Intel Core i3-1000NG4 vs Intel Core i5-5300U Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core i3-1000NG4 wins every recorded multi-core benchmark. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 2989 against 2287 for the i5-5300U, a 23.5% advantage. The i3-1000NG4 also leads in Cinebench R20 multi-core (1255 vs 960) and R15 multi-core (301 vs 230).

Q: How do the two compare in single-core performance?

A: The i3-1000NG4 is ahead in every single-core test. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 422 for the i3 versus 322 for the i5, a 23.7% gap. The R20 single-core results are 177 versus 135, also a 23.7% difference. The i5-5300U has no recorded single-core Cinebench R15 score in the database.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The i5-5300U has an average benchmark score of 895, while the i3-1000NG4 averages 881. The i5 sits at the 24th percentile of all CPUs, and the i3 sits at the 23rd percentile, making them statistically close in overall standing.

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread count?

A: Yes. Both are 2-core, 4-thread mobile parts. The i5-5300U runs at a base clock of 2.30 GHz with a boost of 2.90 GHz, while the i3-1000NG4 has a base clock of 1100.00 MHz (1.10 GHz) and a boost of 3.20 GHz.

Q: What process nodes do these chips use?

A: The i5-5300U uses Intel's 14 nm process with a die size of 82 mm² and 1,300 million transistors. The i3-1000NG4 uses Intel's 10 nm process with a die size of 123 mm²; its transistor count is not recorded in the database.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The i3-1000NG4 has 4 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i5-5300U has 3 MB. The i3 also has a larger L1 cache at 80 KB per core versus 64 KB per core for the i5; both have 256 KB of L2 per core.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and manufacturing nodes. The i5-5300U is built on Broadwell-U, a 14 nm design with 1,300 million transistors on an 82 mm² die. The i3-1000NG4 uses the Ice Lake-Y architecture, moving to a 10 nm process with a larger 123 mm² die. The transistor count for the i3 is not listed in the database, but the die size increase reflects a significantly different design.

Cache hierarchy differs beyond total capacity. The i5-5300U provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 3 MB of shared L3. The i3-1000NG4 provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3. This gives the i3 both a larger per-core L1 and a larger shared L3, which helps feed its higher core clocks.

Clock behavior is another key separation. The i5-5300U has a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost clock of 2.90 GHz. The i3-1000NG4 has a much lower base clock of 1100.00 MHz (1.10 GHz) but a higher boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The i3 relies on aggressive boost behavior to reach its performance, while the i5 maintains a higher sustained base frequency.

Memory support also diverges. The i5-5300U uses DDR3 with dual-channel memory and a recorded bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. The i3-1000NG4 uses DDR4 with dual-channel support, though its memory bandwidth figure is not recorded in the database. PCIe support differs as well: the i5 provides Gen 2 with 12 lanes (CPU only), while the i3 provides Gen 3.

Integrated graphics represent another architectural shift. The i5-5300U pairs with Intel HD 5500, while the i3-1000NG4 pairs with Iris Plus (48EU). The i3's newer graphics architecture and higher EU count are reflected in its more capable iGPU tier.

Thermal design power differs notably: the i5-5300U has a 15 W TDP, while the i3-1000NG4 has a 9 W TDP. This makes the i3 a lower-power part despite its newer architecture and higher boost clock. Sockets also differ: the i5 uses Intel BGA 1168, and the i3 uses Intel BGA 1044, so they are not drop-in compatible.

Both processors are end-of-life mobile parts with locked multipliers. The i5-5300U launched on 2015-02-28 with a launch MSRP of $315; the i3-1000NG4 launched on 2020-03-17 with no launch MSRP recorded.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for raw compute performance: the Intel Core i3-1000NG4. It wins all five recorded head-to-head benchmarks, with deltas ranging from 23.5% to 23.7% in its favor. Whether the workload is single-core or multi-core, the i3-1000NG4 outperforms the i5-5300U by nearly a quarter across every Cinebench iteration in the database.

That said, the average benchmark score tells a different story at the aggregate level. The i5-5300U averages 895, while the i3-1000NG4 averages 881. The i5 also holds a marginal percentile edge, sitting at the 24th percentile versus the 23rd for the i3. These aggregate figures include Geekbench results for the i5, which the i3 lacks in the recorded data, so the averages are not directly comparable across identical test suites.

For buyers choosing between these two mobile parts, the i3-1000NG4 is the better pick when application performance matters most, since its Cinebench wins are consistent and large. The i5-5300U remains competitive only in the broader aggregate sense, but that edge comes from a different benchmark mix rather than from beating the i3 in any shared test.

The i3-1000NG4 also offers a lower 9 W TDP versus 15 W for the i5, meaning it delivers higher benchmark scores while drawing less power on paper. For anyone prioritizing compute throughput and efficiency together, the i3-1000NG4 is the defensible choice from the recorded data. The i5-5300U's only advantage is its higher base clock and its aggregate average score, which relies on benchmarks not shared between the two.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-5300U | Intel Core i3-1000NG4 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Broadwell | Ice Lake |

| Codename | Broadwell-U | Ice Lake-Y |

| Generation | Core i5 (Broadwell-U) | Core i3 (Sunny Cove-Y) |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 10 nm |

| Transistors | 1,300 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 82 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Base Clock | 2.30 GHz | 1100.00 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2.90 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 9 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1168 | Intel BGA 1044 |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 3 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | Not recorded |

| PCIe | Gen 2, 12 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3 |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 5500 | Iris Plus (48EU) |

| Release Date | 2015-02-28 | 2020-03-17 |

| Launch MSRP | $315 | Not recorded |

| Part Number | SR23X | SRGM9 |

Both chips share 2 cores, 4 threads, 256 KB of L2 per core, dual-channel memory buses, non-ECC memory, mobile market segment, end-of-life production status, and locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are one-sided. The i3-1000NG4 wins every recorded test, and the margins are remarkably consistent. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i3 scores 2989 against 2287 for the i5, a 23.5% lead. The single-core R23 result shows 422 versus 322, a 23.7% lead. This consistency suggests the i3's advantage comes from its architectural efficiency and higher boost clock rather than from any workload-specific quirk.

Cinebench R20 tells the same story. Multi-core shows 1255 for the i3 versus 960 for the i5, a 23.5% gap. Single-core shows 177 versus 135, a 23.7% gap. The older Cinebench R15 multi-core test follows the pattern: 301 versus 230, a 23.6% lead for the i3. The i5 has no R15 single-core score in the database, so that comparison cannot be made.

The i5-5300U does have Geekbench results recorded, with a multi-core score of 1540 and a single-core score of 791. The i3-1000NG4 has no Geekbench entries in the database, so no head-to-head comparison is possible on that test. This missing data is also why the i5's average benchmark score of 895 slightly exceeds the i3's 881, despite the i3 winning every shared benchmark.

The largest single edge for the i3 comes in single-core tests, where it leads by 23.7% in both R20 and R23. The smallest edge is 23.5%, seen in multi-core R20 and R23. Across all five shared tests, the i3's advantage never drops below 23.5%, which makes the performance gap both consistent and substantial.

Where Each One Wins

The i3-1000NG4 wins across the board in every benchmark both processors share. Its strengths are most pronounced in single-core workloads, where it leads by 23.7% in both Cinebench R20 and R23 single-core tests. This makes it the better choice for applications that rely heavily on per-thread performance, such as lightly threaded productivity tasks or responsive everyday use.

Multi-core workloads also favor the i3-1000NG4, with a 23.5% lead in both R20 and R23 multi-core tests and a 23.6% lead in R15 multi-core. For rendering, encoding, or any parallel workload represented by Cinebench, the i3 delivers meaningfully higher throughput despite its lower 9 W TDP. The i3 also brings a newer 10 nm architecture, 4 MB of L3 cache, DDR4 support, PCIe Gen 3, and Iris Plus graphics with 48 EUs.

The i5-5300U's wins are narrower and depend on data the i3 does not have. Its average benchmark score of 895 is 14 points higher than the i3's 881, and it sits at the 24th percentile versus the 23rd for the i3. Those figures include Geekbench multicore and singlecore results, which are absent for the i3. The i5 also has a higher base clock of 2.30 GHz versus 1.10 GHz for the i3, which can matter in sustained workloads that do not boost well, though no benchmark in the database isolates that scenario.

The i5's 15 W TDP and higher base clock suggest a part designed for consistent moderate performance, while the i3's 9 W TDP and 3.20 GHz boost clock indicate a burst-oriented design. In the recorded data, the i3's burst behavior wins every time. The i5's only practical advantages are its aggregate average score, which is inflated by benchmarks the i3 never took, and its older DDR3 memory ecosystem.

For use cases like occasional rendering, application compilation, or any Cinebench-representative workload, the i3-1000NG4 is the clear choice. For those who value the slightly higher aggregate percentile and average score, the i5-5300U offers a marginal edge in the database's overall ranking, but that edge does not survive direct comparison on any shared test.