Intel Core i3-5020U vs Intel Core i5-4250U Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the majority of head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core i3-5020U wins 5 of the 7 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, while the Intel Core i5-4250U wins 2. The i3-5020U takes all five Cinebench tests, while the i5-4250U takes both Geekbench tests.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test?

A: The i3-5020U scores 1876 versus 1811 for the i5-4250U, a delta of 3.6%. This mirrors the Cinebench R20 multi-core result, where the i3-5020U leads by the same 3.6% margin.

Q: In which benchmark does the i5-4250U show its largest advantage?

A: The i5-4250U shows its biggest lead in Geekbench single-core, scoring 742 against 696 for the i3-5020U, a delta of 6.2%. Its multi-core Geekbench advantage is smaller at 3.8% (1434 versus 1379).

Q: What is the average benchmark score relationship between these two CPUs?

A: The i3-5020U has an average benchmark score of 757, while the i5-4250U averages 756. The delta between them is only 0.2% in favor of the i3-5020U, placing both at the 20th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Do both processors share the same core and thread configuration?

A: Yes. Both have 2 cores and 4 threads. They also share the same 15 W TDP, the same socket (Intel BGA 1168), and the same cache hierarchy: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 3 MB shared L3.

Q: What are the architectural generations and process nodes of these two chips?

A: The i3-5020U is a Broadwell-U part built on a 14 nm process, while the i5-4250U is a Haswell part built on a 22 nm process. The die size differs accordingly: 82 mm² for the i3-5020U versus 118 mm² for the i5-4250U.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel microarchitectures despite sharing the same socket and thermal envelope. The i3-5020U is built on the Broadwell architecture, specifically the Broadwell-U codename, and uses a 14 nm process node. The i5-4250U is a Haswell part, codenamed Haswell, fabricated on a 22 nm process. This generational shift is significant: the i3-5020U uses a newer, denser manufacturing process, which explains its smaller die size of 82 mm² compared to 118 mm² for the i5-4250U. Interestingly, the i5-4250U carries more transistors, 1,400 million versus 1,300 million for the i3-5020U, despite its larger process node.

The clock speed profiles are markedly different. The i3-5020U has a base clock of 2.20 GHz with no boost clock listed, meaning it runs at a fixed frequency. The i5-4250U has a base clock of only 1300.00 MHz (1.30 GHz) but features a boost clock of 2.60 GHz. This indicates the i5-4250U relies on dynamic frequency scaling to reach higher performance under load, while the i3-5020U operates at a constant, moderate frequency. The i5-4250U listing shows a base clock far below its boost, suggesting a wider operating range.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The i3-5020U pairs with Intel HD 5500, while the i5-4250U uses Intel HD 5000. Both are integrated GPU solutions, but they belong to different generations of Intel's graphics lineup. Memory support is identical in type, both support DDR3, and the i3-5020U specifies dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s; the i5-4250U does not list memory bus or bandwidth details in the database. Neither chip supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The PCIe configuration is only listed for the i3-5020U, which provides Gen 2 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The i5-4250U has no PCIe data recorded. The i3-5020U was released on 2015-02-28, while the i5-4250U came earlier on 2013-06-03. Both are mobile segment parts, and the i3-5020U is marked as end-of-life, while the i5-4250U has no production status listed. The part numbers are SR240 for the i3-5020U and SR16M for the i5-4250U.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly by application type. The i3-5020U dominates in Cinebench workloads, which are rendering and 3D modeling tasks. It wins all five Cinebench tests: R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core. The margins range from 2.8% to 3.6%. This suggests the i3-5020U has a consistent advantage in CPU-bound rendering tasks, likely due to its fixed higher base clock of 2.20 GHz versus the i5-4250U's lower 1.30 GHz base clock that must boost to 2.60 GHz.

The i5-4250U wins both Geekbench tests, which are more representative of general-purpose system performance, including memory latency, encryption, and integer/fractional math. Its Geekbench multi-core score is 1434 versus 1379 for the i3-5020U, a 3.8% lead. Its single-core advantage is even larger at 6.2% (742 versus 696). The i5-4250U's ability to boost to 2.60 GHz, which is 0.40 GHz higher than the i3-5020U's maximum (and only) clock, likely drives these wins in workloads that benefit from burst frequencies.

For users running rendering software, video encoding, or other sustained all-core workloads, the i3-5020U is the stronger choice based on the Cinebench results. For everyday desktop responsiveness, web browsing, office applications, or other tasks that rely on quick single-threaded bursts, the i5-4250U's Geekbench scores indicate an edge. The overall average scores are nearly identical, 757 for the i3-5020U and 756 for the i5-4250U, so the practical difference depends heavily on the specific application mix.

The i3-5020U also holds a slight edge in the nearest-rival comparison. Its closest rival, the Intel Xeon E5450, scores 756 with a delta of 0.1%, while the i5-4250U's closest rival is the same Xeon E5450 at 756 with a delta of -0.1%. Both CPUs sit at the 20th percentile among all CPUs, indicating they are entry-level performers in the broader market.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The most striking divergence is the base clock: the i3-5020U runs at 2.20 GHz, while the i5-4250U has a base clock of 1300.00 MHz. The i5-4250U compensates with a boost clock of 2.60 GHz, a feature the i3-5020U does not list at all. This means the i3-5020U has no turbo capability, while the i5-4250U can raise its frequency by 1.30 GHz above its base.

The architecture and process node are different: Broadwell-U on 14 nm for the i3-5020U, versus Haswell on 22 nm for the i5-4250U. Transistor counts differ, 1,300 million for the i3-5020U and 1,400 million for the i5-4250U, as do die sizes, 82 mm² versus 118 mm². The integrated graphics are different: Intel HD 5500 for the i3-5020U and Intel HD 5000 for the i5-4250U.

The i3-5020U lists specific memory and PCIe details: DDR3 support, dual-channel memory bus, 25.6 GB/s bandwidth, and PCIe Gen 2 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The i5-4250U lists only DDR3 memory support with no memory bus, bandwidth, or PCIe data. Release dates differ by nearly two years: the i3-5020U launched on 2015-02-28, the i5-4250U on 2013-06-03. The i3-5020U has a launch MSRP of $281, while the i5-4250U has no launch MSRP recorded. The i3-5020U is marked end-of-life, while the i5-4250U has no production status. Both share the same socket, TDP of 15 W, core count of 2, thread count of 4, and cache sizes (64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, 3 MB shared L3).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers seven benchmark tests, and the results show a consistent split between Cinebench and Geekbench workloads.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3-5020U scores 188 against 182 for the i5-4250U, a delta of 3.3%. This test is older but still reflects sustained multi-threaded rendering performance. The i3-5020U's fixed 2.20 GHz clock appears to provide a steady advantage over the i5-4250U's boost-dependent architecture.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a wider gap: 787 for the i3-5020U versus 760 for the i5-4250U, a delta of 3.6%. This is the same percentage margin seen in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the i3-5020U scores 1876 and the i5-4250U scores 1811. The consistency of the 3.6% margin across two generations of Cinebench suggests a stable performance difference in all-core rendering tasks, likely attributable to the i3-5020U's higher sustained clock.

Single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i3-5020U scores 110 versus 107 for the i5-4250U, a delta of 2.8%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i3-5020U scores 264 versus 255, a delta of 3.5%. The i3-5020U wins these despite the i5-4250U's higher 2.60 GHz boost clock, which suggests the i3-5020U's fixed 2.20 GHz frequency may be more consistently available, or the Broadwell architecture has better per-clock efficiency.

The Geekbench results reverse the trend. In Geekbench multi-core, the i5-4250U scores 1434 against 1379 for the i3-5020U, a delta of -3.8% (in favor of the i5-4250U). This is a notable reversal given that the i3-5020U leads in all Cinebench multi-core tests. The i5-4250U's advantage in Geekbench single-core is even larger: 742 versus 696, a delta of -6.2%. The i5-4250U's boost clock of 2.60 GHz, which is 0.40 GHz higher than the i3-5020U's maximum clock, likely explains this Geekbench dominance, as Geekbench workloads often respond well to higher instantaneous frequencies.

The average benchmark scores reflect this near-tie: the i3-5020U averages 757, while the i5-4250U averages 756, a delta of only 0.2%. Both CPUs sit at the 20th percentile among all CPUs. In the nearest-rival context, the i3-5020U's closest rival is the Intel Xeon E5450 with an average score of 756 and a delta of 0.1%, while the i5-4250U also has the Xeon E5450 as a nearest rival at 756 with a delta of -0.1%. The two CPUs are also each other's nearest rivals: the i3-5020U's list includes the i5-4250U at 756 with a delta of 0.2%, and the i5-4250U's list includes the i3-5020U at 757 with a delta of -0.2%.

Overall, the head-to-head data shows that the i3-5020U is the stronger rendering processor, winning 5 out of 7 tests, while the i5-4250U is stronger in Geekbench-style general-purpose tasks. The margins are modest in either direction, with the largest single advantage being the i5-4250U's 6.2% lead in Geekbench single-core. The i3-5020U's largest win is a 3.6% lead in two Cinebench multi-core tests. For a user prioritizing rendering, the i3-5020U is the clear pick; for general system responsiveness, the i5-4250U's Geekbench results make it competitive despite its older architecture.