Intel Core 5 120 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a complete sweep: the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests against the Intel Core 5 120. The margins vary widely, from a modest 11.1% single-thread advantage to a dominant 76.4% gap in prime number finding.

The single-core picture is close relative to the multi-core results. In PassMark single-thread tests, the Core Ultra 7 366H scores 4043 against 3595 for the Core 5 120, a delta of 11.1%. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a larger gap: 4020 versus 2577, a 35.9% difference. This pattern repeats across the Cinebench suite, with R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests all showing exactly 35.9% or 36% advantages for the Ultra 7.

Multi-core workloads reveal the true scale of separation. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score for the Ultra 7 366H is 28477, while the Core 5 120 manages 18255, a 35.9% deficit. The R20 multi-core test shows 11960 against 7667, again a 35.9% gap. The same 35.9% delta appears in R15 multi-core, with scores of 2870 and 1840.

The PassMark suite exposes the largest disparities. In find prime numbers, the Ultra 7 366H scores 326 versus 77, a 76.4% advantage. Floating point math shows 103615 against 45383, a 56.2% lead. Data encryption delivers 25845 versus 11131, a 56.9% gap. Physics tests show 2880 against 1333, a 53.7% difference. Extended instructions favor the Ultra 7 by 47%, with scores of 26901 and 14264. Random string sorting shows 39814 versus 21499, a 46% edge. Multithread performance is 33429 against 18597, a 44.4% lead.

Integer math offers the smallest multi-core delta. The Ultra 7 366H scores 83695, while the Core 5 120 reaches 60462, a 27.8% difference. Data compression shows 327455 versus 219535, a 33% gap. The average benchmark score tells the same story: 41263 for the Ultra 7 366H against 25362 for the Core 5 120. The Ultra 7 sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 120 lands in the 77th.

The Core 5 120's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D with an average score of 25365 and a 0% delta, the Intel Core i7-11700KF at 25423 with a -0.2% delta, the Intel Core i5-13400F at 25292 with a 0.3% delta, and the AMD Ryzen 7 7840U at 25432 with a -0.3% delta. The Ultra 7 366H sits alongside the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H at 41215 with a 0.1% delta, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 at 41208 with a 0.1% delta, the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X at 41376 with a -0.3% delta, and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H at 40967 with a 0.7% delta. The Ultra 7's average score places it roughly 63% above the Core 5 120's average, a spread that separates two very different performance classes.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The Core 5 120 does not register a single win in the database.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: The smallest gap appears in PassMark single-thread tests, where the Ultra 7 366H leads by 11.1% with a score of 4043 against 3595. Cinebench single-core tests show a much larger 35.9% to 36% advantage.

Q: What is the biggest benchmark margin between the two chips?

A: The PassMark find prime numbers test shows the widest gap. The Ultra 7 366H scores 326, while the Core 5 120 scores 77, a 76.4% difference.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench multi-core tests?

A: The Ultra 7 366H leads by 35.9% in all three Cinebench multi-core tests. R23 scores are 28477 versus 18255, R20 scores are 11960 versus 7667, and R15 scores are 2870 versus 1840.

Q: What do the average benchmark scores indicate?

A: The Ultra 7 366H has an average benchmark score of 41263 and sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 120 has an average score of 25362 and sits in the 77th percentile.

Q: Are the two chips in similar performance tiers according to the database?

A: No. The Core 5 120's nearest rivals average around 25292 to 25432, while the Ultra 7 366H's nearest rivals average around 40967 to 41376. The Ultra 7 operates in a distinctly higher performance band.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different Intel design lineages. The Core 5 120 uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, and belongs to the Core 5 generation. The Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 generation, specifically the Panther Lake-H variant.

The process nodes diverge sharply. The Core 5 120 is built on Intel's 10 nm process, while the Ultra 7 366H uses a 3 nm process. Both are fabricated by Intel. The die size for the Core 5 120 is 163 mm², while the Ultra 7 366H has no recorded die size in the database.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 5 120 has 6 cores and 12 threads, a conventional arrangement with hyper-threading. The Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads, indicating a hybrid layout without symmetric threading across all cores. Cache layouts also differ. The Core 5 120 has 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core. The Ultra 7 366H has 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core. Both share 18 MB of L3 cache.

The integrated graphics differ. The Core 5 120 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 7 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The Ultra 7's graphics architecture is newer and aligns with the Panther Lake platform. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

Market segments separate the two clearly. The Core 5 120 is a desktop part with an Intel Socket 1700 package. The Ultra 7 366H is a mobile part using Intel BGA 2540. The socket difference alone prevents any platform overlap. The Core 5 120 uses a 65 watt TDP, while the Ultra 7 366H uses a 25 watt TDP, reflecting the mobile versus desktop positioning.

The release dates differ by roughly five months. The Core 5 120 launched on July 30, 2025, while the Ultra 7 366H launched on January 4, 2026. Both processors are listed as Active in production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers are SA35V for the Core 5 120 and SA4R9Q9EL for the Ultra 7 366H.

Specification Differences

The specifications split along predictable lines for a desktop versus mobile comparison. The Core 5 120 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.50 GHz for the Core 5 120 and 2.00 GHz for the Ultra 7 366H. Boost clocks are 4.50 GHz and 4.80 GHz respectively, giving the Ultra 7 a 0.30 GHz advantage at peak.

TDP differs significantly: 65 watts for the Core 5 120 versus 25 watts for the Ultra 7 366H. The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1700 for the desktop chip, Intel BGA 2540 for the mobile chip. The process node is 10 nm for the Core 5 120 and 3 nm for the Ultra 7 366H.

Memory support overlaps and diverges. Both support DDR5 and use dual-channel memory buses. The Core 5 120 also supports DDR4, while the Ultra 7 366H supports LPDDR5X instead. The Ultra 7 366H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s; no memory bandwidth figure is recorded for the Core 5 120.

PCIe lanes differ. The Core 5 120 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Ultra 7 366H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes from the CPU. The integrated graphics differ: UHD Graphics 730 versus Intel Xe3 Graphics.

The Core 5 120 has a launch MSRP of $211. The Ultra 7 366H has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The die size is 163 mm² for the Core 5 120, with no die size recorded for the Ultra 7 366H. The Core 5 120 belongs to the Raptor Lake architecture, while the Ultra 7 366H belongs to Panther Lake.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins every recorded benchmark in the database. There is no workload category in the head-to-head results where the Core 5 120 takes the lead. The question is not which chip wins, but how the margins vary by workload type.

The Ultra 7 366H shows its largest advantages in math-intensive and encryption workloads. Prime number finding, floating point math, and data encryption all show deltas above 56%. These workloads benefit from the wider core count and newer architecture. The 16-core Panther Lake design with its 3 nm process clearly handles parallel computation more efficiently than the 6-core Raptor Lake part.

The smallest advantage appears in single-threaded PassMark tests, where the Ultra 7 leads by only 11.1%. This suggests that the Core 5 120's per-core performance is competitive in lighter, single-threaded tasks, even though the newer Panther Lake core still holds the edge. The Cinebench single-core results tell a different story, with the Ultra 7 leading by 35.9%, so the PassMark single-thread result may reflect specific instruction patterns rather than general single-core capability.

The Core 5 120 remains positioned as a desktop processor with a 65 watt TDP and a socketed platform. It offers DDR4 support, which the Ultra 7 366H lacks, and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, four more than the Ultra 7's 12. Its 10 nm Raptor Lake architecture is older, but the desktop form factor allows for larger cooling solutions. The 163 mm² die size is a recorded physical detail, while the Ultra 7's die size is unrecorded.

For mobile workloads, the Ultra 7 366H is the clear choice by every measured metric. Its 25 watt TDP pairs with a boost clock of 4.80 GHz and a 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth figure. The 16 threads and 18 MB of shared L3 cache provide substantial parallel throughput. The Intel Xe3 Graphics offers a newer integrated graphics solution than the UHD Graphics 730.

For desktop builds using Socket 1700, the Core 5 120 serves a specific platform role. Its 6 cores and 12 threads with a 4.50 GHz boost clock cover general computing needs. The data shows it competes closely with CPUs like the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D and Intel Core i5-13400F, all within a 0.3% delta of each other in average score. The Ultra 7 366H, by contrast, sits alongside the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and other high-end parts in the 87th percentile.

The benchmark record is unambiguous: the Ultra 7 366H delivers higher scores across Cinebench and PassMark suites, with an average score 63% above the Core 5 120. The Core 5 120's strengths are platform-specific, not performance-based. Desktop users on Socket 1700 with DDR4 memory support gain compatibility, while mobile users on Panther Lake gain performance and efficiency.