OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Core Ultra 5 125H Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£290PassMark benchmark result:20516N. of physical cores:14CPU boost clock speed:4.5 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA2049TDP (Thermal design power):28 W

Intel Core Ultra 5 125H Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.9

Overall score

Score
7.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 85% of models
Score components

90%

7.9

Technical score

10%

?

User score

▲Better than 85% of processors
7.9

Technical score

Technical score
7.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 85% of models
Score components

60%

7.7

Performance

18%

8.2

Cache & Architecture

10%

8.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.8

Platform

1%

8.6

Integrated Graphics

▲Better than 85% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £290

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core Ultra 5 125H

Technical score
Technical score
7.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 85% of models
Score components:

60%

7.7

Performance

18%

8.2

Cache & Architecture

10%

8.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.8

Platform

1%

8.6

Integrated Graphics

7.9
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core Ultra 5 125H has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 89% of models
Score components:

60%

7.9

Overall score

40%

9.0

Price

8.2
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
▼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA2049
CPU socket
FCBGA2049
▼ Worse than 66% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA2049 CPU socket, which is older than that of 66.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
▲ Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
14
N. of physical cores
14
▲ Better than 87% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 14 CPU cores, which is more than 87.1% of processors and equal to 4.3% of processors.
CPU threads
18
CPU threads
18
▲ Better than 85% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 18 CPU threads, which is more than 85% of processors and equal to 0.2% of processors.
Threads per core
?
CPU boost clock speed
4.5 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
4.5 GHz
▲ Better than 57% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.5 GHz which is higher than that of 56.5% of processors and equal to that of 5.4% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.2 GHz & 8x 0.7 GHz & 2x 0.7 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.2 GHz & 8x 0.7 GHz & 2x 0.7 GHz
▼ Worse than 61% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x1.2 GHz & 8x0.7 GHz & 2x0.7 GHz which is lower than that of 61.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
7 nm
Semiconductor size
7 nm
▲ Better than 72% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 7 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 71.5% of processors and equal to that of 10.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 4
Foundry
Intel 4
★ Better than 95% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 4 foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 94.6% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
L3 cache
18 MB
L3 cache
18 MB
▲ Better than 77% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 18 MB which is larger than that of 77.2% of processors and equal to that of 2% of processors.
L2 cache
14 MB
L2 cache
14 MB
▲ Better than 88% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 14 MB which is larger than that of 87.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% of processors.
L1 cache
1,408 KB
L1 cache
1,408 KB
★ Better than 93% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 1,408 KB which is larger than that of 92.9% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X
DDR memory version
DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X
★ Better than 94% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X, which is newer than that of 93.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
7,467 MHz
Maximum memory speed
7,467 MHz
★ Better than 92% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 7,467 MHz, which is higher than that of 92% of processors and equal to 1.2% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5X-7467 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5X-7467 MHz
★ Better than 93% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5X-7467 MHz, which is higher than that of 92.9% of processors and equal to 0.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
96 GB
Maximum memory capacity
96 GB
▲ Better than 56% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 96 GB of memory, which is more than 56% of processors and equal to 5.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
▲ Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
?
Integrated GPU execution units
96
Integrated GPU execution units
96
★ Better than 95% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 96 GPU execution units, which is more than 95% of processors and equal to 4% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
▼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 58.1% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode)
★ Better than 95% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 94.6% of processors and equal to 1.9% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
28 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
28 W
▲ Better than 67% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.5% of processors and equal to that of 7% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
28 W
Base power (PL1)
28 W
▲ Better than 67% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.2% of processors and equal to that of 7.2% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
115 W
Boost power (PL2)
115 W
▼ Worse than 71% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 115 W which is higher than that of 71.3% of processors and equal to that of 7.3% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
▼ Worse than 10% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 3.4% of processors and equal to that of 86.1% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
▲ Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
cTDP: 20-28 W
Show more

Intel Core Ultra 5 125H vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.53x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    12,194
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (12,194 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    12,194 vs 4,829
  • 8 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    14
    ▲ Better than 87% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (14 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    14 vs 6
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Meteor Lake
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Meteor Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Meteor Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 10 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    18
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (18 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    18 vs 8
  • 94.1% higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    20,516
    ▲ Better than 73% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (20,516 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    20,516 vs 10,572.5
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    5.0 + 4.0
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
    5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
  • 5.6x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    14 MB
    ▲ Better than 88% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (14 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    14 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 12 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    28
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (28 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    28 vs 16
  • 25.2% better value for money
    Intel Core Ultra 5 125H has better value for money than the average processor (8.21 vs 6.6).
    8.21 vs 6.56
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME, TME-MK
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME, TME-MK vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME, TME-MK vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 3 years newer release date
    Release date
    2023
    ▲ Better than 71% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2023 vs 2020).
    December 2023
    2023 vs 2020
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ
    ▲ Better than 80% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • Supports HMP
    Uses HMP
    yes
    ▲ Better than 77% of models
    This processor supports HMP, the average processor does not. 22.7% of processors support HMP.
  • 2.53x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    12,194
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (12,194 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    12,194 vs 4,829
  • 8 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    14
    ▲ Better than 87% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (14 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    14 vs 6
  • 10 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    18
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (18 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    18 vs 8
  • 94.1% higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    20,516
    ▲ Better than 73% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (20,516 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    20,516 vs 10,572.5
  • 52.4% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    2,242
    ▲ Better than 75% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,242 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,242 vs 1,471
  • 34.1% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    3,352
    ▲ Better than 73% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,352 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    3,352 vs 2,500
  • 4.7% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.5 GHz
    ▲ Better than 57% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    4.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 2 wider front-end design
    Front-end width
    6
    ▲ Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <2 – >7
    This processor has a higher front-end width than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
    6 vs 4
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Meteor Lake
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Meteor Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Meteor Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 5.6x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    14 MB
    ▲ Better than 88% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (14 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    14 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 4x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    2 MB/core
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    E-core cluster: 2 MB shared by 4 cores
    2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    Intel 4
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 4 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 4 vs Intel 14 nm
  • 3.67x larger L1 cache
    L1 cache
    1,408 KB
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (1408 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    1,408 KB vs 384 KB
  • Uses big.LITTLE design
    big.LITTLE Architecture
    yes
    ▲ Better than 80% of models
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, the average processor does not. 20.5% of processors use a big.LITTLE design.
    P-cores + E-cores
  • 41.7% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    7 nm
    ▲ Better than 72% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (7 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    7 nm vs 12 nm
  • 2.25x larger L3 cache
    L3 cache
    18 MB
    ▲ Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (18 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    18 MB vs 8 MB
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    5.0 + 4.0
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
    5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
  • 12 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    28
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (28 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    28 vs 16
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4).
    DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4
  • 2.55x higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    7,467 MHz
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (7467 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    7,467 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 95.6% higher memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    89.6 GB/s
    ▲ Better than 81% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (89.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    89.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    LPDDR5X-7467 MHz
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5X-7467 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5X-7467 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 50% more memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    96 GB
    ▲ Better than 56% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (96 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    96 GB vs 64 GB
  • 4x more GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    96
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has more GPU execution units than the average processor (96 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    96 vs 24
  • 1 more supported displays
    Maximum supported displays
    4
    ▲ Better than 56% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 10 °C higher TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    110 °C
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (110 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    110 °C vs 100 °C
  • 37.8% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    28 W
    ▲ Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • 37.8% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    28 W
    ▲ Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2, ADX, RDRAND, RDSEE
    Category Benchmark
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2, ADX, RDRAND, RDSEE vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2, ADX, RDRAND, RDSEE vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 25.3% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.28 MB/core
    ▼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.28 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 91.7% higher boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    115 W
    ▼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (115 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    115 W vs 60 W
  • 50% slower classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    166.99
    Category Benchmark
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (167 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    166.99 vs 334.1
  • 10 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    110 °C
    ▼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (110 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    110 °C vs 100 °C
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x8/x8, x8/x4/x4, x4/x4/x4/x4, x4
    ▼ Worse than 73% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x8/x8, x8/x4/x4, x4/x4/x4/x4, x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x8/x8, x8/x4/x4, x4/x4/x4/x4, x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • 37.5% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    5 GT/s
    ▼ Worse than 56% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 1.2 GHz & 8 x 0.7 GHz & 2 x 0.7 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 61% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1.2 GHz & 8x0.7 GHz & 2x0.7 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x1.2 GHz & 8x0.7 GHz & 2x0.7 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2, ADX, RDRAND, RDSEE
    Category Benchmark
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2, ADX, RDRAND, RDSEE vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2, ADX, RDRAND, RDSEE vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 50% slower classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    166.99
    Category Benchmark
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (167 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    166.99 vs 334.1
  • 37.5% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    5 GT/s
    ▼ Worse than 56% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 1.2 GHz & 8 x 0.7 GHz & 2 x 0.7 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 61% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1.2 GHz & 8x0.7 GHz & 2x0.7 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x1.2 GHz & 8x0.7 GHz & 2x0.7 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 25.3% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.28 MB/core
    ▼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.28 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x8/x8, x8/x4/x4, x4/x4/x4/x4, x4
    ▼ Worse than 73% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x8/x8, x8/x4/x4, x4/x4/x4/x4, x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x8/x8, x8/x4/x4, x4/x4/x4/x4, x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • 91.7% higher boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    115 W
    ▼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (115 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    115 W vs 60 W
  • 10 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    110 °C
    ▼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (110 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    110 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

8.0
Iceberg Tech
≈ estimated
06/05/2024
Hands-on review · gaming, productivity and power tests
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra 5 125H is a clear step up for Intel mobile chips, with strong efficiency though gaming and driver issues remain.
9.0
Tech Guy Beau
≈ estimated
18/01/2024
Game testing · Arc integrated graphics at several resolutions
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra 5 125H has surprisingly strong integrated Arc graphics, good for demanding games at moderate settings.
6.0
Hubwood
≈ estimated
17/01/2024
Gaming benchmarks · integrated Arc graphics tests
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra 5 125H is playable in many games on integrated graphics, though early drivers cause occasional problems.
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded yet
Not graded yet

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

back2gaming.com
02/05/2024
Lab test · Laptop processor
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H is an efficient laptop chip with long office battery life and fast Premiere Pro editing, but its AI speed depends on app support.
L
laptopmedia.com
N/A
Summary of the review
Intel Core Ultra 5 125H - LaptopMedia benchmark tests
G
geekom.de
06/01/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core Ultra 5 125H Review: Performance, Efficiency, and AI
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.com
01/07/2023
Summary of the review
Intel Core Ultra 5 125H vs Intel Core Ultra 7 155H (Performance Comparison): Would you like to learn more details about the benchmark results of this...
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.com
04/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core Ultra 5 125H - Notebookcheck (Review and Benchmarks)
(Translated)Show original
I
itdaily.fr
29/10/2025
Summary of the review
MSI Cubi NUC AI 1UMG Review
(Translated)Show original
Z
zdnet.fr
17/04/2025
Summary of the review
Lenovo ThinkPad E14 Gen 6 Review: One of the most affordable laptops to recommend to most professionals
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
13/08/2024
Summary of the review
Framework 13 Review - Time for a Framework Upgrade? Core Ultra, 120Hz Screen, and New Webcam
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core Ultra 5 125H

  • Improved energy efficiency and low power draw under partial loads
  • Strong integrated Arc graphics performance compared to previous generations
  • Dedicated NPU for accelerating local AI workloads like background effects
  • Solid multitasking and responsiveness for office work and student needs
  • Good battery life in laptops, with some users reporting over 10 hours of light use
  • Supports modern standards like AVX2, DDR5, and PCI-Express Gen 5

What we don't like about Intel Core Ultra 5 125H

  • Peak thermal performance can reach high temperatures (up to 103°C) under intense workloads
  • CPU-bound tasks sometimes fall behind competing AMD Ryzen processors
  • Integrated graphics still struggle with high-end AAA gaming at high settings
  • Currently limited software support to fully utilize the integrated NPU
  • High turbo power consumption (up to 115W) can be taxing for compact cooling systems
  • Locked multiplier prevents any manual overclocking

Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H is a mid-range Meteor Lake processor featuring a hybrid architecture with 14 cores (4 P-cores, 8 E-cores, and 2 Low Power E-cores) and 18 threads, supporting a max turbo frequency of 4.5 GHz and 18 MB of L3 cache. Built on the Intel 4 process, its main characteristics include an integrated 7-core Intel Arc GPU and a dedicated Neural Processing Unit (NPU) for hardware-accelerated AI tasks. Key pros are its strong power efficiency at a 28W base TDP, solid integrated graphics performance that handles casual gaming and content creation, and future-proof AI readiness. However, main cons include limited 115W peak turbo power efficiency in thin laptops, lower multi-threaded performance compared to some rival AMD Ryzen 7 chips, and high operating temperatures that can lead to thermal throttling under intense workloads.

Compare Intel Core Ultra 5 125H with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core Ultra 5 125H and other processors

No results found