Intel Core 5 120UL vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a comprehensive victory for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 across every single recorded test. The Core 5 120UL wins none of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The margin is substantial in every category, though the size of the gap varies meaningfully depending on the workload.

Looking first at the Cinebench results, the multi-core scores reveal the largest absolute differences. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945 against 8,974 for the Core 5 120UL, a delta of 81.7%. The pattern holds across all three Cinebench versions. In R15 multi-core, the scores are 4,933 versus 904, and in R20 multi-core they are 20,556 versus 3,769, both with the same 81.7% delta. The single-core Cinebench results show a similarly consistent gap. In R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 posts 6,909 against 1,266 for the Core 5 120UL, also an 81.7% delta. The R15 and R20 single-core tests show 696 versus 127 and 2,901 versus 531 respectively, with deltas of 81.8% and 81.7%.

The Passmark suite tells a more varied story. The narrowest margin appears in Passmark single-thread testing, where the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4,881 against 2,080 for the Core 5 120UL, a delta of 57.4%. This indicates the per-core performance advantage is smaller than the multi-core advantage, which is expected given the differences in core counts and thread counts. The largest deltas appear in Passmark extended instructions and Passmark find prime numbers. In extended instructions, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 45,357 versus 5,203, a delta of 88.5%. In find prime numbers, the scores are 459 versus 47, a delta of 89.8%, representing the single largest percentage gap in the entire comparison.

The data encryption test shows the Core Ultra 9 285 at 46,949 against 7,685 for the Core 5 120UL, a delta of 83.6%. Floating point math shows 194,988 versus 26,311, a delta of 86.5%. Integer math shows 164,869 versus 38,060, a delta of 76.9%, which is the second smallest delta in the Passmark suite after single-thread. The Passmark multithread score is 56,602 versus 10,558, a delta of 81.3%. Physics testing shows 3,598 versus 807, a delta of 77.6%. Random string sorting shows 73,651 versus 13,610, a delta of 81.5%. Data compression shows 602,121 versus 109,090, a delta of 81.9%.

The average benchmark score tells the same story. The Core Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75,488, while the Core 5 120UL has an average of 13,594. The Core Ultra 9 285 sits at the 95th percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 120UL sits at the 68th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows no benchmark category where the Core 5 120UL outperforms the Core Ultra 9 285. Every single test, from Cinebench rendering workloads to Passmark math and encryption tests, shows the Core Ultra 9 285 ahead. This includes both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads, meaning the Core Ultra 9 285 holds the advantage regardless of whether the application can utilize multiple cores.

The narrowest gap, at 57.4% in Passmark single-thread, still represents a substantial performance deficit for the Core 5 120UL. The widest gaps appear in extended instruction workloads and prime number finding, where the Core Ultra 9 285 leads by roughly 88% to 90%. These particular workloads tend to scale well with both core count and architectural efficiency, and the Core Ultra 9 285 benefits from both.

For workloads that rely heavily on integer math, the Core Ultra 9 285 leads by 76.9%, the smallest multi-core margin in the Passmark suite. For floating point math, the lead expands to 86.5%. For physics calculations, the lead is 77.6%. The data compression test shows an 81.9% lead, while random string sorting shows an 81.5% lead.

The Cinebench results, which represent rendering and 3D scene creation workloads, consistently show the Core Ultra 9 285 ahead by roughly 82% in both single-core and multi-core variants. This consistency suggests that the architectural advantage of the Core Ultra 9 285 applies broadly across different types of computational tasks rather than being limited to specific instruction patterns.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The Core 5 120UL uses Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, built on a 10 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. This process difference contributes significantly to the performance gap, as the smaller node allows for higher clock speeds and better power efficiency.

The core configurations differ substantially. The Core 5 120UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. Notably, the Core Ultra 9 285 does not use hyper-threading, as its thread count equals its core count, while the Core 5 120UL has 12 threads from 10 cores, indicating hyper-threading on some cores. The Core Ultra 9 285 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, compared to 1.30 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost for the Core 5 120UL.

Cache allocations show a substantial difference. 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 Core Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 285 also has a documented transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the Core 5 120UL has no recorded transistor or die size data.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 5 120UL supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, while the Core Ultra 9 285 supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory, while the Core 5 120UL does not. PCIe connectivity also differs, with the Core 5 120UL using Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes and the Core Ultra 9 285 using Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

The integrated graphics differ between the two. The Core 5 120UL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Intel Socket 1851, while the Core 5 120UL uses Intel Socket 1700. The Core Ultra 9 285 has a launch MSRP of $579. The Core Ultra 9 285 was released later, with its release date recorded as 2024-12-31, while the Core 5 120UL has a release date of 2024-04-07.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 120UL has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz.

Q: How many cores does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core 5 120UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The Intel Core 5 120UL has 12 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 36 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 9 285 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 120UL does not support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75,488, while the Intel Core 5 120UL has an average benchmark score of 13,594.

Q: What sockets do these processors use?

A: The Intel Core 5 120UL uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 120UL | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 |

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

| Cores | 10 | 24 |

| Threads | 12 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 1.30 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-PS | Arrow Lake-S |

| 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) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 8 Lanes | Gen 5, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 80EU | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Release Date | 2024-04-07 | 2024-12-31 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $579 |

| Part Number | unknown | SRQD4 |

The Verdict

The benchmark data provides a clear answer for anyone choosing between these two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 outperforms the Intel Core 5 120UL in every recorded benchmark, with deltas ranging from 57.4% in single-threaded performance to 89.8% in prime number finding. The average benchmark score of 75,488 for the Core Ultra 9 285 places it at the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 120UL sits at the 68th percentile with an average score of 13,594.

The Core Ultra 9 285 delivers 24 cores with 24 threads, a 5.60 GHz boost clock, 36 MB of L3 cache, and support for ECC memory. The Core 5 120UL offers 10 cores with 12 threads, a 4.60 GHz boost clock, 12 MB of L3 cache, and no ECC support. The Core Ultra 9 285 also supports DDR5 memory with a recorded bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, while the Core 5 120UL supports both DDR4 and DDR5 but only PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes.

The nearest rivals in the database for the Core Ultra 9 285 include the AMD EPYC 8224P with an average score of 75,582 and a delta of 0.1%, the AMD EPYC 4545P with an average score of 75,373 and a delta of 0.2%, and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO processors with similar average scores. The nearest rivals for the Core 5 120UL include the Intel Core i3-12100F with an average score of 13,494 and a delta of 0.7%, and the Intel Core i5-9500 with an average score of 13,452 and a delta of 1.1%.

For users whose workloads depend on multi-core rendering, data compression, encryption, or math-intensive calculations, the Core Ultra 9 285 provides a massive performance advantage. For those with lighter workloads, the Core 5 120UL still delivers functional performance, but the data shows it cannot match the Core Ultra 9 285 in any measured category. The decision between these two processors is therefore not a question of trade-offs, but one of requirements versus budget, and the recorded data consistently favors the Core Ultra 9 285.