Intel Core i3-3240 vs Intel Core i3-5020U Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Core i3-3240 and Intel Core i3-5020U are two dual-core, four-thread processors that land within 0.5% of each other in average benchmark score (761 vs 757). The database places them in the same 20th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they occupy the same performance tier despite very different designs. The i3-3240 wins 5 of 7 head-to-head tests, mostly in Cinebench workloads, while the i3-5020U wins both Geekbench tests. For a desktop user who wants maximum compute throughput in rendering-style workloads, the i3-3240 is the pick. For a user prioritizing integrated graphics capability and lower power draw in a mobile form factor, the i3-5020U is the pick. Neither chip is a clear overall winner; they trade blows depending on the benchmark methodology.

Architecture Differences

The i3-3240 is built on Intel's Ivy Bridge architecture at a 22 nm process node, while the i3-5020U uses Broadwell at 14 nm. The die size difference is modest: 94 mm² for the i3-3240 versus 82 mm² for the i3-5020U. The i3-5020U packs 1,300 million transistors, a figure not recorded for the i3-3240. The socket situation is completely different: the i3-3240 uses Intel Socket 1155 for desktop boards, while the i3-5020U is soldered to BGA 1168 for mobile platforms. The i3-3240 runs at a 3.40 GHz base clock with a 55 W TDP, whereas the i3-5020U runs at 2.20 GHz with a 15 W TDP. That clock difference is the primary reason the older desktop chip stays competitive in CPU-bound tests despite being two process nodes behind.

PCIe support differs as well. The i3-3240 offers PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the i3-5020U drops to PCIe Gen 2 with 12 lanes. Memory support is DDR3 dual-channel on both, but the i3-5020U records a memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s versus no recorded figure for the i3-3240. Integrated graphics also differ: the i3-3240 carries Intel HD 2500, while the i3-5020U carries Intel HD 5500. The mobile chip is marked end-of-life in the database, while the desktop chip has no production status recorded. Both have locked multipliers and no ECC support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The i3-3240 dominates Cinebench across the board. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 201 against 188 for the i3-5020U, a 6.9% advantage. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 840 versus 787, a 6.7% lead. The single-core R20 test gives the i3-3240 a 7.3% edge (118 vs 110). Cinebench R23 multicore narrows slightly to 6.6% (2000 vs 1876), and R23 single-core shows 6.8% (282 vs 264). These are consistent wins, roughly 6.6% to 7.3% in favor of the desktop part, driven by its 3.40 GHz clock versus 2.20 GHz.

The i3-5020U flips the script in Geekbench. In Geekbench multicore, it scores 1379 against 1233 for the i3-3240, a 10.6% advantage. Geekbench single-core gives the i3-5020U 696 versus 650, a 6.6% lead. That is a notable reversal: the mobile Broadwell chip wins by a larger margin in Geekbench than the desktop Ivy Bridge chip wins in Cinebench. The pattern suggests Geekbench's workload mix favors the newer architecture, better memory bandwidth, or the i3-5020U's different power management characteristics, while Cinebench leans on raw clock speed.

The average benchmark scores tell the overall story: 761 for the i3-3240 and 757 for the i3-5020U, a 0.5% difference. The nearest rivals confirm these chips sit in a tight cluster. For the i3-3240, the AMD A8-6600K is 0.3% behind, the Intel Core i5-3210M is 0.4% behind, the i3-5020U is 0.5% behind, and the Intel Xeon E5450 is 0.6% behind. For the i3-5020U, the Xeon E5450 is 0.1% behind, the i5-3210M is 0.1% ahead, the Intel Core i5-4250U is 0.2% behind, and the Intel Core i5-3230M is 0.3% behind. Both chips are effectively interchangeable in aggregate performance.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-3240 | Intel Core i3-5020U |

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

| Base Clock | 3.40 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 15 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1155 | Intel BGA 1168 |

| Architecture | Ivy Bridge | Broadwell |

| Codename | Ivy Bridge | Broadwell-U |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 1,300 million |

| Die Size | 94 mm² | 82 mm² |

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

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 2, 12 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 2500 | Intel HD 5500 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

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

| Release Date | 2012-09-02 | 2015-02-28 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $281 |

Both processors share 2 cores, 4 threads, 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, 3 MB shared L3, DDR3 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, no ECC support, and locked multipliers. The i3-5020U has a recorded launch MSRP of $281, while the i3-3240 has no launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core i3-3240 scores 2000 versus 1876 for the i3-5020U, a 6.6% advantage.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Geekbench multicore?

A: The i3-5020U wins with 1379 against 1233 for the i3-3240, a 10.6% lead.

Q: Are these processors in the same performance tier?

A: Yes. The i3-3240 has an average benchmark score of 761 and the i3-5020U has 757, a 0.5% difference, and both sit in the 20th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The i3-3240 has a 55 W TDP, while the i3-5020U has a 15 W TDP.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No, neither the i3-3240 nor the i3-5020U supports ECC memory.

Q: Which chip has a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The i3-5020U uses a 14 nm process, while the i3-3240 uses a 22 nm process.

Q: What integrated graphics does each chip include?

A: The i3-3240 includes Intel HD 2500, and the i3-5020U includes Intel HD 5500.

Where Each One Wins

The i3-3240 wins in every Cinebench test recorded. If your workload is rendering, video encoding, or any multi-threaded compute that behaves like Cinebench's scene rendering, the higher 3.40 GHz clock of the desktop part delivers consistent 6.6% to 7.3% gains over the i3-5020U. The i3-3240 also offers PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, which matters if you plan to pair it with a discrete GPU on a desktop board. Its 55 W TDP is high for modern standards, but it is a drop-in part for Socket 1155 boards.

The i3-5020U wins both Geekbench tests. Geekbench's workload mix, which includes cryptography, image processing, and machine learning tasks, clearly favors the newer Broadwell architecture and its 25.6 GB/s memory bandwidth. The 10.6% multicore and 6.6% single-core wins in Geekbench are the largest margins recorded between these two chips. The i3-5020U also has the superior integrated graphics (HD 5500 versus HD 2500), which matters for fanless or low-power mobile designs. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for thin laptops and ultrabooks where cooling is limited.

The production status difference is worth noting: the i3-5020U is end-of-life, while the i3-3240 has no production status recorded. For a new build, the i3-3240 may be easier to source on the used desktop market, but the i3-5020U is a known quantity in older mobile systems. For an existing Socket 1155 desktop, the i3-3240 is the obvious upgrade path if you need more Cinebench-class performance. For a laptop repair or a low-power home server, the i3-5020U's Geekbench wins and 15 W TDP make it the more sensible choice. The data does not crown a single winner; it describes two chips that trade victories by workload.