Intel Core i7-13700H vs Intel Core Ultra 5 125H Comparison

The Intel Core i7-13700H is the definitive performance winner in this comparison, taking all 17 head-to-head benchmarks against the Intel Core Ultra 5 125H. The data shows a decisive, consistent advantage for the Raptor Lake part, with the Core Ultra 5 125H failing to secure a single victory across any workload tested. This is not a close contest; it is a systematic performance gap that favors the older architecture.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core i7-13700H’s largest victories come in compute-heavy and encryption tasks. In PassMark integer math, the i7-13700H scores 92811 against the Ultra 5 125H’s 69986, a 24.6% lead. Similarly, extended instructions show a 24.9% gap (18303 vs 13749), and data compression reveals a 23.3% advantage (307791 vs 236209). These are not marginal differences; they represent a substantial throughput advantage for the i7-13700H in raw processing and data-handling scenarios.

Cinebench results reinforce the multi-core dominance. The i7-13700H leads by 22.4% in Cinebench R20 multi-core (9231 vs 7161) and by 22.1% in PassMark floating-point math (66322 vs 51670). Even in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is a common all-core load, the i7-13700H posts 15474 versus 12804.5, a 17.3% advantage. The only single-core result where the gap narrows is PassMark single-thread, where the i7-13700H leads by just 5.4% (3594 vs 3399). Cinebench R23 single-core shows a more significant 11.2% lead for the i7-13700H (1856 vs 1647.5).

The smallest margin for the i7-13700H is in PassMark single-thread, but it still wins. The largest margins are in extended instructions (24.9%) and integer math (24.6%), which are core-heavy workloads. The data indicates that the i7-13700H’s higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz, combined with its Raptor Lake architecture, provides a clear edge in both lightly-threaded and heavily-threaded tasks. The Ultra 5 125H, despite its newer Meteor Lake design, cannot close the gap in any benchmark.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the Intel Core i7-13700H wins everywhere. There is no workload in the head-to-head list where the Core Ultra 5 125H posts a higher score. For users prioritizing maximum processing speed, the i7-13700H is the only choice from this data. Its wins span all categories: multi-core rendering (Cinebench R15, R20, R23), single-core responsiveness (Cinebench R15, R20, R23), and PassMark’s suite of math, encryption, compression, and sorting tests.

The Core Ultra 5 125H’s only defensive point is its lower power envelope. With a TDP of 28 watts versus the i7-13700H’s 45 watts, the data implies that the Ultra 5 125H can deliver competitive performance per watt for the tasks it does handle, but the numbers do not show a single performance win. For a user looking at the benchmark scores alone, the i7-13700H is the superior processor in terms of raw capability. There is no use-case split to be made: the i7-13700H is the winner in every measured scenario, from physics (1725 vs 1439, a 16.6% lead) to random string sorting (33595 vs 27435, an 18.3% lead).

The Verdict

The verdict from the benchmark results is unambiguous. The Intel Core i7-13700H is the faster processor, and it should be the pick for any user who prioritizes computing performance above all else. The data shows a 20.1% lead in PassMark multithread (26399 vs 21100) and a 20.7% lead in data encryption (17971 vs 14251). The i7-13700H also has a higher average benchmark score of 27355, though the Ultra 5 125H is close at 27507; this proximity is misleading because the head-to-head tests show a consistent i7-13700H advantage.

The Core Ultra 5 125H, with its 28-watt TDP, is the more power-efficient option. Its average benchmark score of 27507 is actually higher than the i7-13700H’s 27355, but this is due to the inclusion of other benchmarks in the average, not the head-to-head results. In the direct comparison, the i7-13700H wins every test. Therefore, for a user building a machine where sustained multi-core performance is critical, the i7-13700H is the correct choice. For a user who values lower power consumption and is willing to accept a performance deficit, the Ultra 5 125H is viable, but the data shows no performance reason to select it over the i7-13700H.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core i7-13700H. It leads by 17.3% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (15474 vs 12804.5) and by 22.4% in Cinebench R20 multi-core (9231 vs 7161).

Q: Is the Core Ultra 5 125H better at any single benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Core i7-13700H winning all 17 benchmark comparisons, with no wins for the Core Ultra 5 125H.

Q: How big is the single-core performance gap?

A: The i7-13700H leads by 5.4% in PassMark single-thread (3594 vs 3399) and by 11.2% in Cinebench R23 single-core (1856 vs 1647.5).

Q: What about power consumption?

A: The Core Ultra 5 125H has a TDP of 28 watts, while the Core i7-13700H has a TDP of 45 watts. The data does not include performance-per-watt benchmarks.

Q: Do both CPUs have the same core count?

A: Yes, both have 14 cores. However, the Core i7-13700H has 20 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 125H has 18 threads.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core i7-13700H has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, which is higher than the Core Ultra 5 125H’s 4.50 GHz. This contributes to the i7-13700H’s single-core wins.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H is based on the Meteor Lake architecture, manufactured on an Intel 7 nm process. The Intel Core i7-13700H is based on the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-H, and uses a larger Intel 10 nm process node. The i7-13700H is from the Core 13th Gen series, while the Ultra 5 125H is from the newer Core Ultra Series 1.

The cache configurations also differ significantly. The Ultra 5 125H has an L1 cache of 112 KB per core and 2 MB per core for L2, with 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The i7-13700H has a smaller L1 cache of 80 KB per core, the same 2 MB per core for L2, but a larger 24 MB of shared L3 cache. This larger L3 cache is a likely contributor to the i7-13700H’s performance lead in data-heavy tasks like compression and encryption.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Ultra 5 125H uses Arc Xe-LPG 96EU, while the i7-13700H uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. Both have 96 execution units, but they belong to different graphics families. The memory support also varies: the Ultra 5 125H supports DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the i7-13700H supports both DDR4 and DDR5, but its memory bandwidth is not listed in the data.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several key differences beyond architecture. The Core i7-13700H has 20 threads versus the Ultra 5 125H’s 18, despite both having 14 cores. The i7-13700H also has a higher boost clock (5.00 GHz vs 4.50 GHz) but a lower base clock (2.40 GHz vs 3.60 GHz). The TDP difference is notable: 45 watts for the i7-13700H and 28 watts for the Ultra 5 125H.

The sockets are different: the Ultra 5 125H uses Intel BGA 2049, while the i7-13700H uses Intel BGA 1744. The PCIe support is also listed differently; the Ultra 5 125H supports Gen 5, while the i7-13700H supports Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The launch MSRP differs: the Ultra 5 125H is $375, and the i7-13700H is $502. The release dates are also distinct, with the i7-13700H launching on 2023-01-03 and the Ultra 5 125H on 2023-12-13. Both have locked multipliers and are classified as active mobile processors. Their part numbers are SRMZ4 for the Ultra 5 125H and SRMJ1 for the i7-13700H.