Intel Core 5 120UL vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

The Verdict

The data separates these two processors into completely different performance classes. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins every single recorded benchmark, 17 out of 17 head-to-head comparisons, with no wins for the Intel Core 5 120UL. The average benchmark score of 79,574 for the Ultra 9 places it at the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 120UL averages 13,594 and sits at the 68th percentile.

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the clear choice for any workload that demands maximum compute throughput. Its nearest rivals, the Intel Core i9-14900KF at 79,371 (0.3% behind), the Intel Core i9-14900K at 79,097 (0.6% behind), and the AMD EPYC 7413 at 80,041 (0.6% ahead), confirm it competes at flagship desktop and server levels. The Core 5 120UL, by contrast, trades blows with the Intel Core i3-12100F (13,494, 0.7% behind), Intel Core 3 N355 (13,492, 0.8% behind), and Intel Core i5-9500 (13,452, 1.1% behind), placing it firmly in entry-level territory.

For a builder assembling a high-performance workstation or a power-user laptop, the Ultra 9 290HX Plus delivers the recorded performance. For a compact or low-power desktop where modest throughput is acceptable, the Core 5 120UL provides a functional baseline, though the benchmark data shows it consistently outclassed by the Ultra 9 in every measured task.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design lineages. The Core 5 120UL uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS codename, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, using the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename, fabricated on a 3 nm process by TSMC. The Ultra 9 packs 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 5 120UL has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 5 120UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement where some cores lack hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning every core is a full physical core with no simultaneous multithreading. This structural difference affects how each processor handles parallel workloads, with the Ultra 9 having more than double the physical core count.

Cache hierarchies scale accordingly. The Core 5 120UL provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core caches on the Ultra 9 give each of its 24 cores more working space, while the 3x larger L3 pool benefits data-heavy workloads.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 5 120UL supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but records a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported on the Core 5 120UL but is enabled on the Ultra 9, which matters for reliability-sensitive computing.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 120UL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. Despite fewer execution units, the Ultra 9's graphics sit on a newer architecture. PCIe connectivity shows a major gap: the Core 5 120UL provides Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclocking-capable, whereas the Core 5 120UL is locked. The Ultra 9 also uses Intel BGA 2114, a socketed-mobile package, while the Core 5 120UL uses Intel Socket 1700 for desktop boards. The Ultra 9 carries a part number of SADSS; the Core 5 120UL has an unknown part number.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records 17 head-to-head comparisons, and the Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins every one. The smallest margin appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Ultra 9 scores 2,356 against 1,266 for the Core 5 120UL, a 46.3% advantage. This remains the closest result in the entire set, showing that even in lightly threaded tasks, the Ultra 9's higher boost clock of 5.50 GHz versus 4.60 GHz and its newer architecture produce a commanding lead.

Multi-core Cinebench results widen dramatically. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 9 scores 39,684 versus 8,974, a 77.4% gap. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 21,198 versus 3,769, an 82.2% difference. Cinebench R15 multi-core records 5,981 versus 904, an 84.9% gap. These results reflect the 24-core versus 10-core count and the 36 MB versus 12 MB L3 cache.

Single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2,992 versus 531, an 82.3% gap. Cinebench R15 single-core records 340 versus 127, a 62.6% difference. The Ultra 9's base clock of 2.70 GHz versus 1.30 GHz explains part of the gap, but the architectural efficiency of the 3 nm node contributes substantially.

PassMark results reinforce the dominance. Data compression scores 658,724 for the Ultra 9 versus 109,090 for the Core 5 120UL, an 83.4% gap. Data encryption shows 50,008 versus 7,685, an 84.6% difference. Extended instructions record 51,290 versus 5,203, an 89.9% gap, the largest margin in the entire comparison. Find prime numbers scores 519 versus 47, a 90.9% gap. Floating point math shows 201,773 versus 26,311, an 87% difference. Integer math records 164,839 versus 38,060, a 76.9% gap. Multithread performance shows 59,439 versus 10,558, an 82.2% difference. Physics scores 3,387 versus 807, a 76.2% gap. Random string sorting records 80,327 versus 13,610, an 83.1% difference. Single-thread performance shows 4,951 versus 2,080, a 58% gap, recorded identically in both the single_thread and singlethread test entries.

The data compression test on the Ultra 9 exceeds the Core 5 120UL's entire average benchmark score by a wide margin, with 658,724 points in that single test alone.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 120UL | Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus |

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

| Cores | 10 | 24 |

| Threads | 12 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 1.30 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 55 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2114 |

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

| Generation | Core 5 (Raptor Lake-PS) | Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-HX) |

| 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 (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 lanes (CPU only) |

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

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2024-04-07 | 2026-03-16 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | Unknown | SADSS |

The TDP difference of 15 W versus 55 W indicates the Core 5 120UL targets power-constrained systems, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus expects robust cooling. The release dates place the Core 5 120UL in April 2024 and the Ultra 9 290HX Plus in March 2026.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core 5 120UL has 10 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus averages 79,574 points and sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 120UL averages 13,594 points and sits at the 68th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the Ultra 9 in single-core workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 9 scores 2,356 versus 1,266, a 46.3% advantage. PassMark single-thread shows 4,951 versus 2,080, a 58% gap.

Q: Does the Core 5 120UL support ECC memory?

A: No, ECC memory is not supported on the Core 5 120UL. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus does support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus boosts to 5.50 GHz, while the Core 5 120UL boosts to 4.60 GHz.

Q: What integrated graphics does each processor use?

A: The Core 5 120UL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins in every recorded benchmark category, so the use-case split comes from the nature of the workloads rather than any competitive advantage for the Core 5 120UL. The Ultra 9 dominates multi-threaded rendering tasks, with Cinebench R23 multi-core at 39,684 and R20 multi-core at 21,198, making it the appropriate choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, and simulation workloads that scale across many cores.

The Ultra 9 also wins heavily in data-processing tasks. Data compression at 658,724 and data encryption at 50,008 indicate strong performance for archive management, database operations, and encrypted storage workflows. Extended instructions at 51,290 and floating point math at 201,773 point to scientific computing and numerical analysis applications. Integer math at 164,839 and random string sorting at 80,327 suit general application development and text-processing pipelines.

The Core 5 120UL, with its 15 W TDP, fits scenarios where power consumption is the primary constraint. Its 10 cores and 12 threads still deliver functional multi-threading, and its support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory allows flexibility in system building. The 68th percentile ranking shows it outperforms roughly two-thirds of all recorded CPUs, so it remains viable for basic productivity, light compilation, and everyday desktop tasks in a low-power chassis.

The Ultra 9 290HX Plus, with its 55 W TDP and unlocked multiplier, targets systems with active cooling and high power delivery. Its 95th percentile ranking places it among the fastest CPUs recorded, and its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-14900KF and Intel Core i9-14900K, confirming flagship-level performance. The 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth and Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes support high-end GPUs and NVMe storage. ECC memory support suits servers and workstations where data integrity is critical.

For a desktop builder prioritizing low power draw and modest cost, the Core 5 120UL provides a capable foundation. For anyone needing maximum compute throughput, the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the only choice between these two, as the recorded data shows no workload where the Core 5 120UL comes out ahead.