Familiar specs, new name: Intel's Core 5 120 processors enter the market

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 806   +17
Staff
What just happened? Intel has quietly introduced the Core 5 120 and Core 5 120F processors, modest additions to its budget desktop lineup at a time when industry focus is shifting toward next-gen architectures. The low-key launch was first spotted by hardware leaker @momomo_us, suggesting Intel is still actively refreshing its product stack – even as it looks to phase out older silicon.

The Core 5 120 doesn't break new ground but instead traces its lineage directly to Intel's older Alder Lake architecture. Despite the updated branding, technical specs show a familiar configuration: six performance cores, 12 threads, a 2.5 GHz base clock, and up to 4.5 GHz turbo – a modest 100 MHz boost over the Core i5-12400. It also features 18MB of L3 cache and supports DDR5-4800 memory.

The Core 5 120F shares the same specifications but lacks integrated graphics, making it otherwise identical under the hood.

The close resemblance between the Core 5 120 and the older Core i5-12400 is no coincidence. Intel has a long history of using multiple steppings – internal variants of a CPU die, such as C0 or H0 – to refine manufacturing efficiency and reduce costs over a product's lifecycle.

While Intel has not yet disclosed which stepping the Core 5 120 uses, industry analysts believe it may be built on the more compact and economical H0 die, potentially lowering production costs further.

For most users, these behind-the-scenes changes have little impact. The Core 5 120 and its predecessors share the same core layout and cache design, so real-world performance should be virtually identical in typical workloads. However, subtle differences in thermals or power efficiency may arise due to die variation, nuances that are rarely mentioned in product listings.

Intel's decision to repackage older silicon under a new product name comes at a strategic moment. The company is preparing to launch its Arrow Lake-based Core Ultra 200S lineup while simultaneously working to move remaining Alder Lake inventory. The Core 5 120 series is compatible with LGA 1700 motherboards, making it a drop-in upgrade for users on 12th- or 13th-gen platforms, with no need to replace existing hardware.

Still, the nonstandard naming – diverging from both the Core Ultra and Raptor Lake conventions – may lead to confusion among buyers trying to navigate Intel's increasingly fragmented CPU lineup.

Permalink to story:

 
For all the struggling Intel is doing, they somehow manage to justify spending tens of millions in annual R&D to launch a new socket every 2 years.
That's to ensure that people upgrading have to buy a new motherboard along with their processor. They make the motherboard chipsets, so they can profit from two sources instead of just one.
 
That's to ensure that people upgrading have to buy a new motherboard along with their processor. They make the motherboard chipsets, so they can profit from two sources instead of just one.

They can and already do make new chipsets without changing the socket. They’re flushing money down the drain by engineering new sockets.
 
They can and already do make new chipsets without changing the socket. They’re flushing money down the drain by engineering new sockets.
Right, but if they kept the same socket, people wouldn't have to upgrade their motherboard when they upgrade their CPU. Now, if you want to have a CPU with less of a chance of melting itself, you need to get a new motherboard to go along with it.
 
Right, but if they kept the same socket, people wouldn't have to upgrade their motherboard when they upgrade their CPU. Now, if you want to have a CPU with less of a chance of melting itself, you need to get a new motherboard to go along with it.

Intel has actually maintained the same physical socket while still locking out prior generations. This happened with LGA1151 minus the relocation of 1 pin for the release of Coffee Lake. It was actually possible to (partially) boot unsupported earlier processors using a modified BIOS.
 
Right, but if they kept the same socket, people wouldn't have to upgrade their motherboard when they upgrade their CPU. Now, if you want to have a CPU with less of a chance of melting itself, you need to get a new motherboard to go along with it.
Unlike AMD, Intel users typically buy a CPU and keep it for some time, to where you're going to buy a new motherboard anyway.
 
Unlike AMD, Intel users typically buy a CPU and keep it for some time, to where you're going to buy a new motherboard anyway.

Yes, but AMD users don't HAVE to buy a new CPU, they choose to, and can keep their motherboard. Intel used to tie socket to major revisions, which usually means the same socket "tock" version wasn't much of an upgrade. I guess you're saying that Intel user are happy to buy a new motherboard-CPU combo every other generation? Or are you saying that after a couple of generations of CPU, they buy the still available older CPU as the next upgrade?

I have friends running a 5900x on an X370 board. AM5 will be through at least Zen6 if not longer.
I think you get more options with AMD's way of doing things, but I could be wrong.
 
Unlike AMD, Intel users typically buy a CPU and keep it for some time, to where you're going to buy a new motherboard anyway.
Right, because they have no other choice.

AMD users can upgrade their CPU much more easily. This is a good thing despite the way you try to frame it as something else.
 
Right, because they have no other choice.

AMD users can upgrade their CPU much more easily. This is a good thing despite the way you try to frame it as something else.
They dont need to constantly upgrade. This is a good thing, despite the way you try to frame it as something else.
Yes, but AMD users don't HAVE to buy a new CPU, they choose to, and can keep their motherboard. Intel used to tie socket to major revisions, which usually means the same socket "tock" version wasn't much of an upgrade. I guess you're saying that Intel user are happy to buy a new motherboard-CPU combo every other generation? Or are you saying that after a couple of generations of CPU, they buy the still available older CPU as the next upgrade?

I have friends running a 5900x on an X370 board. AM5 will be through at least Zen6 if not longer.
I think you get more options with AMD's way of doing things, but I could be wrong.
They dont need to buy every other generation. CPUs last a long time.

Look at it this way: You could have bought a ryzen 2700x CPU in 2018, a 3700x in 2019, then a 5800x in 2020, OR you could have just bought a coffee lake i7 in 2018 and had performance comparable to or superior to the 5800x, depending on title, for that entire time. Assuming you got the first two AMD CPUs on discount for only $200 each, you still would have spent TWICE as much as the guy who went with the intel chip.

Being able to upgrade CPUs on the same motherboard is interesting, but it is objectively a waste of money compared to just buying a good CPU and getting your money's worth out of it. The guy who built a coffee lake system can still play every game on the market today and in the near future with no issues, and if they wanted to upgrade, you now have DDR5 based systems that blow coffee lake out of the water in performance.

MY system is like this, I went from a 1700x to a 3700x to a 5800x3d, and the performance increase was huge, but I ended up spending way more, especially since AMD didnt bother fully upgrading the 300 series chipsets and I had to buy a 500 series board for the x3d chip. I ended up spending well over double what a coffee lake system would have cost, and while that x3d is awesome, it would be objectively better to have bought coffee lake back in 2018, used it up to today, and build a 9800x3d or 10800x3d system for a big upgrade.

Even better, I should have waited. My ivy bridge system in 2017 was still perfectly capable, I wanted NVMe boot. Had I held back on the shiny new tech, I could have jumped straight to my x3d system instead and saved $500+.
 
They dont need to constantly upgrade. This is a good thing, despite the way you try to frame it as something else.
They dont need to buy every other generation. CPUs last a long time.

Look at it this way: You could have bought a ryzen 2700x CPU in 2018, a 3700x in 2019, then a 5800x in 2020, OR you could have just bought a coffee lake i7 in 2018 and had performance comparable to or superior to the 5800x, depending on title, for that entire time. Assuming you got the first two AMD CPUs on discount for only $200 each, you still would have spent TWICE as much as the guy who went with the intel chip.

Being able to upgrade CPUs on the same motherboard is interesting, but it is objectively a waste of money compared to just buying a good CPU and getting your money's worth out of it. The guy who built a coffee lake system can still play every game on the market today and in the near future with no issues, and if they wanted to upgrade, you now have DDR5 based systems that blow coffee lake out of the water in performance.

MY system is like this, I went from a 1700x to a 3700x to a 5800x3d, and the performance increase was huge, but I ended up spending way more, especially since AMD didnt bother fully upgrading the 300 series chipsets and I had to buy a 500 series board for the x3d chip. I ended up spending well over double what a coffee lake system would have cost, and while that x3d is awesome, it would be objectively better to have bought coffee lake back in 2018, used it up to today, and build a 9800x3d or 10800x3d system for a big upgrade.

Even better, I should have waited. My ivy bridge system in 2017 was still perfectly capable, I wanted NVMe boot. Had I held back on the shiny new tech, I could have jumped straight to my x3d system instead and saved $500+.
No one needs to constantly upgrade.

Noise.
 
No one needs to constantly upgrade.

Noise.
Yes, thank you for agreeing with my point. Literally the first sentence of the comment you quoted.

You don't need to constantly upgrade, the need for multiple CPUs to work on the same socket is an objective waste of money.
 
Yes, thank you for agreeing with my point. Literally the first sentence of the comment you quoted.

You don't need to constantly upgrade, the need for multiple CPUs to work on the same socket is an objective waste of money.

The only thing you are proving is that your opinion is as illogical as it could possibly be.
No one needs to constantly upgrade, but having more choices at lower prices is a good thing. Only a crazy person would try to argue otherwise.

Just noise, and probably one of the absolute least logical and fully biased takes imaginable.

A fool and his money will soon part ways.
 
Back