Intel Core i3-3240 vs Intel Core i5-4200U Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits this comparison into two very clear territories. The Intel Core i3-3240 wins in every Cinebench rendering test, which favors sustained multi-threaded and single-threaded compute. The Intel Core i5-4200U, despite being a lower-power mobile part, wins both Geekbench tests, which measure a broader mix of integer, floating-point, and memory workloads. The scoreboard shows 5 wins for the i3-3240 and 2 for the i5-4200U, but the margins and the nature of those wins tell a more nuanced story.

The i3-3240 takes the Cinebench R15 multicore test with a score of 201 against 186, an 8.1% advantage. That pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore (840 vs 777, 8.1%) and Cinebench R23 multicore (2000 vs 1852, 8%). Single-core Cinebench results follow the same direction: R20 single-core shows 118 vs 109 (8.3%), and R23 single-core shows 282 vs 261 (8%). This consistency across three generations of Cinebench suggests the i3-3240 has a structural edge in rendering workloads that the i5-4200U cannot overcome, even when the benchmark scales to newer versions.

The i5-4200U fights back in Geekbench. Its multicore score of 1308 beats the i3-3240's 1233 by 5.7%, and its single-core score of 728 beats 650 by a substantial 10.7%. These are not narrow margins. The Geekbench single-core result, in particular, is the largest percentage gap in either direction across all seven head-to-head tests. This indicates the i5-4200U's architecture handles the diverse instruction mix and memory latency patterns in Geekbench far more efficiently than the i3-3240 does.

What does this mean for real-world use? The i3-3240 is the pick for content creation, 3D rendering, and any workload that stresses raw CPU throughput over extended periods. The i5-4200U is better for general productivity, web browsing, office tasks, and light application work where Geekbench-style performance matters more than sustained rendering. The data does not support calling one chip universally faster; it supports a workload-dependent split.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel's 22 nm process node, but they belong to different architectural generations. The i3-3240 uses the Ivy Bridge architecture, released in September 2012. The i5-4200U uses the Haswell architecture, released in June 2013. That one-year gap matters. Haswell was a significant microarchitectural update over Ivy Bridge, improving instruction-level parallelism, branch prediction, and power efficiency.

The transistor counts and die sizes confirm the architectural divergence. The i5-4200U packs 1,400 million transistors into a 118 mm² die. The i3-3240's transistor count is not recorded in the database, but its die size is 94 mm². The Haswell design crams more logic into a larger area, which helps explain why the i5-4200U can outperform the i3-3240 in Geekbench despite having a much lower base clock.

Clock speeds tell a dramatic story. The i3-3240 runs at a fixed 3.40 GHz base clock with no boost capability. The i5-4200U has a 1600.00 MHz base clock, which is less than half of the i3-3240's clock, but it can boost up to 2.60 GHz. This boost behavior is crucial: the i5-4200U can transiently reach higher clocks during bursty workloads, but it will fall back to its low base clock under sustained load. The i3-3240 never varies, which is why it dominates sustained rendering tests.

Thermal design power differs enormously: 55 W for the i3-3240 versus 15 W for the i5-4200U. This is not just a spec sheet difference; it explains the performance split. The i3-3240 can draw over three times the power budget, allowing it to sustain high clocks indefinitely. The i5-4200U is constrained to a fraction of that power, so it must rely on architectural efficiency and boost clocks to compete, and it runs out of steam in long workloads.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The i3-3240 carries Intel HD 2500, while the i5-4200U carries Intel HD 4400. The HD 4400 is a newer, more capable graphics unit, but the database does not provide graphics benchmarks for either chip, so this comparison rests on the CPU scores alone.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The seven head-to-head tests paint a consistent picture with one notable exception. Let's walk through the data.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i3-3240 scores 201 against 186 for the i5-4200U. The 8.1% lead is modest but real. Cinebench R20 multicore repeats the exact same percentage: 840 vs 777, again 8.1%. Cinebench R23 multicore tightens slightly to 2000 vs 1852, an 8% gap. The i3-3240's advantage is stable across benchmark versions, suggesting it is not a quirk of any single test but a fundamental throughput advantage.

Single-core Cinebench results are nearly identical in percentage terms. R20 single-core gives the i3-3240 an 8.3% lead (118 vs 109). R23 single-core gives an 8% lead (282 vs 261). The consistency is striking: the i3-3240 wins by roughly 8% in every Cinebench test, regardless of core count or benchmark generation. This points to a raw clock speed advantage that the i5-4200U's boost clocks cannot overcome in these workloads.

Then comes Geekbench, and the script flips entirely. The i5-4200U wins multicore with 1308 against 1233, a 5.7% margin. Single-core is even more decisive: 728 vs 650, a 10.7% margin. These are the two largest percentage differences in the entire comparison. The i5-4200U is not barely winning these tests; it is winning them by a wide margin.

What explains this reversal? The i5-4200U's Haswell architecture clearly handles Geekbench's workload mix better. Geekbench includes memory tests, cryptography, image processing, and other tasks that benefit from improved memory controllers, better branch prediction, and more efficient execution ports. The i3-3240's Ivy Bridge architecture, despite its high fixed clock, cannot match the newer design's efficiency. The boost clock up to 2.60 GHz also helps the i5-4200U in short, bursty workloads, which Geekbench largely consists of.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this split. The i3-3240 has an average benchmark score of 761, while the i5-4200U sits at 746. The i3-3240's nearest rival is the AMD A8-6600K at 764 (a 0.3% gap), while the i5-4200U's nearest rival is the AMD A10 PRO-7800B at 746 (a 0.1% gap). Both chips land in the 20th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they are entry-level performers by modern standards, but they achieve that status through very different means.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-3240 | Intel Core i5-4200U |

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

| Architecture | Ivy Bridge | Haswell |

| Codename | Ivy Bridge | Haswell |

| Generation | Core i3 (Ivy Bridge) | Core i5 (Haswell) |

| Base Clock | 3.40 GHz | 1600.00 MHz |

| Boost Clock | None | 2.60 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 15 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1155 | Intel BGA 1168 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Die Size | 94 mm² | 118 mm² |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 1,400 million |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 2500 | Intel HD 4400 |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Not recorded |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Not recorded |

| Release Date | 2012-09-02 | 2013-06-03 |

| Part Number | SR0RH | SR170 |

Both chips share 2 cores, 4 threads, 22 nm process, identical cache layout (64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, 3 MB shared L3), DDR3 memory support, and no ECC support. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The i3-3240 is a desktop part with a much higher TDP and fixed clock, while the i5-4200U is a mobile part with a low base clock, a boost clock, and a much smaller power envelope.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in Cinebench rendering tests?

A: The Intel Core i3-3240 wins all five Cinebench tests, with margins of 8.1% in R15 and R20 multicore, 8% in R23 multicore, 8.3% in R20 single-core, and 8% in R23 single-core.

Q: Which CPU is faster in Geekbench tests?

A: The Intel Core i5-4200U wins both Geekbench tests, with a 5.7% multicore advantage (1308 vs 1233) and a 10.7% single-core advantage (728 vs 650).

Q: Why does the i5-4200U win Geekbench despite having a much lower base clock?

A: The i5-4200U uses the newer Haswell architecture, which improves execution efficiency, and it has a boost clock up to 2.60 GHz. The i3-3240 is fixed at 3.40 GHz but uses the older Ivy Bridge design, which is less efficient in Geekbench's diverse workload mix.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The i3-3240 has a TDP of 55 W, while the i5-4200U has a TDP of 15 W, a difference of 40 W that explains the i3-3240's sustained performance advantage in rendering workloads.

Q: Do both CPUs have the same cache configuration?

A: Yes, both have 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 3 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: Which CPU has better integrated graphics?

A: The i5-4200U has Intel HD 4400, while the i3-3240 has Intel HD 2500. The database does not provide graphics benchmark scores for either.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of roles. The Intel Core i3-3240 is the better choice for anyone running sustained CPU-heavy workloads like video rendering, 3D modeling, or batch processing, where its 8% Cinebench advantage across all versions translates directly into faster completion times. Its fixed 3.40 GHz clock and 55 W power budget mean it will not throttle under load, and its 5-0 record in Cinebench tests confirms this strength.

The Intel Core i5-4200U is the better choice for general-purpose computing on the move. Its 10.7% single-core and 5.7% multicore Geekbench wins indicate snappier response in everyday applications, web browsing, and office tasks. The 15 W TDP makes it suitable for thin, fanless designs where battery life and heat matter more than raw throughput. Its boost clock up to 2.60 GHz provides short bursts of speed when needed.

The average benchmark scores are close: 761 for the i3-3240 versus 746 for the i5-4200U, a gap of roughly 2%. Both sit at the 20th percentile of all CPUs, meaning neither is a performance powerhouse by current standards. The i3-3240's nearest rival, the AMD A8-6600K, is within 0.3% of its average score, while the i5-4200U's nearest rival, the AMD A10 PRO-7800B, is within 0.1%. These chips are peers in overall capability, differing mainly in workload preference and platform suitability.

The final call depends on the use case. Desktop users with room for a 55 W processor and a need for rendering speed should choose the i3-3240. Mobile users who prioritize efficiency and responsive everyday performance should choose the i5-4200U. Neither chip is a clear overall winner; the database shows two processors optimized for different environments, and the benchmark data reflects those optimizations faithfully.