Intel Core i5-12600 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 135H Comparison

Intel Core Ultra 5 135H and Intel Core i5-12600 represent two distinct design philosophies from the same manufacturer, separated by process generation, target platform, and core architecture. The Ultra 5 135H is a mobile-focused Meteor Lake part built on Intel’s 7 nm process, while the i5-12600 is a desktop Alder Lake-S chip on Intel’s 10 nm node. The database records 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons between them, with the Ultra 5 135H winning 9 and the i5-12600 winning 8. That near-even split masks a clear behavioral pattern: the desktop chip dominates in sustained multi-core rendering and single-threaded tasks, while the mobile chip leads in encryption, math workloads, and multi-threaded PassMark tests. The following analysis breaks down what each processor does best, where the data points, and which buyer profile matches which part.

Architecture Differences

The most fundamental split is process node and lithography. The Ultra 5 135H uses a 7 nm process, while the i5-12600 uses a 10 nm process. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the smaller node gives the mobile chip a density and power efficiency advantage that shows up in its 28 watt TDP versus the desktop part’s 65 watt TDP. That is a 37 watt difference in thermal design power, and it directly explains why one is a mobile chip and the other is a desktop chip.

Core counts diverge sharply. The Ultra 5 135H has 14 cores and 18 threads, while the i5-12600 has 6 cores and 12 threads. That is an 8-core and 6-thread advantage for the mobile part, yet the desktop chip still wins many multi-core tests. The reason lies in core architecture and clock speeds. The i5-12600 has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Ultra 5 135H has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. So the desktop chip boosts 200 MHz higher, which matters in single-threaded workloads, while the mobile chip has a higher base clock but lower boost.

Cache layouts also differ. Both share 18 MB of L3 cache, but the L1 and L2 caches are not the same. The Ultra 5 135H has 112 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core. The i5-12600 has 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core. That means the mobile chip has 32 KB more L1 per core and 0.75 MB more L2 per core, which helps with data locality and repeated access patterns. Despite having fewer cores, the desktop chip still manages competitive multi-core scores because of its higher boost clock and potentially different core microarchitecture.

Memory support is another differentiator. The Ultra 5 135H supports DDR5 with the note that it depends on the motherboard, while the i5-12600 supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The mobile chip has a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the desktop chip has no recorded bandwidth figure in the database. Both use dual-channel memory buses. PCIe lanes differ: the Ultra 5 135H has Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the i5-12600 has Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). That gives the desktop part twice the PCIe lane count.

Integrated graphics are different as well. The Ultra 5 135H carries Arc Xe-LPG 96EU, while the i5-12600 has UHD Graphics 770. The mobile part’s GPU is a more modern architecture with more execution units, which is relevant for laptops without discrete GPUs. The socket types confirm the platform split: the Ultra 5 135H uses Intel BGA 2049 (soldered, mobile), and the i5-12600 uses Intel Socket 1700 (desktop, replaceable). The i5-12600 has a recorded die size of 163 mm², while the Ultra 5 135H has no die size data.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results paint a clear picture of workload-specific strengths. The i5-12600 wins in Cinebench R15 multi-core by 5.8%, in Cinebench R15 single-core by 5.1%, and in Cinebench R23 multi-core by a massive 34.4%. It also wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 33.5%, PassMark data compression by 0.2%, extended instructions by 11.7%, and single-threaded PassMark tests by 7.9%. That is a pattern of strong performance in rendering, compression, and single-threaded workloads.

The Ultra 5 135H wins Cinebench R20 multi-core by 3%, Cinebench R20 single-core by 3%, PassMark data encryption by 14.8%, prime number finding by 7.2%, floating point math by 7.9%, integer math by 11.2%, multithreaded PassMark by 4.8%, physics by 8.6%, and random string sorting by 12.2%. That is a pattern of strong performance in encryption, math-heavy tasks, and general multi-threaded throughput where the extra cores and threads can be used.

The wins are not random. The i5-12600’s higher boost clock (4.80 GHz vs 4.60 GHz) gives it an edge in tasks that depend on a single core’s maximum frequency, such as Cinebench R15 single-core and R23 single-core. The Ultra 5 135H’s 14 cores and 18 threads give it an advantage in workloads that scale across many threads, such as PassMark multithread and integer math. However, the i5-12600’s Cinebench R23 multi-core win by 34.4% is surprising given its 8-core deficit. This suggests that the desktop chip’s core design is substantially more efficient per thread in sustained rendering, or that the mobile chip’s thermal and power limits (28 W TDP) constrain its multi-core performance under long workloads.

The data also shows that the Ultra 5 135H wins in encryption by 14.8%, which may indicate a more modern instruction set or better crypto acceleration in the Meteor Lake architecture. The i5-12600 wins extended instructions by 11.7%, which suggests better support for SIMD or specialized instruction sets. For users, this means the choice depends on whether the workload is rendering (i5-12600) or encryption and math (Ultra 5 135H).

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded benchmarks, the Intel Core i5-12600 is the stronger overall processor for desktop workloads, particularly rendering and single-threaded applications. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18105 versus the Ultra 5 135H’s 11875.5 is a 34.4% lead, and its single-core score of 2556 versus 1700 is a 33.5% lead. Those are not marginal differences; they are decisive. For anyone running Cinebench, video encoding, or other render-heavy tasks, the i5-12600 is the clear choice.

The Ultra 5 135H is the better pick for mobile users who need a processor that can handle encryption, math-heavy workloads, and multi-threaded tasks in a 28 watt package. It wins 9 of 17 benchmarks, including all PassMark math tests, encryption, physics, and random string sorting. Its 14 cores and 18 threads provide a throughput advantage that the i5-12600 cannot match in those specific areas. The data also shows that the Ultra 5 135H has a higher average benchmark score (29093 versus 28646) and a higher percentile ranking (81st versus 80th), though both chips sit close to their nearest rivals.

The verdict is not a universal recommendation. The i5-12600 belongs in a desktop system where power draw is less of a concern and where rendering or single-threaded performance is the priority. The Ultra 5 135H belongs in a laptop where the 28 watt TDP is essential and where the workload leans toward encryption, math, or multi-threaded throughput. The i5-12600’s launch MSRP is $233, while the Ultra 5 135H’s launch MSRP is $342, but pricing is not the deciding factor in these benchmarks. The deciding factor is the workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the i5-12600 is Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 18105 against the Ultra 5 135H’s 11875.5, a 34.4% advantage. That is the single biggest delta in the entire comparison. The second largest is Cinebench R23 single-core, where the i5-12600 scores 2556 versus 1700, a 33.5% lead. These two results dominate the desktop chip’s case. In Cinebench R15, the i5-12600 also wins multi-core by 5.8% (1824 versus 1718) and single-core by 5.1% (257 versus 244).

The Ultra 5 135H’s largest win is PassMark data encryption, where it scores 15026 versus 13084, a 14.8% lead. Its second largest is random string sorting, with 28980 versus 25832, a 12.2% lead. It also wins integer math by 11.2% (73509 versus 66123), physics by 8.6% (1482 versus 1365), floating point math by 7.9% (54867 versus 50838), and prime number finding by 7.2% (89 versus 83). Its PassMark multithread score is 22422 versus 21399, a 4.8% win, and it wins Cinebench R20 both multi-core (7834 versus 7604, 3%) and single-core (1105 versus 1073, 3%).

The i5-12600 wins PassMark extended instructions by 11.7% (17027 versus 15028), single-threaded PassMark by 7.9% (3823 versus 3521), and data compression by a marginal 0.2% (252160 versus 251651). The compression result is effectively a tie. The overall win count is 9 for the Ultra 5 135H and 8 for the i5-12600, but the magnitude of the i5-12600’s Cinebench R23 wins outweighs the narrow or moderate wins of the Ultra 5 135H in PassMark tests. The database’s average benchmark score reflects this: the Ultra 5 135H has 29093, the i5-12600 has 28646, a difference of 447 points, which is less than 2%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H has 14 cores and 18 threads. The Intel Core i5-12600 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Ultra 5 135H has an 8-core and 6-thread advantage.

Q: Which chip wins Cinebench R23 multi-core, and by how much?

A: The Intel Core i5-12600 wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with a score of 18105, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 135H scores 11875.5. That is a 34.4% lead for the i5-12600.

Q: In which benchmark does the Ultra 5 135H have its biggest win?

A: The Ultra 5 135H’s biggest win is in PassMark data encryption, where it scores 15026 versus the i5-12600’s 13084, a 14.8% lead.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H has a TDP of 28 watts, while the Intel Core i5-12600 has a TDP of 65 watts. The mobile chip draws 37 watts less.

Q: Which processor supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory?

A: The Intel Core i5-12600 supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H supports DDR5, with the database noting that it depends on the motherboard.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H has an average benchmark score of 29093, while the Intel Core i5-12600 has an average score of 28646. The Ultra 5 135H is 447 points higher, and it ranks in the 81st percentile versus the i5-12600’s 80th percentile.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors in the database:

• Cores: 14 (Ultra 5 135H) versus 6 (i5-12600)
• Threads: 18 (Ultra 5 135H) versus 12 (i5-12600)
• Base clock: 3.60 GHz (Ultra 5 135H) versus 3.30 GHz (i5-12600)
• Boost clock: 4.60 GHz (Ultra 5 135H) versus 4.80 GHz (i5-12600)
• TDP: 28 W (Ultra 5 135H) versus 65 W (i5-12600)
• Socket: Intel BGA 2049 (Ultra 5 135H) versus Intel Socket 1700 (i5-12600)
• Architecture: Meteor Lake (Ultra 5 135H) versus Alder Lake (i5-12600)
• Process node: 7 nm (Ultra 5 135H) versus 10 nm (i5-12600)
• Die size: No data (Ultra 5 135H) versus 163 mm² (i5-12600)
• L1 cache: 112 KB per core (Ultra 5 135H) versus 80 KB per core (i5-12600)
• L2 cache: 2 MB per core (Ultra 5 135H) versus 1.25 MB per core (i5-12600)
• Memory support: DDR5 (Ultra 5 135H) versus DDR4, DDR5 (i5-12600)
• Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s (Ultra 5 135H) versus no recorded value (i5-12600)
• PCIe: Gen 5, 8 lanes (Ultra 5 135H) versus Gen 5, 16 lanes (i5-12600)
• Integrated graphics: Arc Xe-LPG 96EU (Ultra 5 135H) versus UHD Graphics 770 (i5-12600)
• Market segment: Mobile (Ultra 5 135H) versus Desktop (i5-12600)
• Release date: 2023-12-13 (Ultra 5 135H) versus no recorded date (i5-12600)
• Launch MSRP: $342 (Ultra 5 135H) versus $233 (i5-12600)
• Part number: SRMZ0 (Ultra 5 135H) versus SRL5T (i5-12600)