Intel Core i3-3240 vs Intel Core i5-3210M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between these two Ivy Bridge parts is unusually clean. The Intel Core i5-3210M takes five of the seven recorded head-to-head wins, while the Intel Core i3-3240 claims two. The split is not arbitrary: it follows the workload type almost perfectly.

The Core i5-3210M wins every Cinebench test, both single-core and multi-core, across R15, R20, and R23. Its margins are consistent, ranging from 4.1% to 4.5% over the Core i3-3240. This suggests a fundamental advantage in sustained compute workloads, likely tied to its higher boost clock of 3.10 GHz versus the locked 3.40 GHz base on the i3 (the i3 has no boost capability). The i5's ability to push above its 2.50 GHz base clock appears to pay off in rendering and CPU-bound tasks.

The Core i3-3240, however, wins decisively in Geekbench, both single-core (650 vs 587, a 10.7% lead) and multi-core (1233 vs 1116, a 10.5% lead). This is a substantial reversal. Geekbench tends to emphasize memory latency, branch prediction, and certain integer workloads, where the i3's higher fixed clock speed (3.40 GHz) and desktop platform characteristics may matter more than the i5's dynamic boost behavior.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the two are nearly inseparable: the i3-3240 averages 761, the i5-3210M averages 758, a delta of just 0.4% in favor of the i3. In the broader database context, both sit at the 20th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they occupy the same performance tier. The i3-3240's nearest rival, the AMD A8-6600K, scores 764 (0.3% higher), and the i5-3210M's nearest rival, the Core i3-5020U, scores 757 (0.1% lower). These are statistical ties.

The practical takeaway: if the workload is Cinebench-style rendering, the i5-3210M is the pick. If the workload is Geekbench-style general computing, the i3-3240 has a clear edge. The data does not support a single overall winner; it supports a workload-dependent choice.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a simple rule. For multi-threaded rendering and sustained CPU compute, the Intel Core i5-3210M is the stronger part. It leads by 4.3% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 4.4% in R20 multi-core, and 4.5% in R23 multi-core. It also wins the single-core versions of those tests by 4.1% to 4.4%. Anyone running Cinebench-class workloads should favor the i5.

For Geekbench-style general productivity, the Intel Core i3-3240 is clearly superior. Its single-core lead of 10.7% and multi-core lead of 10.5% are too large to ignore. If the software is sensitive to the traits Geekbench measures, the i3 offers meaningfully better responsiveness.

Neither part has an overall advantage. The i3-3240 holds a 0.4% edge in average benchmark score (761 vs 758), but that is within noise. The i5-3210M wins more individual tests (5 vs 2), but the i3 wins the two tests by more than double the margin of any i5 win. The i5's largest win is 4.5%; the i3's smallest win is 10.5%.

The decision comes down to the application mix. Desktop users with a fixed 3.40 GHz clock and no boost may prefer the i3 for latency-sensitive tasks. Mobile users, or those prioritizing rendering throughput, get more from the i5's boost clock and its 35 W TDP, which is lower than the i3's 55 W TDP, though the i3 is a desktop part and the i5 is a mobile part, so direct power comparison is less relevant.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is the Geekbench divergence. In Geekbench single-core, the i3-3240 scores 650 against the i5-3210M's 587. That is a 10.7% advantage, the largest single margin in the entire comparison. In Geekbench multi-core, the i3 scores 1233 against 1116, a 10.5% lead. These are not marginal wins; they are dominant ones. The i3's fixed 3.40 GHz clock, with no boost variability, appears to give it a consistent advantage in these specific workloads.

The Cinebench results tell the opposite story, but with smaller margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i5 wins 210 to 201, a 4.3% lead. In R20 multi-core, it wins 879 to 840, a 4.4% lead. In R23 multi-core, it wins 2095 to 2000, a 4.5% lead. The single-core Cinebench tests follow the same pattern: R20 single-core goes to the i5 123 to 118 (4.1%), and R23 single-core goes to the i5 295 to 282 (4.4%). The i5's boost clock of 3.10 GHz, applied dynamically, seems to help more in these render workloads than the i3's higher but static 3.40 GHz clock.

The consistency of the Cinebench margins (all between 4.1% and 4.5%) suggests a stable underlying performance difference in that benchmark family. The consistency of the Geekbench margins (both around 10.5% to 10.7%) suggests an equally stable but opposite difference in that benchmark family. The i5 does not merely win Cinebench; it wins every Cinebench variant by nearly the same amount. The i3 does not merely win Geekbench; it wins every Geekbench variant by nearly twice that amount.

In aggregate, the i5 wins 5 of 7 tests, but the i3 wins the two tests where it wins by a much larger margin. The average benchmark scores reflect this balance: 761 for the i3, 758 for the i5. The nearest rival for the i3 is the AMD A8-6600K at 764, just 0.3% above. The nearest rival for the i5 is the Core i3-5020U at 757, just 0.1% below. Both parts sit in a dense cluster of comparable CPUs, none of which separates itself by more than a fraction of a percent.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster overall, the i3-3240 or the i5-3210M?

A: The average benchmark scores are nearly identical: 761 for the i3-3240 and 758 for the i5-3210M, a difference of only 0.4%. Neither part has a meaningful overall lead.

Q: Why does the i5-3210M win more benchmarks if the average scores are so close?

A: The i5 wins all five Cinebench tests (R15, R20, and R23, both single and multi-core) by margins of 4.1% to 4.5%. The i3 wins only two tests, Geekbench single-core and multi-core, but by much larger margins of 10.5% and 10.7%. The i5 wins more tests, but the i3 wins its tests by more.

Q: Is the i3-3240 better for single-core performance?

A: In Geekbench single-core, yes: the i3 scores 650 against the i5's 587, a 10.7% lead. In Cinebench single-core, no: the i5 wins R20 single-core 123 to 118 and R23 single-core 295 to 282, both around 4.4% ahead. The answer depends on the benchmark.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between these two CPUs?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench single-core, where the i3-3240 leads by 10.7%. The second largest is Geekbench multi-core, where the i3 leads by 10.5%. The smallest gap is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the i5 leads by 4.1%.

Q: How do these CPUs compare to their closest rivals?

A: The i3-3240's nearest rival is the AMD A8-6600K, which scores 764, just 0.3% higher. The i5-3210M's nearest rival is the Core i3-5020U, scoring 757, just 0.1% lower. Both CPUs also sit near the Intel Xeon E5450 (756) and the Core i5-4250U (756).

Q: Which CPU has the higher clock speed?

A: The i3-3240 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz with no boost. The i5-3210M has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.10 GHz. The i3's fixed clock is higher, but the i5 can boost above its base.

Architecture Differences

Both CPUs share the same fundamental architecture: Ivy Bridge, built on Intel's 22 nm process node, with 2 cores and 4 threads each. The cache layout is identical: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 3 MB of shared L3. Neither supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The key differences start with the package and platform. The Intel Core i3-3240 is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1155, with a 55 W TDP and a die size of 94 mm². It supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, and its integrated graphics are Intel HD 2500. It supports DDR3 memory in dual-channel configuration, though the specific memory support field is not listed for the i5.

The Intel Core i5-3210M is a mobile part on Intel Socket G2 (988B), with a 35 W TDP and a larger die size of 118 mm². Its integrated graphics are Intel HD 4000, a step up from the i3's HD 2500. It also supports dual-channel DDR3 memory. The i5 has no listed PCIe information in the database.

Clock behavior is the most consequential difference. The i3-3240 runs at a fixed 3.40 GHz with no boost clock. The i5-3210M runs at 2.50 GHz base but boosts to 3.10 GHz. This means the i3 has a higher sustained clock, while the i5 has dynamic range that can push higher under load when thermals allow.

The release dates differ slightly: the i5-3210M was released on 2012-05-31, and the i3-3240 on 2012-09-02. Both are Ivy Bridge generation parts, both from Intel, both with 2 cores and 4 threads, and both with the same L3 cache size. The i5's part number is SR0MZ, the i3's is SR0RH.

The market segments are distinct: the i3 is explicitly a desktop CPU, the i5 is a mobile CPU. That explains the TDP difference (55 W vs 35 W) and the socket difference. The i5's larger die size (118 mm² vs 94 mm²) may be due to the more capable HD 4000 graphics block. The i3's higher base clock, combined with desktop power limits, likely explains its Geekbench advantage. The i5's boost capability, combined with a lower base clock, likely explains its Cinebench advantage.