Intel Core 5 120UL vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

The Intel Core 5 120UL and Intel Core Ultra 7 366H occupy very different positions in the database, and the benchmark data confirms a decisive performance gap. The Core Ultra 7 366H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, often by substantial margins. However, the two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures, target different market segments, and serve distinct use cases. This analysis walks through the recorded data to clarify where each chip stands.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head results is the consistency of the Core Ultra 7 366H victory across every single test. There is no benchmark where the Core 5 120UL comes out ahead. The margins, however, vary significantly depending on the workload.

In Cinebench tests, the Core Ultra 7 366H dominates. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 7 scores 28,477 against 8,974 for the Core 5, a delta of 68.5% in favor of the Ultra 7. The single-core R23 result shows a similar story: 4,020 versus 1,266, again a 68.5% gap. This pattern holds across R15 and R20, with the delta consistently around 68.5% in both multi-core and single-core runs. The uniformity of that percentage suggests the architectural efficiency advantage is broad rather than workload-specific.

Passmark results reveal where the gap narrows or widens. The smallest delta is in single-thread performance: 4,043 versus 2,080, a 48.6% difference. That is still a large margin, but it is the closest the Core 5 gets to the Ultra 7. The largest delta appears in the find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 7 scores 326 against 47, a 85.6% difference. That test is heavily integer-dependent and likely stresses the core count and clock speed differences.

Other notable margins include extended instructions (5,203 versus 26,901, an 80.7% gap) and floating point math (26,311 versus 103,615, a 74.6% gap). Data compression shows a 66.7% difference (109,090 versus 327,455), while integer math shows a 54.5% gap (38,060 versus 83,695). The physics test shows a 72% difference (807 versus 2,880). Random string sorting shows a 65.8% gap (13,610 versus 39,814), and data encryption shows a 70.3% gap (7,685 versus 25,845).

The average benchmark score tells the same story. The Core Ultra 7 366H averages 41,263, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 120UL averages 13,594, placing it in the 68th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 7 include the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (0.1% ahead) and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X (0.3% ahead), indicating it sits in a high-performance tier. The Core 5's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-12100F (0.7% behind it) and the Intel Core 3 N355 (0.8% behind it), showing it competes in a much lower performance class.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is substantial. The Intel Core 5 120UL uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS variant, built on a 10 nm process node. It has 10 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 1.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 366H, by contrast, uses Panther Lake architecture (Panther Lake-H variant), built on a 3 nm process node. It has 16 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz.

The core count difference is notable: 10 versus 16. The thread count difference is even more telling. The Core 5 has 12 threads from 10 cores, indicating hyperthreading on some cores. The Ultra 7 has 16 threads from 16 cores, meaning no hyperthreading is present, so every thread maps directly to a physical core. That arrangement often benefits workloads that require consistent multi-core scaling without scheduling overhead.

Cache configurations also differ substantially. The Core 5 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 7 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches on the Ultra 7 likely contribute to its strong single-thread performance, while the larger L3 helps with multi-threaded data sharing.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 5 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode. The Ultra 7 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, also dual-channel, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The Core 5 has no recorded memory bandwidth figure. PCIe support also differs: the Core 5 uses Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 7 uses Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 5 includes Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units. The Ultra 7 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics. The database does not provide performance scores for either iGPU, so a direct comparison is not possible from the recorded data.

The socket and market segment reinforce the gap. The Core 5 uses Intel Socket 1700 and is marked as a Desktop segment product. The Ultra 7 uses Intel BGA 2540 and is marked as Mobile. The release dates also differ: the Core 5 was released in April 2024, while the Ultra 7 was released in January 2026. The TDP values differ as well: 15 watts for the Core 5 versus 25 watts for the Ultra 7.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores, while the Intel Core 5 120UL has 10 cores.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Ultra 7 scores 28,477 against 8,974 for the Core 5, a 68.5% difference in favor of the Ultra 7.

Q: What is the smallest recorded performance difference?

A: The smallest delta is in Passmark single-thread performance, where the Ultra 7 scores 4,043 versus 2,080, a 48.6% difference.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 5 supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: What are the production statuses of these chips?

A: Both are listed as Active in the database.

Q: Which processor has a higher recorded memory bandwidth?

A: The Ultra 7 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The Core 5 has no recorded memory bandwidth figure.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every recorded specification. Core count: 10 versus 16. Thread count: 12 versus 16. Base clock: 1.30 GHz versus 2.00 GHz. Boost clock: 4.60 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. TDP: 15 watts versus 25 watts. Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 2540. Architecture: Raptor Lake versus Panther Lake. Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm.

Cache differs across all levels. L1 cache: 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core. L2 cache: 1.25 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core. L3 cache: 12 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory support: DDR4/DDR5 versus DDR5/LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth: not recorded versus 115.2 GB/s. PCIe: Gen 4 with 8 lanes versus Gen 5 with 12 lanes. Integrated graphics: Iris Xe Graphics 80EU versus Intel Xe3 Graphics.

Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile. Release date: April 2024 versus January 2026. Part number: unknown versus SA4R9Q9EL. The series field is null for the Core 5, while the Ultra 7 is in the Core Ultra Series 3. Both have ECC memory support listed as false, and both have locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded benchmark data, the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins every single workload category. There is no test in the database where the Core 5 120UL takes a win. That means for compute-heavy tasks such as Cinebench rendering, Passmark math operations, data compression, encryption, and physics simulations, the Ultra 7 is the clear choice.

The Core 5 120UL, however, has attributes that matter outside raw benchmark scores. It uses a desktop socket (Intel Socket 1700), which allows for replaceable or upgradeable cooling solutions and potentially longer platform life. It also has a lower TDP of 15 watts, which may indicate lower cooling requirements. It supports DDR4 memory, which could be more accessible in some desktop contexts. Its release date of April 2024 also makes it an earlier product in the database timeline.

The Ultra 7's advantages are not just in scores. It has a smaller process node (3 nm versus 10 nm), which typically indicates higher transistor density and efficiency per watt. It has more cores, more L3 cache, and higher clocks. It also has Gen 5 PCIe support, which is newer than Gen 4. Its mobile segment designation with 25 watts TDP suggests it is built for laptops, but the performance data shows it delivers desktop-class compute in a mobile package.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is the superior processor by a wide margin in every recorded benchmark. It delivers 68.5% higher scores in Cinebench multi-core tests and 48.6% higher single-thread performance. Its average benchmark score of 41,263 places it in the 87th percentile, while the Core 5's 13,594 places it in the 68th percentile. For any user prioritizing compute throughput, rendering, math operations, or data processing, the Ultra 7 is the only choice based on the recorded measurements.

The Core 5 120UL does have a place, but it is a narrower one. Its desktop socket and lower TDP make it suitable for systems where power draw and platform flexibility are priorities over raw performance. Its support for DDR4 memory might also appeal to builds with existing DDR4 modules. The data suggests it is a capable low-power desktop part, but it does not compete with the Ultra 7 in any performance metric recorded in the database.

The percentile rankings confirm the tier gap. The Ultra 7 sits near the top of the database at 87%, while the Core 5 sits at 68%. The nearest rivals for each chip reinforce this: the Ultra 7 trades blows with the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and other high-end parts, while the Core 5 competes with entry-level Intel Core i3 and Core 3 parts. The choice between these two is not a question of preference but of workload requirements. For maximum compute performance, the Ultra 7 366H is the clear winner. For a desktop-oriented, low-power part with a different platform footprint, the Core 5 120UL remains an option, but it does not win any benchmark comparisons in the recorded data.