Intel Core i3-3240 vs Intel Core i3-3250T Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear and consistent pattern: the Intel Core i3-3250T outperforms the Intel Core i3-3240 across every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. The i3-3250T wins all five recorded tests, with no wins for the i3-3240.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3-3250T scores 226 points against 201 points for the i3-3240, a 12.4% advantage. The gap remains nearly identical in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the i3-3250T posts 945 points versus 840 points, a 12.5% lead. Moving to Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i3-3250T delivers 2252 points compared to 2000 points for the i3-3240, a 12.6% margin.

Single-core results follow the same trajectory. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i3-3250T scores 133 points against 118 points, a 12.7% advantage. The Cinebench R23 single-core test shows 318 points for the i3-3250T and 282 points for the i3-3240, a 12.8% lead. Across all five tests, the delta ranges from 12.4% to 12.8%, showing remarkable consistency in the performance gap.

The average benchmark score reinforces this hierarchy. The i3-3250T averages 775 points, while the i3-3240 averages 761 points. This places the i3-3250T at the 21st percentile of all CPUs, one percentile point ahead of the i3-3240 at the 20th percentile.

When placed against their nearest rivals, both chips occupy similar competitive territory. The i3-3250T matches the Intel Celeron G5920 at an average score of 775, sits 0.1% ahead of the Intel Pentium Silver J5005 at 776, and is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Athlon X4 760K at 777. The i3-3240, meanwhile, trails the AMD A8-6600K by 0.3% (764 versus 761), leads the Intel Core i5-3210M by 0.4% (761 versus 758), and sits 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i3-5020U at 757.

The data suggests the i3-3250T is not merely faster; it is uniformly faster across every workload tested, with a nearly flat performance delta. This consistency is notable because the two processors share the same architecture, cache layout, and integrated graphics, yet the i3-3250T maintains a decisive edge in both single-threaded and multi-threaded scenarios.

Where Each One Wins

The performance split is unambiguous: the i3-3250T wins in every category where benchmarks were recorded. There are no tests in the database where the i3-3240 comes out ahead.

For users prioritizing multi-core throughput, the i3-3250T delivers a 12.6% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core and a 12.5% lead in Cinebench R20 multi-core. These gains matter for rendering workloads, video encoding, and any application that can utilize all four threads. The i3-3250T also extends this lead to single-threaded tasks, with a 12.8% advantage in Cinebench R23 single-core and 12.7% in Cinebench R20 single-core. This makes it the stronger choice for lightly threaded applications, including many older games and productivity tools.

The i3-3240 does have one recorded benchmark not present for the i3-3250T: Geekbench results show a multi-core score of 1233 and a single-core score of 650. However, these scores cannot be directly compared to the i3-3250T, since the database does not include matching Geekbench results for that processor. The head-to-head data remains the authoritative comparison, and it favors the i3-3250T exclusively.

In terms of market positioning, the i3-3250T holds a slightly higher percentile rank (21 versus 20), indicating it outperforms a marginally larger share of all CPUs. The average benchmark score difference of 14 points (775 versus 761) is small in absolute terms but consistent with the head-to-head margins.

Users who require maximum thread utilization will find the i3-3250T superior in every measured dimension. There is no workload category in the recorded data where the i3-3240 can be recommended based on benchmark performance.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same Ivy Bridge architecture, fabricated on a 22 nm process at Intel's foundry. They share the same codename, the same generation (Core i3, Ivy Bridge), and the same die size of 94 mm². Both have 2 physical cores and 4 threads, with identical cache configurations: 64 KB L1 cache per core, 256 KB L2 cache per core, and 3 MB of shared L3 cache.

The socket is identical: Intel Socket 1155. Both support dual-channel DDR3 memory, and both feature Intel HD 2500 integrated graphics. PCIe support matches at Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The key architectural difference lies in clock speed and power envelope. The i3-3250T has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a TDP of 35 watts. The i3-3240 operates at a higher base clock of 3.40 GHz but consumes more power at 55 watts TDP. Neither processor has a boost clock, so these base frequencies represent their maximum operating speeds.

The database also records a memory bandwidth figure of 25.6 GB/s for the i3-3250T, while the i3-3240's memory bandwidth is not listed. This suggests the i3-3250T may have a measured bandwidth advantage, though the absence of a figure for the i3-3240 prevents a direct comparison.

Release timing differs as well. The i3-3240 was released on September 2, 2012, while the i3-3250T followed on June 8, 2013. The i3-3250T is marked as end-of-life, while the production status for the i3-3240 is not specified in the database.

The part numbers differ: SR0YW for the i3-3250T and SR0RH for the i3-3240. Both are desktop market segment parts.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i3-3250T is the superior processor in every recorded test. It wins all five head-to-head benchmarks with deltas ranging from 12.4% to 12.8%. This consistency across single-core and multi-core workloads indicates a genuine performance advantage, not a workload-specific quirk.

The i3-3250T achieves this despite a lower base clock (3.00 GHz versus 3.40 GHz) and a lower TDP (35 watts versus 55 watts). This is a counterintuitive result: the lower-clocked, lower-power chip outperforms its higher-clocked sibling. The data does not explain the mechanism, but the recorded scores are clear.

For users building a desktop system on Socket 1155, the i3-3250T is the better choice based on raw performance. It also offers power efficiency advantages, consuming 35 watts versus 55 watts, which translates to lower cooling requirements and potentially quieter operation.

The i3-3240's only advantage is its earlier release date and its recorded Geekbench scores, which cannot be compared directly to the i3-3250T due to missing data. In every directly comparable test, the i3-3250T wins.

Users with workloads that rely on multi-threaded rendering should choose the i3-3250T. Users with single-threaded applications should also choose the i3-3250T. There is no benchmark-based reason to select the i3-3240 over the i3-3250T in this dataset.

The i3-3250T also holds a marginally better competitive position: it ranks at the 21st percentile of all CPUs versus the 20th percentile for the i3-3240, and its average benchmark score of 775 exceeds the i3-3240's 761.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core i3-3250T wins all multi-core tests. It scores 226 versus 201 in Cinebench R15, 945 versus 840 in Cinebench R20, and 2252 versus 2000 in Cinebench R23, representing deltas of 12.4%, 12.5%, and 12.6% respectively.

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

A: The i3-3250T leads in both single-core tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 133 versus 118 (12.7% ahead), and in Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 318 versus 282 (12.8% ahead).

Q: What are the clock speed and power differences?

A: The i3-3250T has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a TDP of 35 watts. The i3-3240 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a TDP of 55 watts. The i3-3250T is slower on paper but faster in benchmarks.

Q: Do both processors have the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are built on Intel's Ivy Bridge architecture with a 22 nm process. They share the same core count (2 cores, 4 threads), the same cache layout (64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, 3 MB shared L3), and the same integrated graphics (Intel HD 2500).

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The i3-3250T averages 775 points, while the i3-3240 averages 761 points. The i3-3250T also ranks at the 21st percentile of all CPUs, one point higher than the i3-3240 at the 20th percentile.

Q: Are there any tests where the i3-3240 wins?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmark data, the i3-3250T wins all five recorded tests, and the i3-3240 records zero wins.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-3250T | Intel Core i3-3240 |

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

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 55 W |

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

| Release Date | June 8, 2013 | September 2, 2012 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Not specified |

| Part Number | SR0YW | SR0RH |

| Average Benchmark Score | 775 | 761 |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 21 | 20 |

| Wins in Head-to-Head | 5 | 0 |

All other specifications are identical: 2 cores, 4 threads, Intel Socket 1155, Ivy Bridge architecture, 22 nm process, 94 mm² die size, 64 KB L1 cache per core, 256 KB L2 cache per core, 3 MB shared L3 cache, DDR3 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, no ECC support, PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, Intel HD 2500 integrated graphics, desktop market segment, and locked multiplier.