Intel Core i3-3250T vs Intel Core i5-4250U Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data places the Intel Core i3-3250T clearly ahead of the Intel Core i5-4250U in every shared benchmark test. Across five Cinebench workloads, the i3-3250T wins all five, with margins ranging from 24.2% to 24.7%. The average benchmark score for the i3-3250T is 775, while the i5-4250U scores 756, a difference of roughly 2.5%. The i3-3250T also holds a slightly higher percentile rank at 21, versus 20 for the i5-4250U.

Given this data, the i3-3250T is the correct choice for anyone prioritizing raw compute throughput, particularly for multi-threaded rendering or CPU-bound tasks. The i5-4250U, however, is a mobile part with a 15 W TDP and a lower base clock; it belongs in systems where power efficiency and compact packaging matter more than peak performance. The data does not support picking the i5-4250U for performance reasons. Neither chip is competitive by modern standards: the i3-3250T sits at the 21st percentile of all CPUs, and the i5-4250U at the 20th. These are entry-level or legacy parts.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel's 22 nm process and share the same core configuration: 2 cores, 4 threads, 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 3 MB of shared L3 cache. Both support DDR3 memory and lack ECC support. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The differences start with architecture generation. The i3-3250T uses the Ivy Bridge architecture, while the i5-4250U uses Haswell. The i3-3250T is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1155, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and no boost clock. Its TDP is 35 W. The i5-4250U is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1168, with a base clock of 1300.00 MHz (1.30 GHz) and a boost clock of 2.60 GHz. Its TDP is 15 W.

The i5-4250U has additional recorded specifications: 1,400 million transistors and a die size of 118 mm². The i3-3250T has a die size of 94 mm² and no transistor count in the database. Memory bandwidth is listed for the i3-3250T at 25.6 GB/s, but no bandwidth or bus width is recorded for the i5-4250U. The i3-3250T supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the i5-4250U has no PCIe data recorded. Integrated graphics differ: the i3-3250T pairs with Intel HD 2500, the i5-4250U with Intel HD 5000.

Release dates are nearly identical: the i3-3250T launched on June 8, 2013, and the i5-4250U on June 3, 2013. The i3-3250T is listed as end-of-life; the i5-4250U has no production status recorded. Part numbers are SR0YW for the desktop chip and SR16M for the mobile chip.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data covers five Cinebench tests, and the i3-3250T wins every one. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i3-3250T scores 226 against 182 for the i5-4250U, a 24.2% lead. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the gap is 945 versus 760, a 24.3% advantage. The single-core R20 test shows 133 versus 107, again 24.3%. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the i3-3250T reaches 2252 versus 1811, a 24.4% margin. Finally, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the scores are 318 versus 255, a 24.7% lead.

The consistent margin across all tests, roughly 24% to 25%, suggests the performance gap is driven by the base clock difference. The i3-3250T runs at 3.00 GHz with no boost, while the i5-4250U has a 1.30 GHz base and a 2.60 GHz boost. Even at full boost, the mobile chip cannot match the desktop part's sustained clock. The i5-4250U does have a Geekbench result in the database (1434 multicore, 742 single-core), but no Geekbench score is recorded for the i3-3250T, so no comparison is possible on that test.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-3250T has an average benchmark score of 775, compared to 756 for the Intel Core i5-4250U.

Q: How much faster is the i3-3250T in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The i3-3250T scores 2252 versus 1811 for the i5-4250U, a 24.4% advantage.

Q: Does the i5-4250U win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows the i3-3250T winning all five tests, with the i5-4250U recording zero wins.

Q: What is the TDP difference between these two chips?

A: The i3-3250T has a TDP of 35 W, while the i5-4250U has a TDP of 15 W.

Q: Do both processors have the same cache configuration?

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

Q: Which processor supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes?

A: The i3-3250T supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). No PCIe data is recorded for the i5-4250U.

Where Each One Wins

The i3-3250T wins in every measured compute scenario. Its 24.2% to 24.7% lead across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multicore tests, makes it the stronger choice for rendering, encoding, or any CPU-heavy workload. The desktop socket and 35 W TDP indicate it is designed for a system with active cooling and a power supply that can sustain higher clocks. Its PCIe Gen 3 support with 16 lanes also makes it more suitable for a desktop platform with discrete expansion cards.

The i5-4250U wins in no benchmark, but it has structural advantages that matter in a different context. Its 15 W TDP is less than half that of the i3-3250T, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops or fanless designs where heat dissipation is limited. The mobile BGA 1168 socket means it is soldered to the motherboard, reducing system size. Its integrated graphics, Intel HD 5000, is a newer generation than the HD 2500 in the i3-3250T, which may offer better media or display capabilities, though no graphics benchmarks are recorded in the database.

For a desktop build where performance is the priority, the data points unambiguously to the i3-3250T. For a mobile device where power draw and form factor are the constraints, the i5-4250U is the only one of the two that fits that role at all. Neither chip is competitive by modern standards; both fall near the 20th percentile of all CPUs. The choice, therefore, is not about which is better overall, but which environment each part was designed for. The benchmark results reflect that: the desktop part uses its higher clock to dominate, while the mobile part trades performance for efficiency.