Intel Core i5-110 vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

Intel Core i5-110 vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database currently contains no head-to-head benchmark entries that directly compare the Intel Core i5-110 and the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H in a single test session. However, the recorded data for the Core Ultra X9 378H is extensive, while the Core i5-110 has no individual benchmark scores listed. This asymmetry in available measurements means that a direct numerical comparison of specific workloads, such as Cinebench or PassMark subtests, is not possible from the existing records. The Core Ultra X9 378H has a recorded average benchmark score of 47468, placing it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core i5-110 is listed at the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of 0, which reflects the absence of submitted test data rather than a measured performance outcome.

The Core Ultra X9 378H’s nearest rivals in the database provide context for its performance tier. It sits within a narrow band of scores, with the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 at 47527 (a delta of -0.1 percent), the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T at 47697 (a delta of -0.5 percent), the Intel Core i7-13700KF at 47330 (a delta of 0.3 percent), and the Intel Core i9-12900F at 47176 (a delta of 0.6 percent). These deltas indicate that the Core Ultra X9 378H is effectively a peer of those desktop-class processors, despite being a mobile part. The largest recorded advantage in this group is 0.6 percent over the Core i9-12900F, which is a negligible margin in practical terms. The largest disadvantage is 0.5 percent against the Core Ultra 7 265T, again a very small difference.

For the Core Ultra X9 378H itself, the Cinebench results show a substantial gap between multi-core and single-core scaling. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score is 32553, while the single-core score is 4595. That translates to a multi-core performance roughly 7.1 times the single-core result. In Cinebench R20, the multi-core score is 13672 versus a single-core score of 1929, a ratio of about 7.1 as well. The R15 test shows 3281 multi-core and 462 single-core, a ratio of approximately 7.1. This consistent ratio across three Cinebench versions indicates that the 16-core, 16-thread configuration scales in a linear fashion without hyper-threading overhead, since thread count equals core count.

PassMark subtests for the Core Ultra X9 378H reveal its strengths in specific operations. The data compression test produced a score of 386591, which is by far the highest recorded metric in its suite. Data encryption reached 29840, and extended instructions scored 31315. Floating point math hit 114500, while integer math scored 92603. The multi-threaded PassMark score is 38298, and the single-thread score is 4453. Random string sorting recorded 44648, and the physics test scored 3404. The find prime numbers test produced a notably low score of 357, which is a specialized workload that does not align with the processor’s architecture. The difference between the data compression score of 386591 and the prime number score of 357 illustrates that the Core Ultra X9 378H is heavily optimized for certain instruction patterns and not others.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H?

A: The Core Ultra X9 378H has an average benchmark score of 47468, placing it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-110 have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The Core i5-110 has an empty benchmarks array and an average benchmark score of 0, with no individual test results available in the database.

Q: How does the Core Ultra X9 378H compare to its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 has an average score of 47527, which is 0.1 percent higher than the Core Ultra X9 378H’s 47468. The two are statistically tied.

Q: What is the multi-core to single-core ratio for the Core Ultra X9 378H in Cinebench R23?

A: The multi-core score is 32553 and the single-core score is 4595, producing a ratio of approximately 7.1 to 1.

Q: What is the highest PassMark subtest score for the Core Ultra X9 378H?

A: The data compression test recorded 386591, which is the highest score across all recorded PassMark subtests for that processor.

Q: What is the lowest PassMark subtest score for the Core Ultra X9 378H?

A: The find prime numbers test recorded 357, which is the lowest score in the PassMark suite for that processor.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra X9 378H wins in every workload category where a measurement exists, simply because the Core i5-110 has no recorded benchmark data. In multi-threaded productivity, the Core Ultra X9 378H delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32553, which is representative of heavy parallel workloads such as rendering or scientific computation. Its single-core performance is also strong, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4595, which matters for applications that rely on one main thread. The PassMark data compression score of 386591 suggests that the Core Ultra X9 378H excels at tasks involving large data streams, such as file archiving or database operations. The floating point math score of 114500 and integer math score of 92603 indicate robust general arithmetic capability for simulation and number-crunching workloads.

The Core i5-110, with no benchmarks in the database, has no measurable wins in any category. Its 6-core, 12-thread configuration with a 4.30 GHz boost clock would logically place it in a different tier, but the data does not support any performance claims. The 50th percentile ranking is a default value that accompanies the zero average score, not a measured position. Therefore, any use-case split based on benchmark wins must go entirely to the Core Ultra X9 378H for all recorded tests. The only area where the Core i5-110 might be relevant is in scenarios defined by the database’s missing data, which cannot be quantified.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Core i5-110 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Core Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core i5-110 has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Core Ultra X9 378H has a lower base clock of 2.00 GHz but a higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Thermal design power differs significantly: the Core i5-110 is rated at 65 watts, while the Core Ultra X9 378H is rated at 25 watts. The Core i5-110 uses the Intel Socket 1200 platform, whereas the Core Ultra X9 378H uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket. The Core i5-110 supports DDR4 memory, and the Core Ultra X9 378H supports LPDDR5X memory. Memory bandwidth is 42.7 GB/s for the Core i5-110 and 153.6 GB/s for the Core Ultra X9 378H. The Core i5-110 has PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, and the Core Ultra X9 378H has PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes. The Core i5-110 includes UHD Graphics 630, while the Core Ultra X9 378H includes Arc B390 graphics.

Architecture Differences

The Core i5-110 is built on the Comet Lake architecture with a 14 nm process node, both manufactured by Intel. Its cache layout is 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra X9 378H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 with the Panther Lake codename and the Panther Lake-H generation, built on a 3 nm process node, also by Intel. Its cache is substantially larger: 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i5-110 is a desktop part, while the Core Ultra X9 378H is a mobile part. The Core i5-110 was released on September 10, 2025, and the Core Ultra X9 378H was released on April 3, 2026. The Core i5-110 has a launch MSRP of $200, while the Core Ultra X9 378H has no recorded launch MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Core i5-110 has a part number of SA35X, while the Core Ultra X9 378H has an unknown part number. Neither processor supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra X9 378H has no hyper-threading, as its thread count equals its core count, while the Core i5-110 has 12 threads from 6 cores, indicating hyper-threading is enabled.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear but lopsided picture. For workloads measured in the database, the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H is the only option with observable performance, and its numbers are strong. The 32553 Cinebench R23 multi-core score and 4595 single-core score place it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 47468. Its nearest rivals, including the Intel Core i7-13700KF and Intel Core i9-12900F, are all within 0.6 percent of its average score, meaning the Core Ultra X9 378H competes with high-end desktop silicon despite its 25 watt mobile power envelope. The 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth and 18 MB of L3 cache support its high throughput in data-heavy tasks.

The Intel Core i5-110 offers no benchmark evidence in the database. Its 50th percentile ranking and zero average score are not informative, and the 6-core, 12-thread configuration with a 65 watt TDP and 42.7 GB/s memory bandwidth cannot be assessed against the Core Ultra X9 378H without test results. The release dates favor the Core Ultra X9 378H, which is newer by several months, and its 3 nm process node gives it an architectural advantage over the 14 nm Comet Lake design. The Core i5-110 does have a recorded launch MSRP of $200, but no price comparison is possible for the Core Ultra X9 378H since it has no launch MSRP.

The decision from the data is straightforward. A user prioritizing measured multi-core and single-core performance, memory bandwidth, and modern process technology should select the Core Ultra X9 378H. A user constrained to a desktop Socket 1200 platform with DDR4 memory would consider the Core i5-110, but the database provides no performance justification for that choice. The Core Ultra X9 378H is the only processor in this comparison with recorded benchmark data, and that data is competitive with the top of the database. The Core i5-110 remains an unknown quantity, and the absence of measurements makes any performance claim unsupported.