Intel Core i3-4330 vs Intel Core i5-2500S Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split is unusually one-sided. The Intel Core i3-4330 wins all five recorded head-to-head comparisons, leaving the Intel Core i5-2500S without a single victory in the shared test suite. This is not a case of one chip dominating in certain workloads while ceding others; the i3-4330 leads in every measured category, from multi-threaded rendering to single-threaded responsiveness.

The i5-2500S does hold advantages in specifications that do not translate into benchmark wins. It has four physical cores versus two, a larger shared L3 cache at 6 MB versus 4 MB, and a higher boost clock capability at 3.70 GHz. Yet the recorded data shows that these architectural assets do not overcome the newer design's efficiency. The i3-4330 wins multi-core tests despite having half the physical core count, which suggests that the per-core performance gap between the two generations is substantial.

Looking at the broader database context, the i3-4330 sits at the 28th percentile of all CPUs, while the i5-2500S is at the 27th percentile. Their average benchmark scores are 1020 and 1004 respectively, a difference of roughly 1.6%. The nearest rivals for the i5-2500S include the Intel Core i5-4300M at an identical average score of 1004, and the Intel Core i7-5600U at 1005, which places the older desktop chip in mobile-tier company. The i3-4330's nearest rivals include the Intel Pentium Gold G5600 at 1022 and the Intel Core i3-4160 at 1017, indicating it competes with newer entry-level parts.

For workloads, the i3-4330 is the clear choice based on every recorded benchmark. The i5-2500S wins no category in the head-to-head data, so any use-case split must acknowledge that the newer chip's superior single-thread performance carries it across both lightly-threaded and fully-threaded applications. The only theoretical advantage for the i5-2500S lies in scenarios where four physical cores might matter, but the Cinebench multi-core scores contradict that assumption: the i3-4330 scores 298 versus 288 in R15, and 2966 versus 2867 in R23.

Architecture Differences

These two processors come from different architectural eras and manufacturing nodes. The i5-2500S is built on Sandy Bridge, a 32 nm design with 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die. The i3-4330 uses Haswell, a 22 nm process with 1,400 million transistors on a smaller 177 mm² die. The newer node allows more transistors in less space, which contributes to the i3-4330's efficiency advantages.

The core configuration differs fundamentally. The i5-2500S has 4 cores and 4 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. The i3-4330 has 2 cores but 4 threads, enabling simultaneous multi-threading on each physical core. This partially explains why the dual-core chip can match or exceed the quad-core in multi-threaded tests: it processes four threads concurrently, just like the i5-2500S, but with newer architecture.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The i5-2500S has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, allowing dynamic frequency scaling. The i3-4330 has a higher fixed base clock of 3.50 GHz with no boost capability listed. In single-threaded workloads, the i3-4330's higher sustained clock and newer microarchitecture deliver better performance, as shown by the 175 versus 169 score in Cinebench R20 single-core and 418 versus 404 in R23 single-core.

Cache hierarchies differ in capacity but not in distribution. Both chips have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 per core. The shared L3 differs: 6 MB on the i5-2500S versus 4 MB on the i3-4330. Despite having 50% more L3 cache, the i5-2500S still loses multi-core benchmarks, indicating that cache size alone does not compensate for architectural efficiency.

Integrated graphics represent another generational leap. The i5-2500S ships with Intel HD 2000, while the i3-4330 includes Intel HD 4600. The database does not provide graphics benchmarks, but the newer HD 4600 is a more capable integrated solution. Both chips support DDR3 memory in dual-channel configuration, with no ECC support. The i5-2500S uses PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the i3-4330 also lists PCIe Gen 3 without a specific lane count.

The sockets differ as expected: the i5-2500S uses Intel Socket 1155, the i3-4330 uses Intel Socket 1150. Neither is unlocked for overclocking. The i5-2500S has a TDP of 65 watts, the i3-4330 a lower 54 watts, which means the newer chip draws less power while delivering higher performance in every recorded test.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The Intel Core i5-2500S has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Core i3-4330 has 2 physical cores and 4 threads.

Q: Does the i3-4330 outperform the i5-2500S in multi-core workloads despite having fewer cores?

A: Yes. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i3-4330 scores 2966 versus 2867 for the i5-2500S, a 3.3% advantage. In R20 multi-core, the scores are 1245 versus 1204, also a 3.3% lead.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: The i3-4330 wins all single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 418 versus 404, a 3.3% lead. In R20 single-core, it scores 175 versus 169, a 3.4% advantage.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i3-4330 has an average benchmark score of 1020, while the i5-2500S averages 1004. The i3-4330 also ranks at the 28th percentile of all CPUs, one point higher than the i5-2500S at the 27th percentile.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The i3-4330 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz, while the i5-2500S has a base clock of 2.70 GHz. However, the i5-2500S can boost to 3.70 GHz, whereas the i3-4330 has no listed boost clock.

Q: What are the power consumption ratings?

A: The i5-2500S has a TDP of 65 watts, and the i3-4330 has a TDP of 54 watts. The i3-4330 consumes less power while achieving higher benchmark scores.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The i5-2500S offers 4 cores and 4 threads, while the i3-4330 provides 2 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 2.70 GHz versus 3.50 GHz, with only the i5-2500S having a boost clock at 3.70 GHz. TDP favors the i3-4330 at 54 watts versus 65 watts for the i5-2500S.

Sockets are incompatible: the i5-2500S uses Intel Socket 1155, the i3-4330 uses Intel Socket 1150. Architecture and process nodes reflect their eras: Sandy Bridge at 32 nm for the i5-2500S, Haswell at 22 nm for the i3-4330. Transistor counts are 1,160 million versus 1,400 million, with die sizes of 216 mm² versus 177 mm².

Cache configurations differ in L3 only: 6 MB shared on the i5-2500S, 4 MB shared on the i3-4330. Both have identical per-core L1 and L2 caches. Integrated graphics are Intel HD 2000 for the i5-2500S and Intel HD 4600 for the i3-4330. Both support DDR3 dual-channel memory without ECC. PCIe is Gen 3 for both, though the i5-2500S specifies 16 CPU lanes while the i3-4330 does not.

Release dates are about two and a half years apart: January 2011 for the i5-2500S, September 2013 for the i3-4330. Neither processor has a listed launch MSRP, and both have locked multipliers. Part numbers are SR009 for the i5-2500S and SR1NM for the i3-4330. The i5-2500S is marked end-of-life, while no production status is given for the i3-4330.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains five benchmarks, and the i3-4330 wins all of them by margins between 3.3% and 3.4%. The smallest delta is 3.3%, appearing in Cinebench R20 multi-core (1245 versus 1204), R23 multi-core (2966 versus 2867), and R23 single-core (418 versus 404). The largest delta is 3.4%, in Cinebench R15 multi-core (298 versus 288) and R20 single-core (175 versus 169).

The consistency of these margins is notable. Whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded, the i3-4330 maintains nearly the same relative advantage. This suggests the performance gap is architectural rather than workload-specific. The i5-2500S's four physical cores cannot compensate for the i3-4330's newer design and higher clock speed.

For the i5-2500S, the closest result is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it trails by 99 points. The largest absolute gap is also in R23 multi-core, showing that the i3-4330's lead grows slightly in the most demanding test. In single-core tests, the i3-4330 leads by 6 points in R20 and 14 points in R23.

The database shows zero wins for the i5-2500S and five wins for the i3-4330. This clean sweep is rare in processor comparisons, where different architectures often trade blows across test types. Here, the newer Haswell design simply outperforms the older Sandy Bridge part in every measured dimension.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner: the Intel Core i3-4330 outperforms the Intel Core i5-2500S in every recorded benchmark. If the choice is based solely on performance, the i3-4330 is the superior processor. It wins all five head-to-head tests, has a higher average benchmark score (1020 versus 1004), and ranks one percentile higher across all CPUs.

The i5-2500S retains some theoretical advantages: more physical cores, more L3 cache, and a higher boost clock. But none of these translate into benchmark victories. The i3-4330's newer architecture, smaller process node, and higher base clock deliver better results across the board. Its lower TDP of 54 watts versus 65 watts adds an efficiency benefit as well.

For users considering these two processors, the decision is straightforward from the data. The i3-4330 is the faster chip for both single-threaded and multi-threaded applications. The i5-2500S might appeal to those who value four physical cores on paper, but the recorded measurements show that this does not produce a performance advantage. The i3-4330's 2-core, 4-thread configuration with simultaneous multi-threading is sufficient to beat the 4-core, 4-thread i5-2500S in all tested workloads.

The verdict favors the i3-4330 without qualification. Its wins are consistent, its margins are uniform, and its efficiency is better. The i5-2500S, while not without merit as a quad-core Sandy Bridge part, simply cannot match the newer Haswell design in the database's measurements.