Intel Core 5 120UL vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H wins every single recorded test against the Intel Core 5 120UL. Across 17 head-to-head comparisons, the Ultra 7 356H takes 17 wins, while the Core 5 120UL records zero victories. The margins are substantial in every category, ranging from a 37.9% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core to an 85.6% lead in PassMark find prime numbers.

The most lopsided results appear in integer-heavy and encryption workloads. In PassMark data encryption, the Ultra 7 356H scores 26345 against 7685, a 70.8% advantage. Extended instruction throughput shows an even larger gap: 27898 versus 5203, a delta of 81.3%. Prime number finding, a classic test of raw arithmetic throughput, sees the Ultra 7 356H at 327 versus just 47, an 85.6% margin. These results indicate a fundamental difference in per-cycle compute capability, not merely a difference in core count.

Multi-threaded rendering tests tell a similar story. Cinebench R15 multicore shows the Ultra 7 356H scoring 3055 versus 904, a 70.4% lead. Cinebench R20 multicore follows with 12153 versus 3769, a 69% margin. Cinebench R23 multicore narrows the gap slightly to 51.2% (18395 versus 8974), but the winner remains unchanged. The Ultra 7 356H also dominates the PassMark multithread test, scoring 33978 against 10558, a 68.9% advantage.

Single-thread performance, while closer in percentage terms, still favors the Ultra 7 356H decisively. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 303 versus 127, a 58.1% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core records 1715 versus 531, a 69% margin. Cinebench R23 single-core delivers 2040 versus 1266, a 37.9% advantage. PassMark single-thread scores 4072 versus 2080, a 48.9% gap. The smallest delta across the entire comparison is that 37.9% Cinebench R23 single-core result, which still represents a major performance difference.

Other workloads reinforce the pattern. PassMark floating point math shows 103128 versus 26311, a 74.5% lead. Integer math delivers 83111 versus 38060, a 54.2% margin. Physics simulation scores 2895 versus 807, a 72.1% gap. Random string sorting records 40990 versus 13610, a 66.8% advantage. Data compression shows 336177 versus 109090, a 67.5% lead. No benchmark in the database puts the Core 5 120UL ahead in any category.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The Intel Core 5 120UL uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS variant, built on Intel's 10 nm process node. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H uses Panther Lake architecture, specifically Panther Lake-H, built on a 3 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the process node difference is significant: 10 nm versus 3 nm.

Core configuration differs substantially. The Core 5 120UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement with some cores lacking hyper-threading. The Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads, a configuration where thread count equals core count. The Ultra 7 356H therefore provides 60% more cores and 33% more threads than the Core 5 120UL.

Clock speeds also favor the Ultra 7 356H. The Core 5 120UL has a base clock of 1.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Ultra 7 356H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The base clock advantage is notable: 0.60 GHz higher on the Ultra 7 356H, which helps sustained workloads. Boost clocks are closer, with a 0.10 GHz advantage for the Ultra 7 356H.

Cache hierarchies are larger on the Ultra 7 356H. The Core 5 120UL has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 7 356H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The L3 cache advantage is 50% in favor of the Ultra 7 356H.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 5 120UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus. The Ultra 7 356H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a dual-channel bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The Core 5 120UL has no memory bandwidth figure recorded in the database. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Core 5 120UL uses Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 7 356H uses Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics are different. The Core 5 120UL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units. The Ultra 7 356H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. Both processors lack ECC memory support and both have locked multipliers.

Socket compatibility is completely different. The Core 5 120UL uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket. The Ultra 7 356H uses Intel BGA 2540, a mobile socket. The market segments reflect this: the Core 5 120UL is a desktop part, while the Ultra 7 356H is a mobile part. Release dates differ by roughly two years: the Core 5 120UL launched on 2024-04-07, the Ultra 7 356H on 2026-01-04.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows no workload category where the Intel Core 5 120UL outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H. Every benchmark, from single-threaded to heavily multi-threaded, from integer math to floating point, from encryption to compression, records a win for the Ultra 7 356H.

The Core 5 120UL does have one context where it is competitive: its nearest rivals in the database. The Core 5 120UL sits at the 68th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13594. Its closest competitor is the Intel Core i3-12100F, which scores 13494, a 0.7% difference in favor of the Core 5 120UL. The Intel Core 3 N355 scores 13492, a 0.8% difference. The Intel Core i5-9500 scores 13452, a 1.1% difference. Only the Intel Core 3 304 scores higher at 13745, a 1.1% gap against the Core 5 120UL. All four rivals fall within a 2.2 percentage point band, meaning the Core 5 120UL is competitive with other entry-level desktop processors despite losing decisively to the Ultra 7 356H.

The Ultra 7 356H, by contrast, sits at the 87th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 41215. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 at 41208 (0% delta), the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H at 41263 (0.1% lower delta), the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X at 41376 (0.4% lower), and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H at 40967 (0.6% higher delta for the Ultra 7 356H). The average score of 41215 is roughly three times the Core 5 120UL's 13594, which explains the consistent head-to-head margins.

For use-case analysis, the data suggests the Ultra 7 356H is suited to compute-heavy mobile workloads: rendering, encryption, data compression, scientific math, and physics simulation. The Core 5 120UL is suited to basic desktop tasks where its 68th percentile standing and 15 W TDP are adequate, but it does not lead in any measured category.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H wins every multi-threaded test. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 18395 versus 8974, a 51.2% lead. PassMark multithread shows 33978 versus 10558, a 68.9% lead.

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

A: The largest delta is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 7 356H scores 327 against 47, an 85.6% advantage.

Q: Does the Core 5 120UL win any benchmark?

A: No. Across all 17 head-to-head tests in the database, the Core 5 120UL records zero wins. The Ultra 7 356H wins all 17.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core 5 120UL has an average benchmark score of 13594 and sits at the 68th percentile. The Ultra 7 356H has an average benchmark score of 41215 and sits at the 87th percentile.

Q: What memory types does each support?

A: The Core 5 120UL supports DDR4 and DDR5. The Ultra 7 356H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, with a measured memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. Both have locked multipliers. The database records multiplierUnlocked as false for each.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion for anyone choosing between these two processors: the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H is the superior performer in every measured workload. The 17-0 head-to-head record, the 87th versus 68th percentile standing, and the average score of 41215 versus 13594 all point in the same direction.

The Ultra 7 356H is the appropriate choice for workloads that demand high throughput: multi-threaded rendering, encryption, data compression, floating point math, and physics simulation. Its 16 cores, 18 MB of L3 cache, 3 nm process node, and 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth provide the foundation for these results. Its mobile form factor (BGA 2540, 25 W TDP) makes it suitable for high-performance laptops and mobile workstations.

The Core 5 120UL, while not competitive with the Ultra 7 356H, holds its own within its own performance class. Its nearest rivals (Intel Core i3-12100F, Intel Core 3 N355, Intel Core i5-9500, Intel Core 3 304) are all within a 2.2 percentage point band of its average score. The 10-core, 12-thread configuration, 15 W TDP, and desktop socket (Intel Socket 1700) make it a reasonable entry-level desktop option. The database does not record a single test where it outperforms the Ultra 7 356H, so any workload that can use the Ultra 7 356H should prefer it.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 120UL | Intel Core Ultra 7 356H |

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

| Cores | 10 | 16 |

| Threads | 12 | 16 |

| Base clock | 1.30 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.60 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Panther Lake |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

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

| L2 cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 12 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

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

| PCIe | Gen 4, 8 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 12 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 80EU | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release date | 2024-04-07 | 2026-01-04 |

| Part number | unknown | SA4RGQ9EU |