Intel Core i5-12490F vs Intel Core Ultra 5 125U Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125U and Intel Core i5-12490F are both active Intel processors, yet they target entirely different market segments: the former is a mobile chip with integrated graphics, while the latter is a desktop part without any. Despite this, their average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the Ultra 5 125U scoring 20,826 and the i5-12490F scoring 20,802, a difference of just 0.1%. Both sit at the 74th percentile of all CPUs, and the data shows that the i5-12490F wins 16 of 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with the Ultra 5 125U taking only a single narrow victory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in this comparison is the Cinebench R23 multicore test, where the i5-12490F scores 17,284 against the Ultra 5 125U’s 9,799. That is a 43.3% advantage for the desktop chip, a massive gap that underscores how the mobile processor’s 15W design limits sustained all-core performance. The single-core Cinebench R23 result follows the same pattern, with the i5-12490F scoring 2,440 versus 1,561, a 36% lead. These two results alone tell the story: the i5-12490F is dramatically faster in both lightly-threaded and heavily-threaded rendering workloads.

Looking at the older Cinebench versions, the trend continues but with smaller margins. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the i5-12490F scores 7,259 versus 5,982, a 17.6% lead, and the single-core result is also 17.6% in favor of the desktop part (1,024 versus 844). In Cinebench R15, the i5-12490F wins multicore with 1,742 against 1,640 (5.9% ahead) and single-core with 245 against 227 (7.3% ahead). The margins shrink as the workload becomes shorter and less demanding, suggesting that the Ultra 5 125U’s burst performance is closer to the i5-12490F than its sustained output.

The PassMark suite shows a similar overall picture, but with one notable exception. The Ultra 5 125U wins the data encryption test with a score of 12,231 versus 12,018, a 1.8% edge. This is the only test where the mobile chip comes out ahead, and it is a narrow victory. Every other PassMark test favors the i5-12490F. The largest PassMark margin is in extended instructions, where the i5-12490F scores 15,993 against 11,340, a 29.1% advantage. The physics test shows a 19.6% lead for the i5-12490F (1,345 versus 1,082), while floating-point math is 12.7% better for the desktop chip (47,326 versus 41,331). Integer math is closer, with the i5-12490F scoring 60,548 against 57,046, a 5.8% margin.

The multi-threaded PassMark score gives the i5-12490F a 13.8% advantage (20,202 versus 17,417), and the single-thread score shows a 10.5% lead for the desktop part (3,682 versus 3,296). Data compression favors the i5-12490F by 16.2% (237,304 versus 198,858), and random string sorting is 8.1% better (23,791 versus 21,872). The prime number finding test shows a 26.4% gap (87 versus 64). The i5-12490F also wins the single-thread PassMark test by 10.5% (3,682 versus 3,296), consistent with its higher boost clock.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 125U has an average benchmark score of 20,826, while the Intel Core i5-12490F scores 20,802. The difference is 0.1%, effectively a tie.

Q: How much faster is the i5-12490F in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The i5-12490F scores 17,284 in Cinebench R23 multicore, which is 43.3% ahead of the Ultra 5 125U’s 9,799.

Q: Does the Ultra 5 125U win any benchmark against the i5-12490F?

A: Yes, the Ultra 5 125U wins the PassMark data encryption test with a score of 12,231, which is 1.8% higher than the i5-12490F’s 12,018.

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

A: The Ultra 5 125U has a TDP of 15W, while the i5-12490F has a TDP of 65W.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The i5-12490F supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 5 125U supports only DDR5, with capacity depending on the motherboard.

Q: Do both CPUs have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Ultra 5 125U includes Arc Xe-LPG 64EU integrated graphics, while the i5-12490F has no integrated graphics.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures and process nodes. The Ultra 5 125U is built on Meteor Lake, using a 7 nm process, while the i5-12490F is based on Alder Lake-S, manufactured on a 10 nm node. This process difference is significant, as the newer 7 nm node allows the mobile chip to operate at a much lower 15W TDP while still providing a competitive average score relative to the 65W desktop part.

Core counts differ substantially. The Ultra 5 125U has 12 cores and 14 threads, while the i5-12490F has 6 cores and 12 threads. Despite having twice the core count, the Ultra 5 125U loses in most multi-threaded tests, which indicates that its efficiency cores do not match the performance of the i5-12490F’s full-size cores. Cache configurations also vary: the Ultra 5 125U has 112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core, with 12 MB shared L3, while the i5-12490F has 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core, but a larger 20 MB shared L3 cache.

The i5-12490F has a die size of 163 mm², while the Ultra 5 125U has no listed die size. PCIe support differs, with the i5-12490F offering Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only) and the Ultra 5 125U providing Gen 4 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra 5 125U includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG 64EU graphics, which the i5-12490F lacks entirely. Memory bandwidth is listed for the Ultra 5 125U at 89.6 GB/s, while no figure is given for the i5-12490F. Neither chip supports ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers.

Specification Differences

The core specifications show clear differences in nearly every field. The Ultra 5 125U has 12 cores and 14 threads, compared to the i5-12490F’s 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are 1300 MHz for the Ultra 5 125U and 3000 MHz for the i5-12490F, while boost clocks are 4.30 GHz and 4.60 GHz, respectively. TDP is 15W versus 65W, a major differentiator.

The socket types are incompatible: the Ultra 5 125U uses Intel BGA 2049 (mobile), and the i5-12490F uses Intel Socket 1700 (desktop). Memory support differs, with the Ultra 5 125U limited to DDR5 and the i5-12490F supporting both DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth is listed at 89.6 GB/s for the Ultra 5 125U, while the i5-12490F has no listed figure. PCIe capability favors the desktop chip, offering Gen 5 with 20 lanes versus Gen 4 with 12 lanes for the mobile part. The Ultra 5 125U has integrated Arc Xe-LPG 64EU graphics; the i5-12490F has none. The launch MSRP for the Ultra 5 125U is $363; the i5-12490F has no listed launch MSRP.

Cache sizes are notably different: the Ultra 5 125U has 112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core, with 12 MB shared L3; the i5-12490F has 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core, but 20 MB shared L3. The i5-12490F also has a listed die size of 163 mm², which the Ultra 5 125U lacks. Both processors are active in production and have locked multipliers. The Ultra 5 125U was released on 2023-12-13, while the i5-12490F has no release date listed.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the i5-12490F is the faster processor in almost every measurable way. It wins 16 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, with margins ranging from 5.8% in PassMark integer math to 43.3% in Cinebench R23 multicore. The single-core performance gap is consistent, with the i5-12490F leading by 7.3% to 36% across various Cinebench versions and PassMark tests. There is no rendering, physics, or general compute workload in the data where the Ultra 5 125U outperforms the desktop chip, except for a marginal 1.8% win in data encryption.

The Ultra 5 125U’s only saving grace is its efficiency. With a 15W TDP versus 65W, it delivers comparable average scores while consuming far less power, making it suitable for mobile systems. However, the data shows that the i5-12490F offers superior performance across the board, particularly in multi-core workloads where it leads by 13.8% in PassMark multithread and 43.3% in Cinebench R23. For anyone who can use a desktop socket and does not need integrated graphics, the i5-12490F is the clear choice based on benchmark results. The Ultra 5 125U is only preferable when the mobile form factor and low TDP are absolute requirements, accepting a significant performance penalty.

Where Each One Wins

The i5-12490F wins in all categories except one. It dominates multi-threaded rendering, as shown by the 43.3% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore and 17.6% lead in Cinebench R20 multicore. Single-threaded performance also favors the desktop chip, with a 36% advantage in Cinebench R23 single-core and 10.5% in PassMark single-thread. General productivity tasks like data compression (16.2% ahead), random string sorting (8.1% ahead), and integer math (5.8% ahead) all favor the i5-12490F. Physics calculations are 19.6% better on the i5-12490F, and floating-point math is 12.7% better.

The Ultra 5 125U wins only the data encryption test, scoring 12,231 versus 12,018, a 1.8% margin. This is a narrow victory and does not indicate a broader trend. In every other benchmark, the i5-12490F is faster, often by substantial double-digit percentages. The Ultra 5 125U’s strengths lie outside raw performance, such as its integrated Arc Xe-LPG 64EU graphics and 15W TDP, but the data does not show any other benchmark win. For workloads involving encryption, the Ultra 5 125U has a slight edge, but for everything else, the i5-12490F is the better performer.