Intel Core i5-12500H vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V and Intel Core i5-12500H represent two distinct philosophies in mobile computing: one is a current-generation, power-efficient design built on a leading-edge process, while the other is a high-core-count workhorse from a previous generation. The benchmark data reveals a fascinating split, where the newer chip wins on efficiency and single-thread finesse, but the older chip dominates in raw multi-threaded throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the data is the massive divergence in multi-core performance. The Intel Core i5-12500H is decisively ahead in Cinebench R23 multi-core, scoring 19840 against the Core Ultra 9 288V's 10178, a staggering 48.7% lead. This pattern repeats across other multi-threaded tests, though with varying margins. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the i5-12500H leads by 15.2% (8332 vs 7069), and in Cinebench R15 multi-core, it is ahead by 20.8% (1999 vs 1583). The PassMark integer math test shows a similar story, with the i5-12500H scoring 71714 compared to 44019, a 38.6% advantage, while the i5-12500H also wins PassMark data compression by 26.4% (253431 vs 186521).

However, the Core Ultra 9 288V is not without its own decisive victories. Its most dramatic win is in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 195 against the i5-12500H's 57, a 242.1% lead. This suggests the newer architecture has a significant edge in specific workloads like prime number calculations. The Ultra 9 also wins PassMark physics by a comfortable 60.8% margin (1637 vs 1018) and PassMark floating point math by 14% (59536 vs 52227). In single-thread performance, the Ultra 9 is clearly superior, winning PassMark single thread with a 25% lead (4274 vs 3418) and Cinebench R15 single-core with a 6.9% lead (301.5 vs 282). The split is stark: the i5-12500H wins 10 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, but the Ultra 9 wins the ones that point to efficiency, single-core capability, and specific mathematical operations.

Architecture Differences

The two chips are built on fundamentally different foundations. The Core Ultra 9 288V uses Intel's Lunar Lake architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process by TSMC, while the Core i5-12500H is based on the older Alder Lake-H architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process. This process node difference is a primary driver of the performance per watt characteristics seen in the benchmarks.

The core configurations are also vastly different. The Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The i5-12500H, in contrast, has 12 cores and 16 threads, with a lower base clock of 2.50 GHz but a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The i5-12500H's higher core and thread count explains its dominance in multi-threaded benchmarks, while the Ultra 9's higher boost clock and newer architecture explain its single-thread advantage.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The Ultra 9 has a much larger L1 cache at 192 KB per core and L2 at 2.5 MB per core, but a smaller L3 cache at 12 MB shared. The i5-12500H has smaller L1 (80 KB per core) and L2 (1.25 MB per core) caches, but a larger shared L3 at 18 MB. Memory support also diverges: the Ultra 9 supports only LPDDR5X with a measured bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s, while the i5-12500H supports both DDR4 and DDR5 without a listed bandwidth figure. The PCIe capabilities differ too, with the Ultra 9 offering Gen 5 with 4 lanes, while the i5-12500H offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes, indicating a trade-off between modern bandwidth and expansion capability.

Where Each One Wins

The data clearly shows that the Intel Core i5-12500H is the champion for heavily threaded workloads. Its wins in Cinebench R23 and R20 multi-core, PassMark integer math, data compression, random string sorting, and multithread tests all point to its suitability for video rendering, 3D modeling, code compilation, and other tasks that can utilize all 12 cores and 16 threads. The 48.7% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core is a massive advantage for users who spend their time in CPU-intensive creative applications.

Conversely, the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V is the king of single-thread performance and efficiency-oriented tasks. Its wins in PassMark single thread (25% lead), Cinebench R15 single-core, PassMark physics, and floating point math suggest it excels in everyday responsiveness, office productivity, and applications that rely on strong single-core performance. The 242.1% lead in find prime numbers is an outlier but indicates a significant architectural advantage in certain mathematical or scientific workloads. Its 30 W TDP, compared to the i5-12500H's 45 W TDP, also positions it as the better choice for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermals are critical.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i5-12500H is significantly faster in multi-core tests. It leads by 48.7% in Cinebench R23 multi-core and by 15.2% in Cinebench R20 multi-core.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 9 288V have any advantages over the i5-12500H?

A: Yes, the Core Ultra 9 288V wins in single-thread performance, leading by 25% in PassMark single thread. It also has notable wins in PassMark physics (60.8% lead) and find prime numbers (242.1% lead).

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i5-12500H has 12 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How do the TDPs of these two processors compare?

A: The Core Ultra 9 288V has a TDP of 30 W, while the Core i5-12500H has a higher TDP of 45 W.

Q: What is the difference in their memory support?

A: The Core Ultra 9 288V supports only LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. The Core i5-12500H supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, but its bandwidth is not listed in the data.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The Core Ultra 9 288V has a higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz, compared to the Core i5-12500H's boost clock of 4.50 GHz.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 9 288V | Intel Core i5-12500H |

|:--- |:--- |:--- |

| Series | Core Ultra Series 2 | Core 12th Gen |

| Cores | 8 | 12 |

| Threads | 8 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.30 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.10 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| TDP | 30 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2833 | Intel BGA 1744 |

| Architecture | Lunar Lake | Alder Lake |

| Codename | Lunar Lake | Alder Lake-H |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | Not listed | 217 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2.5 MB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 136.5 GB/s | Not listed |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc 140V | Iris Xe 80EU |

| Part Number | SRPMSSRPMWQ5JTQ5JUQ5KW | SRLCY |

The Verdict

The choice between these two processors comes down to workload priorities. The Intel Core i5-12500H is the clear pick for users who need maximum multi-core performance for demanding tasks like 3D rendering, video encoding, or heavy multitasking. Its 48.7% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 38.6% lead in PassMark integer math are not minor differences; they represent substantial real-world time savings in threaded workloads.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V, on the other hand, is the better choice for users who prioritize single-thread performance, power efficiency, and a modern platform. Its 25% lead in PassMark single thread translates to snappier everyday performance, and its 30 W TDP makes it a more suitable candidate for fanless or thin-and-light designs. Its wins in PassMark physics and floating point math also suggest it may be better suited for certain scientific and engineering applications. For a user who values portability, battery life, and responsive single-threaded tasks over raw multi-core muscle, the Core Ultra 9 288V is the more logical option.