Intel Core 5 120UL vs Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-64-100 Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Core 5 120UL and Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-64-100 are fundamentally different processors aimed at different segments of the market. The Intel part is a desktop chip with a 15 W TDP, while the Qualcomm is a mobile processor with a 35 W TDP. The database contains a full benchmark suite for the Intel Core 5 120UL, showing an average benchmark score of 13594 and a percentile rank of 68 among all CPUs. In contrast, the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-64-100 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, an average score of 0, and a percentile rank of 50, which reflects the absence of data rather than an actual performance measurement.

The Intel Core 5 120UL is the only part with measurable performance data, so any comparison of raw scores is one-sided. The Intel chip delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 8974 and a single-core score of 1266. It also produces substantial Passmark results in integer math (38060), floating-point math (26311), and data compression (109090). The Qualcomm part has no comparable figures, so its performance profile remains unquantified in this database. For users who require verified benchmark numbers, the Intel Core 5 120UL is the only option with demonstrated results.

The Intel Core 5 120UL sits in a competitive position among its nearest rivals. It scores 0.7% higher than the Intel Core i3-12100F, 0.8% higher than the Intel Core 3 N355, and 1.1% higher than the Intel Core i5-9500. It trails the Intel Core 3 304 by 1.1%. These are narrow margins, placing the 120UL in a tightly clustered performance tier. The Qualcomm X1P-64-100 has no nearest rivals listed, meaning no comparative positioning is possible from the recorded data.

Given the lack of benchmarks for the Qualcomm part, the data supports choosing the Intel Core 5 120UL for any workload where performance scores matter. The Qualcomm chip offers a different architecture and platform, but without measured results, it cannot be evaluated on the same terms. Users who need a desktop processor with active production status and a full suite of verified scores should select the Intel part. Users who require a mobile processor with a specific integrated GPU (Adreno X1-85) and higher memory bandwidth (135.2 GB/s) may consider the Qualcomm part, but they must accept the absence of benchmark validation.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 120UL wins in every measurable category because it is the only chip with benchmark data. Its Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 904 and single-core score of 127 establish a baseline for legacy rendering workloads. The R20 results (3769 multi-core, 531 single-core) and R23 results (8974 multi-core, 1266 single-core) show consistent scaling across Cinebench versions. The Passmark suite adds further detail: multithread score of 10558, single-thread score of 2080, physics score of 807, and random string sorting score of 13610. Extended instructions score 5203, find prime numbers score 47, data encryption scores 7685, and data compression scores 109090.

The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-64-100 wins in platform-level specifications that are not performance benchmarks. It uses a 4 nm process node from TSMC, compared to Intel's 10 nm process. Its base clock is 3.40 GHz, higher than Intel's 1.30 GHz base clock, though Intel's boost clock reaches 4.60 GHz while Qualcomm lists no boost clock. The Qualcomm chip has a larger L1 cache per core (288 KB vs 80 KB), a much larger L2 cache per module (12 MB vs 1.25 MB per core), but a smaller L3 cache (6 MB shared vs 12 MB shared). Qualcomm also supports LPDDR5X memory with a recorded bandwidth of 135.2 GB/s, while Intel supports DDR4 and DDR5 with no bandwidth figure recorded.

The Qualcomm part has 12 PCIe Gen 4 lanes (CPU only) versus Intel's 8 lanes. Its integrated graphics is Adreno X1-85, while Intel uses Iris Xe Graphics 80EU. The Qualcomm chip is mobile segment, while Intel is desktop segment. In terms of physical package, Qualcomm uses BGA 2073, and Intel uses Socket 1700. Neither chip supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 120UL is built on the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS codename, and belongs to the Core 5 generation. It uses Intel's 10 nm process node with Intel as the foundry. The chip has 10 cores and 12 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement with some efficiency cores lacking hyper-threading. Its base clock is 1.30 GHz, and its boost clock reaches 4.60 GHz. The TDP is 15 W, which is notably low for a desktop part.

The cache hierarchy for the Intel chip is: 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. This gives a total of 12 MB of L3 cache. Memory support includes DDR4 and DDR5, both in dual-channel configuration. The PCIe implementation is Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics come from Iris Xe Graphics 80EU. The part uses Intel Socket 1700 and was released on 2024-04-07.

The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-64-100 uses the Oryon codename and belongs to the Snapdragon X (Plus) generation. Its architecture field is null, meaning no specific microarchitecture name is recorded. The process node is 4 nm, produced by TSMC. The chip has 10 cores and 10 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. Its base clock is 3.40 GHz, with no boost clock listed. The TDP is 35 W, more than double the Intel part.

The cache hierarchy for the Qualcomm chip is: 288 KB L1 per core, 12 MB L2 per module, and 6 MB shared L3. The L2 per module is an unusual configuration, suggesting a clustered design where cores share L2 resources. Memory support is LPDDR5X only, with dual-channel bus and 135.2 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe is Gen 4 with 12 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are Adreno X1-85. The socket is Qualcomm BGA 2073, and the release date is 2024-04-23.

The foundry difference is significant: Intel fabricates its own chip on 10 nm, while TSMC fabricates the Qualcomm chip on 4 nm. The smaller process node allows for higher base clocks (3.40 GHz vs 1.30 GHz) despite the higher TDP. The cache allocation strategies differ substantially, with Qualcomm favoring large per-core L1 and per-module L2, while Intel uses a more conventional per-core L2 and larger shared L3. The memory type differs completely: Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5, Qualcomm supports only LPDDR5X. The PCIe lane count favors Qualcomm by 4 lanes. Neither chip has ECC support or an unlocked multiplier.

The production status for both is Active. The part number for Qualcomm is X1P64100, while Intel's part number is unknown. Intel's market segment is Desktop; Qualcomm's is Mobile. The release dates are close: Intel on 2024-04-07 and Qualcomm on 2024-04-23.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 120UL has an average benchmark score of 13594. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-64-100 has an average benchmark score of 0, which reflects that no benchmark results are recorded in the database for this part.

Q: How does the Intel Core 5 120UL compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Intel Core 5 120UL scores 0.7% higher than the Intel Core i3-12100F, 0.8% higher than the Intel Core 3 N355, and 1.1% higher than the Intel Core i5-9500. It is 1.1% lower than the Intel Core 3 304.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two chips?

A: The Intel Core 5 120UL has a TDP of 15 W, while the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-64-100 has a TDP of 35 W. The Qualcomm part consumes more than double the power budget of the Intel part.

Q: Which chip has a smaller manufacturing process node?

A: The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-64-100 uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Core 5 120UL uses a 10 nm process from Intel. The Qualcomm chip is manufactured on the smaller node.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the Intel Core 5 120UL and the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-64-100 have ECC memory support marked as false in the database.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth capabilities of the Qualcomm part?

A: The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-64-100 supports LPDDR5X memory in a dual-channel configuration with 135.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 5 120UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode, but no bandwidth figure is recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two processors, and the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-64-100 has an empty benchmark array. Consequently, the only measurable performance data belongs to the Intel Core 5 120UL.

The Intel Core 5 120UL produces a Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 904 and a single-core score of 127. In Cinebench R20, the multi-core score rises to 3769 and single-core to 531. Cinebench R23 shows 8974 multi-core and 1266 single-core. These scores indicate a processor that scales well with multi-threaded rendering workloads, with the R23 multi-core result being roughly seven times the single-core result.

The Passmark suite provides a broader view. The multi-thread score is 10558, and the single-thread score is 2080. Integer math scores 38060, floating-point math scores 26311, and extended instructions score 5203. Data compression scores 109090, data encryption scores 7685, and random string sorting scores 13610. Physics scores 807, and find prime numbers scores 47.

The nearest rival comparisons place the Intel part in a tight cluster. The Intel Core i3-12100F has an average score of 13494, which is 0.7% lower than the 120UL's 13594. The Intel Core 3 N355 scores 13492, 0.8% lower. The Intel Core i5-9500 scores 13452, 1.1% lower. The Intel Core 3 304 scores 13745, which is 1.1% higher than the 120UL. These deltas are small, meaning the 120UL performs essentially on par with these four rivals in aggregate benchmark terms.

The percentile ranking of 68 for the Intel part means it outperforms 68% of all CPUs in the database. The Qualcomm part has a percentile ranking of 50, but with no benchmark data, this figure likely reflects a default or neutral position rather than a measured result.

The Intel part's boost clock of 4.60 GHz against a base clock of 1.30 GHz gives a wide frequency range, which is typical of a low-TDP desktop chip that can boost aggressively when power headroom allows. The 10-core, 12-thread configuration provides two extra threads beyond the core count, indicating hyper-threading on some cores. The Qualcomm part has 10 cores and 10 threads, meaning no hyper-threading, but its higher base clock of 3.40 GHz may compensate in lightly threaded workloads. However, without benchmark data for the Qualcomm chip, this remains a speculative observation.

The L3 cache difference is notable: Intel has 12 MB shared, Qualcomm has 6 MB shared. Intel also has a smaller L1 (80 KB per core) and L2 (1.25 MB per core) compared to Qualcomm's 288 KB per core L1 and 12 MB per module L2. The Qualcomm L2 allocation is significantly larger, but its shared L3 is half the size of Intel's. The memory bandwidth of Qualcomm at 135.2 GB/s is a concrete specification that exceeds what Intel lists, though Intel's memory bandwidth is unrecorded.

The PCIe lane count favors Qualcomm: 12 lanes versus 8 lanes, both Gen 4. For systems with multiple NVMe drives or discrete GPUs, this difference matters, but the Intel part's desktop segment may offer more expansion options through its Socket 1700 platform. The integrated graphics differ: Iris Xe Graphics 80EU for Intel, Adreno X1-85 for Qualcomm. Neither has a benchmark score for graphics in this database.

The release dates are close: Intel on 2024-04-07 and Qualcomm on 2024-04-23, a gap of 16 days. Both are marked as Active in production. Neither has a launch MSRP listed in the database, so no pricing information is available. Both chips lack an unlocked multiplier, meaning overclocking is not supported by the data.

The overall conclusion from the recorded data is straightforward: the Intel Core 5 120UL has a fully documented performance profile, while the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-64-100 does not. Any user seeking benchmark-verified performance must rely on the Intel part. The Qualcomm chip offers stronger specifications in process node, base clock, cache per core, memory bandwidth, and PCIe lanes, but these are architectural advantages without measured performance confirmation.