Intel Core i9-11900H vs Intel Core Ultra 5 125U Comparison

The Intel Core i9-11900H and the Intel Core Ultra 5 125U represent two distinct design philosophies from Intel, separated by years of architectural evolution. The database records 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons between them. The i9-11900H, a high-power Tiger Lake-H part, wins 14 of those tests, while the Ultra 5 125U, a low-power Meteor Lake chip, wins only 3. However, the nature of those wins and losses tells a more nuanced story than the raw victory count suggests, particularly when considering the thermal and power envelope each processor operates within.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most pronounced victory for the i9-11900H comes in multi-threaded rendering workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i9-11900H scores 16772 against the Ultra 5 125U's 9799, a commanding 71.2% advantage. This gap is even more stark when examining the single-core variant of the same test, where the i9-11900H posts 2367 versus 1561, a 51.6% lead. These are not marginal differences; they indicate a fundamental performance tier separation in sustained CPU-bound tasks.

The Cinebench R20 results echo this pattern, though with slightly narrower margins. The i9-11900H achieves 7044 in multi-core and 994 in single-core, while the Ultra 5 125U manages 5982 and 844 respectively. Both deltas sit at 17.8% in favor of the i9-11900H. Even in the older Cinebench R15 test, the i9-11900H maintains its edge, winning multi-core 1690 to 1640 (3%) and single-core 238 to 227 (4.8%).

Beyond rendering, the i9-11900H dominates in several PassMark sub-tests. Its integer math score of 72882 outpaces the Ultra 5 125U's 57046 by 27.8%. Extended instructions see an even larger gap, 16123 versus 11340, a 42.2% difference. Random string sorting also favors the older chip, with a 29.5% delta (28328 vs 21872). Data compression shows the i9-11900H ahead by 20.4%, scoring 239366 against 198858. Even in floating-point math, where the Ultra 5 125U is relatively competitive, the i9-11900H holds a 4.3% edge (43094 vs 41331). The find prime numbers test shows a 35.9% advantage for the i9-11900H (87 vs 64), and the multi-thread PassMark score is 15.8% higher (20162 vs 17417).

The Ultra 5 125U's few victories are revealing. Its PassMark single-thread score of 3296 beats the i9-11900H's 3102 by 5.9%. More notably, in the PassMark physics test, the Ultra 5 125U scores 1082 against the i9-11900H's 953, an 11.9% win. The data encryption test is essentially a tie, with the i9-11900H scoring 12232 and the Ultra 5 125U scoring 12231, a delta of 0%.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures explain much of this performance split. The i9-11900H is built on Tiger Lake-H, a 10 nm process, while the Ultra 5 125U uses Meteor Lake on a 7 nm node. The i9-11900H features 8 cores and 16 threads, whereas the Ultra 5 125U offers 12 cores but only 14 threads, indicating a hybrid design with performance and efficiency cores. The i9-11900H's base clock is 2.10 GHz with a boost of 4.90 GHz. The Ultra 5 125U has a base clock of 1300.00 MHz (1.30 GHz) and a boost of 4.30 GHz.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The i9-11900H carries 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 24 MB L3 cache. The Ultra 5 125U has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, but only 12 MB of shared L3. This means the i9-11900H has double the last-level cache, a critical factor for workloads that repeatedly access large datasets.

Memory support also diverges. The i9-11900H uses DDR4 in a dual-channel configuration, providing 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra 5 125U supports DDR5, also dual-channel, but with a dramatically higher 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The newer chip's PCIe implementation is more limited: Gen 4 with 12 lanes versus the i9-11900H's Gen 4 with 20 lanes.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The i9-11900H includes UHD Graphics 750, while the Ultra 5 125U features Arc Xe-LPG 64EU. The power envelopes are starkly different: the i9-11900H has a TDP of 35 watts, while the Ultra 5 125U is rated at just 15 watts. This explains why the i9-11900H can sustain high clock speeds and multi-threaded throughput, while the Ultra 5 125U must be more conservative.

Where Each One Wins

The data points to a clear split in ideal use cases. The i9-11900H is the unequivocal choice for CPU-heavy, multi-threaded productivity work. Its 71.2% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 42.2% lead in extended instructions make it superior for video rendering, 3D modeling, software compilation, and scientific computing. The 27.8% advantage in integer math and 20.4% lead in data compression further solidify its position for database operations, file archiving, and general number-crunching tasks. For users who prioritize raw throughput and have access to power, the i9-11900H is the stronger processor.

The Ultra 5 125U, despite its losses, wins in specific scenarios. Its 5.9% lead in PassMark single-thread performance suggests it handles lightly threaded, interactive workloads with slightly better responsiveness. The 11.9% victory in the physics test, combined with a 74th percentile ranking versus the i9-11900H's 75th, indicates that the newer chip's architecture may be more efficient for certain real-time calculations. Its 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth versus the i9-11900H's 51.2 GB/s also suggests it can feed data to the CPU faster, which could benefit memory-intensive applications despite the lower core clock speeds.

The Ultra 5 125U's 15-watt TDP versus the i9-11900H's 35 watts is perhaps its most significant advantage. In thin-and-light laptops where cooling is limited, the Ultra 5 125U would likely sustain its performance more consistently without thermal throttling. The i9-11900H may hit higher peaks but requires a more robust cooling solution to maintain those levels.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core rendering workloads?

A: The Intel Core i9-11900H is significantly faster. It scores 16772 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus the Ultra 5 125U's 9799, a 71.2% difference. The gap narrows but remains substantial in Cinebench R20, where the i9-11900H scores 7044 against 5982.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 5 125U have any performance advantages?

A: Yes, in two specific areas. It scores 3296 in PassMark single-thread versus the i9-11900H's 3102, a 5.9% lead. It also wins the PassMark physics test with 1082 versus 953, an 11.9% advantage.

Q: How do their core and thread counts compare?

A: The i9-11900H has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 5 125U has 12 cores but only 14 threads, reflecting its hybrid architecture with both performance and efficiency cores.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The Ultra 5 125U supports DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The i9-11900H uses DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s. Both are dual-channel configurations.

Q: Which processor is more power-efficient?

A: The Ultra 5 125U has a TDP of 15 watts, while the i9-11900H is rated at 35 watts. This gives the Ultra 5 125U a significant advantage in power-constrained environments.

Q: How do the cache sizes differ?

A: The i9-11900H has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 125U has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, but only 12 MB of shared L3.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The i9-11900H uses the Tiger Lake architecture on a 10 nm process, while the Ultra 5 125U uses Meteor Lake on 7 nm. The i9-11900H has 8 cores and 16 threads; the Ultra 5 125U has 12 cores and 14 threads. Base clocks are 2.10 GHz for the i9-11900H and 1300.00 MHz for the Ultra 5 125U, with boost clocks of 4.90 GHz and 4.30 GHz respectively. TDP ratings are 35 watts versus 15 watts.

Socket compatibility is exclusive: the i9-11900H uses Intel BGA 1787, while the Ultra 5 125U uses Intel BGA 2049. The i9-11900H has a die size of 190 mm², while the Ultra 5 125U's die size is not recorded. Cache configurations differ as noted, with the i9-11900H offering 24 MB of shared L3 versus 12 MB on the Ultra 5 125U. Memory support is DDR4 for the i9-11900H and DDR5 for the Ultra 5 125U, with bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. PCIe lanes are 20 for the i9-11900H and 12 for the Ultra 5 125U, both Gen 4. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 750 versus Arc Xe-LPG 64EU. The i9-11900H is end-of-life with a launch MSRP of $546, while the Ultra 5 125U remains active with a launch MSRP of $363.

The Verdict

The recorded data makes a decisive case for the Intel Core i9-11900H in performance-oriented scenarios. Its 71.2% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 51.6% lead in single-core, and 42.2% lead in extended instructions establish it as the superior choice for demanding computational tasks. Users who need maximum throughput for rendering, compilation, or scientific workloads should select the i9-11900H without hesitation, provided their system can manage its 35-watt TDP and 4.90 GHz boost demands.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125U, however, is not without merit. Its 5.9% single-thread lead and 11.9% physics test victory suggest it handles lighter, more interactive workloads with slightly better efficiency. Its 15-watt TDP, combined with 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, makes it the more practical choice for ultra-portable laptops where battery life and thermals are paramount. The Ultra 5 125U's active production status also means it remains a viable option for new designs, whereas the i9-11900H is end-of-life.

The choice ultimately hinges on priorities. For raw, uncompromising performance, the i9-11900H wins decisively. For efficiency, portability, and newer platform features, the Ultra 5 125U is the data-backed recommendation. The 17 benchmark comparisons show a clear performance hierarchy, but they also reveal that the Ultra 5 125U's architecture brings specific strengths to the table, particularly in memory bandwidth and select single-threaded tasks.