 89.6% delta, the largest of any recorded benchmark. The extended instructions test also shows a very large 87.9% gap, with scores of 42880 versus 5203.

Data compression results amplify the multi-threaded story. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 553155 in PassMark data compression, while the Core 5 120UL manages 109090, an 80.3% difference. Data encryption shows an 81.4% gap, with scores of 41292 and 7685. Floating point math favors the Ultra part by 83.5%, with 159824 versus 26311. Random string sorting shows a 79.7% delta, and the multithread score shows a 78.9% gap, with 50146 versus 10558. The physics test shows a 74.6% difference, with 3183 versus 807. Single-thread PassMark scores show the smallest overall delta at 55.7%, with 4698 versus 2080.

The average benchmark scores in the database reinforce the head-to-head data. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus averages 66159 across all recorded tests, while the Core 5 120UL averages 13594. The percentile rankings place the Ultra part at 93 and the Core 5 at 68, a gap of 25 percentile points.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 120UL | Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus |

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

| Cores | 10 | 18 |

| Threads | 12 | 18 |

| Base Clock | 1.30 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 125 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-PS | Arrow Lake Refresh |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 115.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 80EU | N/A |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | unknown | SA4V3 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $184 |

| Release Date | April 2024 | March 2026 |

The Verdict

The recorded data positions these two processors in fundamentally different market segments. The Intel Core 5 120UL, with its 15-watt TDP, integrated Iris Xe Graphics, and support for both DDR4 and DDR5, appears engineered for power-conscious desktop systems where a discrete GPU may not be present. Its 68th percentile ranking and 13594 average benchmark score place it in the lower-middle range of the database, with nearest rivals including the Intel Core i3-12100F and the Intel Core 3 N355, both within 0.8% of its score.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus targets a different class of workload entirely. Its 93rd percentile ranking, 66159 average score, and nearest rivals that include the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D and the Intel Core 9 273PQE indicate a top-tier desktop processor. The 18 cores, 30 MB of L3 cache, DDR5-only memory support, and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity align with high-throughput computing scenarios. The absence of integrated graphics means this processor requires a discrete GPU, which is a common expectation for this performance class.

The deltas in the head-to-head data are uniformly decisive. Every test shows the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus ahead by at least 55.7%, with most tests showing gaps between 74% and 90%. This is not a close competition; the data indicates a generational leap in both multi-threaded throughput and single-threaded efficiency. The Core 5 120UL's 10 cores and 12 threads cannot compensate for the Ultra part's 18 cores, higher clocks, larger caches, and more advanced 3 nm process.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 120UL finds its niche in scenarios where power draw is the primary constraint. Its 15-watt TDP, compared to 125 watts for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, suggests suitability for compact, thermally limited desktop builds. The integrated Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units allows basic display output without a separate graphics card, and the dual DDR4/DDR5 memory support provides flexibility for existing system components. The Socket 1700 platform also offers broad motherboard compatibility within that ecosystem.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus dominates every measured performance category, but its requirements are correspondingly higher. The 125-watt TDP demands robust cooling, the Socket 1851 platform requires a current-generation motherboard, and the lack of integrated graphics mandates a discrete GPU. The unlocked multiplier and PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes point toward enthusiast builds where overclocking and high-bandwidth peripherals are priorities. ECC memory support and the 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth further indicate a processor aimed at workstation-class tasks.

The use-case split is therefore clear from the data. For systems where energy efficiency, integrated graphics, and platform flexibility are paramount, the Core 5 120UL covers those requirements. For workloads that demand maximum multi-threaded performance, high memory bandwidth, and the latest PCIe standard, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the only choice between these two, with its 0 wins for the Core 5 120UL across all 17 recorded benchmarks leaving no ambiguity about the performance hierarchy.