Intel Core i3-3240 vs Intel Core i5-680 Comparison

The Intel Core i5-680 and the Intel Core i3-3240 are two desktop processors from different eras of Intel’s product stack. The i5-680, launched in 2010, is a Clarkdale-based part on Socket 1156, while the i3-3240, released in 2012, is an Ivy Bridge part on Socket 1155. Both are dual-core processors with four threads, but they differ significantly in clock speeds, process technology, cache size, and platform features. Benchmark data from the database shows that the older i5-680 consistently outperforms the newer i3-3240 across every recorded test, despite its older architecture.

The Verdict

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the Intel Core i5-680 wins every recorded comparison against the Intel Core i3-3240. Across the five head-to-head tests in the database, the i5-680 takes a clean 5-0 victory. The largest margin comes in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the i5-680 scores 226 against the i3-3240’s 201, a 12.4% advantage. The smallest margin, 11.9%, appears in Cinebench R20 singlecore, where the i5-680 posts 132 versus 118. The remaining tests, Cinebench R20 multicore, Cinebench R23 multicore, and Cinebench R23 singlecore, all show the i5-680 ahead by roughly 12.1% to 12.2%.

The i5-680 achieves this through higher clock speeds. It runs at a base clock of 3.60 GHz with a boost clock of 3.87 GHz, while the i3-3240 has a fixed 3.40 GHz clock with no boost capability. For workloads that rely on single-thread performance, the i5-680’s 3.87 GHz boost clock gives it a clear edge. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, the i5-680 scores 316 versus 282 for the i3-3240, a 12.1% gap that aligns closely with the clock speed difference.

The i3-3240 does have advantages in platform efficiency. Its TDP is 55 watts versus 73 watts for the i5-680, and it uses a newer 22 nm process node compared to the 32 nm node of the i5-680. The i3-3240 also supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, while the i5-680 is limited to PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes. However, these advantages do not translate into benchmark wins. The i3-3240’s lower cache capacity, 3 MB shared L3 versus 4 MB shared L3 on the i5-680, may contribute to its slower performance in the recorded tests.

Who should pick which? The data favors the i5-680 for any workload that is represented by these Cinebench tests. Its higher multicore and singlecore scores make it the stronger choice for rendering and CPU-bound tasks. The i3-3240, however, offers a newer platform with lower power draw and PCIe Gen 3 support. For users prioritizing efficiency and modern connectivity over raw compute performance, the i3-3240 is the more sensible option. The i5-680 is the performance pick; the i3-3240 is the efficiency pick. Neither processor is unlocked for overclocking, as both have locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multicore workloads?

A: The Intel Core i5-680 is faster in every recorded multicore test. It scores 226 in Cinebench R15 multicore versus 201 for the i3-3240, and 942 in Cinebench R20 multicore versus 840. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the margin is 2243 versus 2000.

Q: Does the i3-3240 have any performance advantage?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the i3-3240 across the five head-to-head benchmarks. The i5-680 leads by margins between 11.9% and 12.4% in all tests.

Q: How do their clock speeds differ?

A: The i5-680 has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 3.87 GHz. The i3-3240 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and no boost clock. This means the i5-680 operates at a higher frequency in both sustained and burst workloads.

Q: Which processor is more power-efficient?

A: The i3-3240 has a TDP of 55 watts, while the i5-680 has a TDP of 73 watts. The i3-3240 also uses a smaller 22 nm process node, whereas the i5-680 is built on 32 nm.

Q: What are the platform differences?

A: The i5-680 uses Intel Socket 1156 and supports PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes. The i3-3240 uses Intel Socket 1155 and supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes. Both support dual-channel DDR3 memory, but the i5-680 has a rated memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s while the i3-3240 has no recorded bandwidth figure.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i5-680 has an average benchmark score of 772, placing it in the 21st percentile of all CPUs. The i3-3240 has an average score of 761, placing it in the 20th percentile. The i5-680’s closest rival is the Intel Core i7-3687U at 773, a 0.1% difference, while the i3-3240’s closest rival is the AMD A8-6600K at 764, a 0.3% difference.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from distinct architectural generations. The i5-680 is based on Westmere, with the codename Clarkdale, and belongs to the Core i5 (Clarkdale) generation. The i3-3240 is based on Ivy Bridge, with the codename Ivy Bridge, and belongs to the Core i3 (Ivy Bridge) generation. This generational gap shows in the process node: the i5-680 is fabricated on a 32 nm process, while the i3-3240 uses a 22 nm process. The i5-680 contains 382 million transistors on a die size of 81 mm². The i3-3240’s transistor count is not recorded in the database, but its die size is larger at 94 mm².

Cache allocations also differ. Both processors have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The shared L3 cache, however, is 4 MB on the i5-680 and 3 MB on the i3-3240. This 1 MB difference in total cache capacity is one of the few architectural factors that favors the older processor.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The i5-680 features Intel HD graphics, while the i3-3240 features Intel HD 2500. The i3-3240’s graphics solution is the more modern implementation, consistent with its newer Ivy Bridge architecture. Memory support is identical in type: both support DDR3 with a dual-channel memory bus. The i5-680 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s, while the i3-3240 has no recorded memory bandwidth figure. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe support is a notable difference. The i5-680 provides PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the i3-3240 provides PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The newer i3-3240 therefore offers greater bandwidth for compatible expansion cards and storage devices, though this does not show up in the CPU compute benchmarks recorded here.

Production status and release timing also separate the two. The i5-680 was released in April 2010 and is marked as end-of-life. The i3-3240 was released in September 2012, and its production status is not recorded in the database. The i5-680 had a launch MSRP of $294, while the i3-3240 has no launch MSRP listed.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two processors show clear divergences in several key fields. Clock speed is the most obvious: the i5-680 runs at 3.60 GHz base and 3.87 GHz boost, while the i3-3240 runs at 3.40 GHz base with no boost clock. This gives the i5-680 a 0.20 GHz advantage at base and a 0.47 GHz advantage at peak.

Power consumption is the biggest counterpoint. The i5-680 has a TDP of 73 watts, whereas the i3-3240 draws only 55 watts. This 18-watt difference makes the i3-3240 the more efficient part on paper. The process node reinforces this: 22 nm for the i3-3240 versus 32 nm for the i5-680.

Socket compatibility is entirely different. The i5-680 uses Intel Socket 1156, while the i3-3240 uses Intel Socket 1155. These sockets are not interchangeable, so motherboard selection is mutually exclusive. The die size also differs: 81 mm² for the i5-680 versus 94 mm² for the i3-3240. The i5-680 has a recorded transistor count of 382 million, while the i3-3240’s transistor count is not in the database.

Cache is another differentiating field. The i5-680 has 4 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i3-3240 has 3 MB. L1 and L2 caches are identical at 64 KB and 256 KB per core, respectively. Memory bandwidth is recorded for the i5-680 at 21.3 GB/s, but no figure is listed for the i3-3240.

PCIe generation differs: Gen 2 for the i5-680 and Gen 3 for the i3-3240, both with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics names differ, with Intel HD on the i5-680 and Intel HD 2500 on the i3-3240. The i5-680 has a part number of SLBTM, while the i3-3240 has a part number of SR0RH. Both processors have locked multipliers, so neither supports overclocking.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data is one-sided. Across five Cinebench tests, the i5-680 wins all five, with margins clustered tightly between 11.9% and 12.4%. This consistency suggests the performance gap is driven by the clock speed difference rather than any workload-specific factor.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i5-680 scores 226 and the i3-3240 scores 201. The i5-680 wins by 12.4%, the largest margin in the entire comparison. This test stresses all cores, and the i5-680’s higher base clock of 3.60 GHz versus 3.40 GHz helps it pull ahead.

Cinebench R20 multicore shows a similar pattern. The i5-680 scores 942, while the i3-3240 scores 840, a 12.1% lead. Cinebench R23 multicore follows with 2243 for the i5-680 and 2000 for the i3-3240, again a 12.2% gap. In all three multicore tests, the i5-680 maintains a lead of roughly 12%.

Singlecore tests tell the same story. In Cinebench R20 singlecore, the i5-680 scores 132 versus 118 for the i3-3240, an 11.9% advantage. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, the i5-680 scores 316 versus 282, a 12.1% lead. The i5-680’s boost clock of 3.87 GHz is the likely driver here, as the i3-3240 has no boost capability and tops out at 3.40 GHz.

The aggregate benchmark scores reinforce the head-to-head results. The i5-680 has an average benchmark score of 772, while the i3-3240 has an average of 761. The i5-680 sits in the 21st percentile of all CPUs, and the i3-3240 sits in the 20th percentile. The i5-680’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-3687U, which scores 773, a 0.1% difference. The i3-3240’s nearest rival is the AMD A8-6600K, which scores 764, a 0.3% difference. Both processors occupy a similar performance tier relative to the broader CPU landscape, but the i5-680’s higher clock speeds and larger cache give it a consistent edge in every benchmark the database recorded.