Intel Core i3-5157U vs Intel Core i5-5250U Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core rendering workloads?

A: The Intel Core i3-5157U wins all three Cinebench multi-core tests. It scores 222 versus 209 in Cinebench R15, 925 versus 873 in R20, and 2203 versus 2079 in R23, a consistent margin of roughly 5.6% in each test.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-5250U win any benchmark comparisons?

A: Yes, it wins both Geekbench tests. It scores 1587 versus 1568 in multi-core (1.2% ahead) and 825 versus 778 in single-core (6% ahead).

Q: What is the difference in single-threaded Cinebench performance?

A: The i3-5157U leads in both single-core Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 130 against 123, and in R23 single-core, it scores 311 against 293, a margin of about 5.4% to 5.8%.

Q: Do the two CPUs share the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are built on Intel's 14 nm process node, use the Broadwell-U architecture, and have the same 1,900 million transistor count and 133 mm² die size.

Q: How do these chips compare to other processors in the database?

A: Both sit at the 23rd percentile among all CPUs. The i5-5250U has an average benchmark score of 856, nearly matching the Intel Core i5-2500T (856) and Intel Core i7-4500U (859). The i3-5157U averages 877, close to the AMD Ryzen 3 2300U (880).

Q: What integrated graphics do these processors include?

A: The i5-5250U comes with Intel HD 6000, while the i3-5157U includes Intel Iris 6100, a higher-tier graphics solution in the same Broadwell generation.

Architecture Differences

Both processors belong to the same Broadwell-U generation, fabricated on Intel's 14 nm process at the same foundry. Each chip integrates 1,900 million transistors on a 133 mm² die, and both use the Intel BGA 1168 socket. The core counts are identical: two physical cores with four threads via Hyper-Threading.

The cache hierarchy matches exactly. Each core has 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2, with 3 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is also identical: DDR3 with a dual-channel bus and 29.9 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both provide PCIe Gen 2 with 12 lanes from the CPU.

The key architectural difference lies in clock strategy. The i5-5250U has a base clock of 1600 MHz with a boost clock of 2.70 GHz. The i3-5157U runs at a fixed 2.50 GHz base clock with no boost capability. This means the i5 relies on dynamic frequency scaling to reach higher clocks when thermally possible, while the i3 maintains a constant higher base frequency.

Power delivery differs substantially. The i5-5250U carries a 15 W TDP, reflecting its lower base clock and efficiency focus. The i3-5157U is rated at 28 W TDP, a higher power envelope that explains its sustained clock speed. Both chips are marked as end-of-life production, released on the same date in late February 2015, and carry the same launch MSRP. The integrated graphics differ: the i5 uses Intel HD 6000, while the i3 uses Intel Iris 6100, a more capable GPU tier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records seven head-to-head comparisons. The i3-5157U wins five of them, while the i5-5250U takes two. The pattern is clear: the i3 dominates Cinebench across every version, while the i5 wins Geekbench.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3 scores 222 against 209 for the i5, a 5.9% advantage. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the i3 posts 925 versus 873, a 5.6% lead. The same margin appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core: 2203 versus 2079, again 5.6% ahead. These consistent deltas suggest the i3's higher fixed clock of 2.50 GHz provides a steady throughput advantage in sustained multi-threaded rendering.

Single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i3 scores 130 against 123, a 5.4% edge. In R23 single-core, it reaches 311 versus 293, a 5.8% margin. The i3's lack of a boost clock does not hurt it here; its base clock exceeds the i5's boost clock situationally.

The i5-5250U reclaims ground in Geekbench. In Geekbench multi-core, it scores 1587 against 1568, a 1.2% win. The single-core result is more decisive: 825 versus 778, a 6% advantage. This inversion is interesting. The i5's boost clock of 2.70 GHz likely explains the single-core Geekbench win, as it can scale above the i3's fixed 2.50 GHz when only one core is active. The multi-core Geekbench margin is narrow, but still favors the i5.

Overall, the recorded data shows a split personality. The i3-5157U is the stronger processor in Cinebench workloads across every version tested, with margins of roughly 5% to 6%. The i5-5250U is the stronger processor in Geekbench, particularly in single-core where its 6% lead is the largest delta in the entire comparison.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in the following recorded fields:

• Base Clock: The i5-5250U runs at 1600.00 MHz, the i3-5157U at 2.50 GHz.
• Boost Clock: The i5-5250U has a 2.70 GHz boost clock, the i3-5157U has none (null).
• TDP: The i5-5250U is rated at 15 W, the i3-5157U at 28 W.
• Integrated Graphics: The i5-5250U uses Intel HD 6000, the i3-5157U uses Intel Iris 6100.
• Part Number: The i5-5250U is SR26C, the i3-5157U is SR26M.
• Average Benchmark Score: The i5-5250U averages 856, the i3-5157U averages 877.

All other specification fields are identical: two cores, four threads, 14 nm process, 1,900 million transistors, 133 mm² die, 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, 3 MB shared L3, DDR3 dual-channel memory, 29.9 GB/s bandwidth, no ECC, PCIe Gen 2 with 12 lanes, Intel BGA 1168 socket, Broadwell-U architecture, mobile market segment, end-of-life status, same release date, same launch MSRP, and locked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data points to the i3-5157U as the more consistent performer in compute-heavy workloads. It wins five of seven head-to-head benchmarks, including every Cinebench test. Its average benchmark score of 877 exceeds the i5's 856 by about 2.5%. The i3's fixed 2.50 GHz base clock delivers reliable performance without relying on boost behavior, which is reflected in its Cinebench wins across three different software versions.

The i5-5250U should be chosen when power efficiency matters more than raw throughput. Its 15 W TDP is nearly half the i3's 28 W rating. It also wins both Geekbench tests, with a notable 6% single-core advantage. If the workload resembles Geekbench's mixed integer and floating-point tasks, the i5's boost clock to 2.70 GHz provides a measurable edge.

Users who prioritize sustained multi-threaded rendering should select the i3-5157U. The Cinebench deltas, while not large, are consistent and reproducible across R15, R20, and R23. Users who prioritize single-core responsiveness or lower power consumption should select the i5-5250U. The Geekbench single-core score of 825 versus 778 is the largest performance gap in either direction.

Both processors sit at the 23rd percentile among all CPUs, indicating similar overall standing. The i3's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 3 2300U and Intel Core i3-1000NG4, both within 0.4% of its average score. The i5's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-4500U and AMD A8-7650K, both within 0.5%. Neither chip distinguishes itself dramatically from its peers.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core i3-5157U wins in:

• Cinebench R15 multi-core (222 versus 209, 5.9% ahead)
• Cinebench R20 multi-core (925 versus 873, 5.6% ahead)
• Cinebench R20 single-core (130 versus 123, 5.4% ahead)
• Cinebench R23 multi-core (2203 versus 2079, 5.6% ahead)
• Cinebench R23 single-core (311 versus 293, 5.8% ahead)
• Overall average benchmark score (877 versus 856)

Intel Core i5-5250U wins in:

• Geekbench multi-core (1587 versus 1568, 1.2% ahead)
• Geekbench single-core (825 versus 778, 6% ahead)
• Power efficiency (15 W TDP versus 28 W TDP)

The use-case split is straightforward. For rendering, compiling, or any workload that exercises Cinebench-style multi-threaded execution, the i3-5157U is the better choice. For single-threaded tasks that resemble Geekbench's test suite, the i5-5250U offers a meaningful advantage. For thermally constrained laptops or fanless designs, the i5's 15 W TDP makes it the only sensible option between the two. The i3's 28 W TDP demands better cooling and more battery capacity, which is a significant trade-off for a mobile processor.