5 120 vs EPYC 9375F
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9375F outperforms Core 5 120 by a whopping 343% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 38 | 698 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.30 | 46.99 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 18.18 | 20.23 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Turin (2024) | Raptor Lake-R (2023−2025) |
| Release date | 10 October 2024 (1 year ago) | 31 July 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $5,306 | $211 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Core 5 120 has 466% better value for money than EPYC 9375F.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 9375F and Core 5 120 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 64 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 3.85 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.8 GHz | 4.5 GHz |
| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 256 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 10 nm |
| Die size | 8x 70.6 mm2 | 163 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 66,520 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9375F and Core 5 120 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 2 | 1 |
| Socket | SP5 | 1700 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 320 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9375F and Core 5 120. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
EPYC 9375F and Core 5 120 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 9375F and Core 5 120 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9375F and Core 5 120. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | Intel UHD Graphics 730 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9375F and Core 5 120.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 20 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 54.31 | 12.27 |
| Recency | 10 October 2024 | 31 July 2025 |
| Physical cores | 32 | 6 |
| Threads | 64 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 320 Watt | 65 Watt |
EPYC 9375F has a 342.6% higher aggregate performance score, 433.3% more physical cores and 433.3% more threads, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.
Core 5 120, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 months, and 392.3% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 9375F is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Core 5 120 in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 9375F is a server/workstation processor while Core 5 120 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
