PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Core 5 120

2025

Why buy it

✅Costs $283 less on MSRP ($340 MSRP vs $623 MSRP).
✅Delivers 82.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 63.6 vs 34.8 PassMark/$ ($340 MSRP vs $623 MSRP).
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of FCBGA1787 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-11955M across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (21,629 vs 21,702).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (18 MB vs 24 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-11955M, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.
❌85.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 35W.

Xeon W-11955M

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.2% higher average FPS across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 18 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.
✅Draws 35W instead of 65W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 34.8 vs 63.6 PassMark/$ ($623 MSRP vs $340 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on FCBGA1787 with DDR4, while Core 5 120 moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.

Core 5 120

2025

Xeon W-11955M

2021

Why buy it

✅Costs $283 less on MSRP ($340 MSRP vs $623 MSRP).
✅Delivers 82.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 63.6 vs 34.8 PassMark/$ ($340 MSRP vs $623 MSRP).
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of FCBGA1787 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.2% higher average FPS across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 18 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.
✅Draws 35W instead of 65W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-11955M across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (21,629 vs 21,702).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (18 MB vs 24 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-11955M, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.
❌85.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 35W.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 34.8 vs 63.6 PassMark/$ ($623 MSRP vs $340 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on FCBGA1787 with DDR4, while Core 5 120 moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon W-11955M better than Core 5 120?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon W-11955M makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core 5 120 is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon W-11955M is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 9.2% more average FPS across 49 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon W-11955M is the better fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 33.3% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 18 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Xeon W-11955M is still the faster CPU overall, but Core 5 120 makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon W-11955M is 83.2% more expensive on MSRP at $623 MSRP versus $340 MSRP, and it gives you a 9.2% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core 5 120 is also 82.6% better value on MSRP (63.6 vs 34.8 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core 5 120 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2021) and a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of FCBGA1787. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Core 5 120 Benchmark Check

Xeon W-11955M Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core 5 120	Xeon W-11955M
1080p
low	170 FPS	247 FPS
medium	147 FPS	230 FPS
high	118 FPS	193 FPS
ultra	99 FPS	166 FPS
1440p
low	145 FPS	220 FPS
medium	123 FPS	185 FPS
high	99 FPS	150 FPS
ultra	83 FPS	133 FPS
4K
low	79 FPS	154 FPS
medium	72 FPS	131 FPS
high	57 FPS	101 FPS
ultra	44 FPS	89 FPS

Open Core 5 120 Open Xeon W-11955M

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core 5 120	Xeon W-11955M
1080p
low	471 FPS	343 FPS
medium	401 FPS	293 FPS
high	338 FPS	248 FPS
ultra	298 FPS	225 FPS
1440p
low	409 FPS	298 FPS
medium	355 FPS	266 FPS
high	309 FPS	227 FPS
ultra	264 FPS	194 FPS
4K
low	274 FPS	177 FPS
medium	243 FPS	161 FPS
high	223 FPS	154 FPS
ultra	191 FPS	134 FPS

Open Core 5 120 Open Xeon W-11955M

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core 5 120	Xeon W-11955M
1080p
low	541 FPS	543 FPS
medium	541 FPS	543 FPS
high	541 FPS	488 FPS
ultra	496 FPS	388 FPS
1440p
low	541 FPS	543 FPS
medium	491 FPS	501 FPS
high	445 FPS	426 FPS
ultra	388 FPS	345 FPS
4K
low	411 FPS	428 FPS
medium	347 FPS	368 FPS
high	303 FPS	324 FPS
ultra	244 FPS	259 FPS

Open Core 5 120 Open Xeon W-11955M

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core 5 120	Xeon W-11955M
1080p
low	541 FPS	543 FPS
medium	541 FPS	543 FPS
high	541 FPS	543 FPS
ultra	541 FPS	543 FPS
1440p
low	541 FPS	543 FPS
medium	541 FPS	543 FPS
high	541 FPS	543 FPS
ultra	534 FPS	476 FPS
4K
low	541 FPS	510 FPS
medium	499 FPS	458 FPS
high	440 FPS	405 FPS
ultra	376 FPS	348 FPS

Open Core 5 120 Open Xeon W-11955M

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core 5 120 and Xeon W-11955M

Core 5 120

The Core 5 120 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 31 July 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Raptor Lake-R (2023−2025) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.5 GHz. L3 cache: 18 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.25 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4, DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 21,629 points. Launch price was $211.

Xeon W-11955M

The Xeon W-11955M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 11 May 2021 (4 years ago). It is based on the Tiger Lake-H (2021) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 24 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.25 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm SuperFin process technology. Socket: FCBGA1787. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 21,702 points. Launch price was $623.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core 5 120 packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon W-11955M offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Xeon W-11955M has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.5 GHz on the Core 5 120 versus 5 GHz on the Xeon W-11955M — a 10.5% clock advantage for the Xeon W-11955M (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.1 GHz). The Core 5 120 uses the Raptor Lake-R (2023−2025) architecture (10 nm), while the Xeon W-11955M uses Tiger Lake-H (2021) (10 nm SuperFin). In PassMark, the Core 5 120 scores 21,629 against the Xeon W-11955M's 21,702 — a 0.3% lead for the Xeon W-11955M. L3 cache: 18 MB (total) on the Core 5 120 vs 24 MB (total) on the Xeon W-11955M.

Feature	Core 5 120	Xeon W-11955M
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	8 / 16+33%
Boost Clock	4.5 GHz	5 GHz+11%
Base Clock	2.5 GHz+19%	2.1 GHz
L3 Cache	18 MB (total)	24 MB (total)+33%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)	1.25 MB (per core)
Process	10 nm	10 nm SuperFin
Architecture	Raptor Lake-R (2023−2025)	Tiger Lake-H (2021)
PassMark	21,629	21,702

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core 5 120 uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon W-11955M uses FCBGA1787 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core 5 120	Xeon W-11955M
Socket	LGA1700	FCBGA1787
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0

💰

Value Analysis

The Core 5 120 launched at $340 MSRP, while the Xeon W-11955M debuted at $623. On MSRP ($340 vs $623), the Core 5 120 is $283 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core 5 120 delivers 63.6 pts/$ vs 34.8 pts/$ for the Xeon W-11955M — making the Core 5 120 the 58.5% better value option.