Intel's Core Ultra 120/120F Processors: A Disappointing Re-release at Exorbitant Prices

Intel's recent unveiling of its Core Ultra 120 and 120F processors has been met with considerable disappointment, largely due to their prohibitive pricing and the revelation that these 'new' chips are, in essence, re-purposed versions of older Alder Lake architecture. This strategic misstep places them at a significant disadvantage against more competitively priced alternatives from AMD, leading to concerns about their market viability. The decision to release these processors at such elevated costs, despite their dated specifications, raises questions about Intel's approach to consumer value in the current hardware landscape.

Initially, there was a degree of anticipation surrounding Intel's discrete Core Ultra 120 and 120F processors, particularly given their six-core, twelve-thread configuration. However, closer inspection of Intel's official product database, brought to light by reports from sources like Momomo_us on X, revealed a less impressive reality. These chips are not based on the newer Raptor Lake architecture as might be inferred from their nomenclature, but rather on the two-year-old Alder Lake design, with their E-cores entirely deactivated. This means users are effectively getting a Core i5 12400 with a slight clock speed increase to 4.5 GHz, 18 MB of L3 cache, and a 65 W power draw. The tell-tale sign is the 7.5 MB L2 cache, differing from the 12 MB found in genuine Raptor Lake chips.

The primary point of contention, however, is the pricing. Early indications from distributors suggest a cost of around $246.01 for the Core Ultra 120 and $216.66 for the 120F (the version without integrated graphics). This stands in stark contrast to AMD's offerings, such as the Ryzen 5 5500, which can be acquired for approximately $73. Even Intel's own, more capable Core i5 12400, a direct predecessor to the Ultra 120 in terms of underlying architecture, is available for about $144. This substantial price disparity, with the new Intel chips being nearly three times more expensive than their AMD counterparts and significantly pricier than their own older, yet similar, models, renders them an economically illogical choice for consumers, especially gamers seeking cost-effective solutions.

The market's expectation was for Intel to introduce an affordable, gaming-friendly processor, particularly one without the efficiency cores that might complicate performance for certain applications. Instead, the company has offered a product that appears to be a repackaging of existing technology at a premium price point. This strategy is likely to hinder adoption rates, as consumers are increasingly value-conscious and have access to more modern and budget-friendly alternatives. The lack of innovation in conjunction with the inflated cost makes the Core Ultra 120/120F a difficult recommendation in today's competitive processor market.