Intel Core 5 120UL vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a decisive outcome: the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the database, taking all 17 comparisons. The Core 5 120UL does not secure a single win. For workloads that benefit from raw compute, the Core Ultra 9 386H is the clear choice. Its average benchmark score of 43210 places it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 120UL sits at 13594 and the 68th percentile.

The Core 5 120UL is not without merit, but its role is defined by its constraints. It is a 10-core, 12-thread desktop processor on Intel Socket 1700 with a 15 W TDP, designed for a specific, lower-power segment. The Core Ultra 9 386H, by contrast, is a 16-core, 16-thread mobile processor on Intel BGA 2540 with a 25 W TDP. The data indicates the Core Ultra 9 386H is in a different performance class entirely, often delivering more than double the score in multi-threaded tests and nearly double in single-threaded tests. Anyone prioritizing compute performance must select the Core Ultra 9 386H based on these measurements.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design points. The Core 5 120UL uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS codename, built on a 10 nm process node. The Core Ultra 9 386H uses the newer Panther Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the process node difference is substantial and helps explain the performance gap.

Core counts differ significantly. The Core 5 120UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core 5 120UL supports simultaneous multithreading, giving it 12 threads from 10 cores, while the Core Ultra 9 386H does not, providing exactly 16 threads from 16 cores. Cache hierarchies also differ. 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 386H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 5 120UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Core Ultra 9 386H also has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, a figure not available for the Core 5 120UL. PCIe connectivity differs: the Core 5 120UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 9 386H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ, with the Core 5 120UL using Iris Xe Graphics 80EU and the Core Ultra 9 386H using Intel Xe3 Graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 120UL has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz.

Q: How do the multi-core Cinebench R23 scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 9 386H scores 20547 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core 5 120UL scores 8974. The Core Ultra 9 386H leads by 56.3%.

Q: Which CPU supports PCIe Gen 5?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H supports PCIe Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The Intel Core 5 120UL is limited to PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only).

Q: What is the difference in single-thread performance in PassMark?

A: In the PassMark single-thread test, the Core Ultra 9 386H scores 4218, while the Core 5 120UL scores 2080. The Core Ultra 9 386H is 50.7% ahead.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 5 120UL and the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H have a production status of Active.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Core Ultra 9 386H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core 5 120UL has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores versus 10 cores for the Core 5 120UL. Thread counts are 16 versus 12. Base clocks are 2.10 GHz versus 1.30 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.90 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. TDP is 25 W versus 15 W. Sockets differ: Intel BGA 2540 for the Core Ultra 9 386H, Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 5 120UL.

Architecture and codename are entirely different: Panther Lake versus Raptor Lake, with the Core Ultra 9 386H on a 3 nm node and the Core 5 120UL on a 10 nm node. Cache configurations differ at every level: L1 192 KB per core versus 80 KB per core, L2 2.5 MB per core versus 1.25 MB per core, L3 18 MB shared versus 12 MB shared. Memory support differs, with the Core Ultra 9 386H adding LPDDR5X and having a recorded bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. PCIe differs: Gen 5 with 12 lanes versus Gen 4 with 8 lanes. Integrated graphics are different: Intel Xe3 Graphics versus Iris Xe Graphics 80EU. Market segments differ: mobile versus desktop. Release dates differ: 2026-01-04 for the Core Ultra 9 386H versus 2024-04-07 for the Core 5 120UL. The Core Ultra 9 386H has a part number of SA4R5Q9EH, while the Core 5 120UL has an unknown part number.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a comprehensive sweep. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 386H scores 3223 against 904 for the Core 5 120UL, a delta of 72%. The single-core R15 test shows 303.5 against 127, a 58.2% difference. Cinebench R20 multi-core sees 12820 against 3769, a 70.6% gap, and the single-core R20 test shows 1809 against 531, also a 70.6% gap.

Cinebench R23 results continue the pattern. Multi-core: 20547 against 8974, a 56.3% lead. Single-core: 2071.5 against 1266, a 38.9% lead. PassMark data compression shows 352365 against 109090, a 69% difference. Data encryption shows 27150 against 7685, a 71.7% gap. Extended instructions show 29138 against 5203, an 82.1% difference. Find prime numbers shows 341 against 47, an 86.2% gap, the largest delta in the entire dataset.

Floating point math shows 108527 against 26311, a 75.8% difference. Integer math shows 87284 against 38060, a 56.4% gap. PassMark multithread shows 35399 against 10558, a 70.2% difference. Physics shows 3028 against 807, a 73.3% gap. Random string sorting shows 42135 against 13610, a 67.7% difference. PassMark single-thread shows 4218 against 2080, a 50.7% gap. The singlethread test matches exactly.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 386H wins in every recorded benchmark category. The largest margins appear in PassMark find prime numbers, where it leads by 86.2%, and extended instructions, where it leads by 82.1%. These results indicate a very strong advantage in integer-heavy and instruction-diverse workloads. The smallest margin is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core Ultra 9 386H leads by 38.9%, still a substantial gap.

The Core 5 120UL does not win any benchmark. However, its profile suggests a different purpose. With a 15 W TDP, Intel Socket 1700, and DDR4 support, it targets low-power desktop systems. Its performance, while lower, is consistent with its position in the 68th percentile of all CPUs. The nearest rivals for the Core 5 120UL include the Intel Core i3-12100F with an average score of 13494 and a delta of 0.7%, and the Intel Core 3 N355 with an average score of 13492 and a delta of 0.8%. This places it in a modest performance tier.

The Core Ultra 9 386H, in the 88th percentile, competes with the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 (average score 43326, delta -0.3%), AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 (average score 43431, delta -0.5%), and Intel Core i9-12900 (average score 42906, delta 0.7%). The data suggests the Core Ultra 9 386H is a high-end mobile part that can rival desktop-class processors from the previous generation, given its proximity to the Core i9-12900 in average score.

For users who need maximum compute for mobile workloads, the Core Ultra 9 386H is the only option supported by the data. The Core 5 120UL serves a different niche, offering a lower-power desktop solution with a distinct socket and memory compatibility. The benchmark results do not indicate any scenario where the Core 5 120UL outperforms the Core Ultra 9 386H.