Intel Core 5 130UL vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the Intel Core 5 130UL versus the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H. The Intel Core 5 130UL has no recorded benchmark scores, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H has a comprehensive set of Cinebench and PassMark results. The Core Ultra X9 378H holds a percentile ranking of 89 among all CPUs, while the Core 5 130UL sits at the 50th percentile. This percentile gap indicates that the Core Ultra X9 378H outperforms the majority of processors in the database, whereas the Core 5 130UL lands near the median.

The Core Ultra X9 378H delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32553 and a single-core score of 4595. In PassMark testing, it records 38298 for multi-thread performance and 4453 for single-thread performance. These figures place it in the upper tier of mobile processors. The Core 5 130UL, lacking any benchmark entries, cannot be directly compared numerically. Its 50th percentile ranking suggests average performance among all CPUs, but the absence of specific scores means the data cannot confirm where it stands relative to the Core Ultra X9 378H.

The Core Ultra X9 378H achieves an average benchmark score of 47468. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 with an average score of 47527 and a delta of -0.1 percent, the Intel Core i7-13700KF with 47330 and a delta of 0.3 percent, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T with 47697 and a delta of -0.5 percent, and the Intel Core i9-12900F with 47176 and a delta of 0.6 percent. These deltas indicate that the Core Ultra X9 378H sits within one percent of four strong competing processors. The data shows a tightly contested performance cluster, with the Core Ultra X9 378H essentially matching its nearest rivals in aggregate benchmark scores.

FAQ

Q: What benchmark scores does the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H achieve in Cinebench R23?

A: The Core Ultra X9 378H records a multi-core score of 32553 and a single-core score of 4595 in Cinebench R23.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra X9 378H has an average benchmark score of 47468. Its closest competitor, the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945, scores 47527, a delta of -0.1 percent. The Intel Core i7-13700KF scores 47330, a delta of 0.3 percent. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T scores 47697, a delta of -0.5 percent. The Intel Core i9-12900F scores 47176, a delta of 0.6 percent.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 130UL have any recorded benchmark results?

A: No, the Intel Core 5 130UL has no benchmark entries in the database. Its percentile ranking is 50, but no individual test scores are recorded.

Q: What PassMark scores does the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H achieve for data compression and encryption?

A: The Core Ultra X9 378H records a PassMark data compression score of 386591 and a data encryption score of 29840.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H?

A: The Core Ultra X9 378H supports LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s.

Q: What is the production status and release date of each processor?

A: Both processors are listed as Active in production. The Intel Core 5 130UL was released on 2024-04-07, and the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H was released on 2026-04-03.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 130UL uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the codename Raptor Lake-PS, built on a 10 nm process node. The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H uses the Panther Lake codename with the Panther Lake-H generation, built on a 3 nm process node. The process node difference is substantial, with the Core Ultra X9 378H using a significantly smaller manufacturing process. Both processors come from Intel's foundry.

The Core 5 130UL features 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Core Ultra X9 378H features 16 cores and 16 threads. The core count difference favors the Core Ultra X9 378H, though the thread count difference is smaller since the Core 5 130UL uses hyper-threading to reach 12 threads from 10 cores, while the Core Ultra X9 378H has 16 threads from 16 cores without additional threading per core.

Cache configurations differ notably. The Core 5 130UL has an L1 cache of 80 KB per core, an L2 cache of 1.25 MB per core, and a shared L3 cache of 12 MB. The Core Ultra X9 378H has an L1 cache of 192 KB per core, an L2 cache of 2.5 MB per core, and a shared L3 cache of 18 MB. The Core Ultra X9 378H provides larger per-core L1 and L2 caches and a larger total L3 cache.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 130UL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units, while the Core Ultra X9 378H uses Arc B390 graphics. The Arc B390 represents a more advanced graphics solution, though the database does not provide comparative graphics benchmark scores.

The memory support differs. The Core 5 130UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Core Ultra X9 378H supports LPDDR5X memory in a dual-channel configuration with a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. PCIe support also differs: the Core 5 130UL uses Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra X9 378H uses Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The Gen 5 interface provides higher per-lane bandwidth, but the Core 5 130UL offers more total lanes.

The market segments differ. The Core 5 130UL is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra X9 378H is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 2540. This form factor difference affects upgrade paths and system integration.

Specification Differences

The base clock differs: the Core 5 130UL runs at 1.60 GHz, while the Core Ultra X9 378H runs at 2.00 GHz. The boost clock also differs: the Core 5 130UL boosts to 4.70 GHz, while the Core Ultra X9 378H boosts to 5.00 GHz. The Core Ultra X9 378H holds the advantage in both base and boost clock speeds.

Thermal design power differs: the Core 5 130UL has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Core Ultra X9 378H has a TDP of 25 watts. The higher TDP of the Core Ultra X9 378H aligns with its higher core count and clock speeds.

The socket types differ completely. The Core 5 130UL uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket. The Core Ultra X9 378H uses Intel BGA 2540, a ball grid array package for mobile systems. This means the Core 5 130UL can be installed in socket-based desktop motherboards, while the Core Ultra X9 378H is soldered to mobile boards.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so both lack overclocking flexibility through multiplier adjustment. The Core 5 130UL has a launch MSRP that is not recorded in the database, and the Core Ultra X9 378H also lacks a recorded launch MSRP.

The memory bus is dual-channel for both processors. Neither supports ECC memory. The part numbers for both are listed as unknown in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins in all recorded benchmark categories, as the Core 5 130UL has no benchmark data. The Core Ultra X9 378H delivers strong multi-core performance with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32553 and a Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 13672. Its Cinebench R15 multi-core score is 3281. These scores indicate that the 16-core configuration handles heavily threaded workloads effectively.

In single-core performance, the Core Ultra X9 378H records a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4595, a Cinebench R20 single-core score of 1929, and a Cinebench R15 single-core score of 462. PassMark single-thread testing shows a score of 4453. These results show strong per-core capability, supported by the 5.00 GHz boost clock.

The Core Ultra X9 378H also excels in specialized PassMark workloads. It records 386591 for data compression, 29840 for data encryption, 31315 for extended instructions, 114500 for floating point math, 92603 for integer math, 3404 for physics, and 44648 for random string sorting. The find prime numbers score is 357. The average benchmark score of 47468 places it at the 89th percentile among all CPUs.

The Intel Core 5 130UL, with no recorded benchmarks, cannot claim any measured wins. Its 50th percentile ranking suggests it performs near the median of all CPUs in the database, but the lack of specific scores prevents a detailed performance analysis. The Core 5 130UL does offer advantages in other areas: a lower TDP of 15 watts versus 25 watts, socket-based installation on Intel Socket 1700, support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, and 8 PCIe Gen 4 lanes compared to 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes on the Core Ultra X9 378H.

For desktop systems where socket compatibility and lower power draw matter, the Core 5 130UL provides a suitable option. For mobile systems requiring maximum performance, the Core Ultra X9 378H delivers superior benchmark results across all recorded tests. The data clearly favors the Core Ultra X9 378H in raw performance, while the Core 5 130UL differentiates itself through platform characteristics rather than benchmark scores.