CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i5-3550S and Intel Core i3-7300 land in the same performance tier, separated by an average benchmark score of just three points (1118 vs. 1115). Both processors sit at the 31st percentile among all CPUs, meaning they are statistically equivalent in overall compute capability. The i5-3550S offers four physical cores from the older Ivy Bridge generation, while the i3-7300 counters with two cores and four threads from Kaby Lake running at a much higher base clock. The data shows a near-perfect stalemate: the i3-7300 wins five of six head-to-head benchmarks, yet the margins are razor-thin, ranging from 1.2% to 1.3% in its favor, with one test ending in an exact tie.

The Verdict

The benchmark results indicate that neither processor holds a meaningful performance advantage over the other. The i3-7300 edges out the i5-3550S in every Cinebench test that shows a difference, but the maximum lead is only 1.3%. In Cinebench R15 single-core, both chips score exactly 54 points, a perfect tie. The i5-3550S does win one benchmark, Cinebench R15 single-core, on the basis of the tie being awarded to it, but that is a nominal victory with zero performance gap.

For users starting from scratch, the i3-7300 is the more sensible choice based on the data. It delivers a slight edge in multi-threaded workloads despite having half the physical cores, and it comes with a newer architecture, DDR4 memory support, and a lower 51W TDP compared to the i5-3550S's 65W. The i5-3550S, however, remains relevant for anyone already invested in the Intel Socket 1155 platform, as its four cores provide a structural advantage in workloads that scale well beyond four threads, even if the benchmarks show that advantage does not translate into higher scores in these tests. The i3-7300's production status is listed as active, while the i5-3550S has no production status, suggesting the i3-7300 is the more future-proof option.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and use fundamentally different designs. The i5-3550S is built on Intel's 22 nm process with 1,400 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, using the Ivy Bridge architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. Its cache configuration includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The i5-3550S supports DDR3 memory over a dual-channel bus and uses the Intel Socket 1155 interface.

The i3-7300 is a Kaby Lake part built on a 14 nm process, though its transistor count and die size are not listed in the data. It has 2 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 4.00 GHz and no boost clock, meaning it runs at a fixed frequency. Its cache is smaller: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The i3-7300 supports DDR4 memory with a specified bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, uses the Intel Socket 1151, and integrates Intel HD 630 graphics compared to the i5-3550S's Intel HD 2500.

Both processors use PCI Express Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, and neither supports ECC memory. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The i5-3550S was released in 2012, while the i3-7300 came in 2017, a five-year gap that explains the architectural differences. The i3-7300's higher clock speed (4.00 GHz vs. 3.00 GHz base) compensates for its fewer physical cores, and the newer 14 nm process likely contributes to its lower TDP of 51W versus 65W for the older chip.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a consistent, if narrow, pattern of wins for the i3-7300. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3-7300 scores 388 against the i5-3550S's 383, a 1.3% advantage. The single-core R15 test is a dead heat at 54 points for both. Moving to Cinebench R20, the i3-7300 leads again in multi-core with 1619 versus 1599 (1.2% ahead) and in single-core with 228 versus 225 (1.3% ahead). The Cinebench R23 results continue the trend: multi-core shows 3856 for the i3-7300 against 3808 for the i5-3550S (1.2% lead), and single-core shows 544 versus 537 (1.3% lead).

These deltas are so small that they fall within run-to-run variance for most real-world applications. The i3-7300's higher clock speed clearly drives its single-core wins, while its four threads are enough to keep pace with the i5-3550S's four physical cores in multi-core tests. The i5-3550S does hold one nominal win in R15 single-core due to the tie, and its Geekbench scores, 1716 multi-core and 623 single-core, are not directly compared in the head-to-head table. The i3-7300 does not have Geekbench scores listed in its benchmark set, so no comparison is possible there.

The average benchmark scores tell the same story: the i5-3550S averages 1118, and the i3-7300 averages 1115, a 0.3% difference. Notably, the i5-3550S's nearest rival list includes the i3-7300 itself with a deltaPct of -0.3%, while the i3-7300's nearest rivals list includes the i5-3550S with a deltaPct of -0.3% as well, confirming their near-identical standing. Both CPUs sit at the 31st percentile, and both are bracketed by the AMD Ryzen 3 1200, which scores 1116, and the Intel Core i3-4150, which scores 1119.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more physical cores?

A: The Intel Core i5-3550S has 4 physical cores, while the Intel Core i3-7300 has 2 physical cores. However, the i3-7300 supports 4 threads via hyper-threading, matching the i5-3550S's 4 threads.

Q: Does the i3-7300 outperform the i5-3550S in multi-core workloads?

A: Yes, but only marginally. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i3-7300 scores 3856 versus 3808 for the i5-3550S, a 1.2% lead. Similar margins appear in R15 and R20 multi-core tests.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The i5-3550S supports DDR3 memory, while the i3-7300 supports DDR4 memory with a specified bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Are these CPUs comparable in overall performance?

A: The data shows they are essentially equivalent. The i5-3550S has an average benchmark score of 1118, and the i3-7300 has 1115, a difference of 0.3%. Both rank at the 31st percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Which processor has a higher clock speed?

A: The i3-7300 has a base clock of 4.00 GHz with no boost clock, while the i5-3550S has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The i3-7300 runs faster even when the i5-3550S is boosted.

Q: When were these processors released?

A: The i5-3550S was released in 2012, and the i3-7300 was released in 2017. The i3-7300 is still listed as active in production, while the i5-3550S has no production status listed.

Where Each One Wins

The i3-7300 wins in five of six head-to-head benchmarks, making it the default choice for users who prioritize the latest Cinebench scores. Its wins are consistent across single-core and multi-core tests, driven by a 4.00 GHz base clock that the i5-3550S cannot match even at its 3.70 GHz boost. The i3-7300 also wins on platform modernity: it supports DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, has a lower 51W TDP, and integrates Intel HD 630 graphics. For a new build, the data favors the i3-7300 in every tested workload.

The i5-3550S's only win is the Cinebench R15 single-core tie, which is a statistical dead heat rather than a real advantage. Its four physical cores could theoretically offer better scaling in applications that use more than four threads, but the benchmark results show no such benefit, the i3-7300's four threads match or slightly exceed the i5-3550S's four cores in all multi-core tests. The i5-3550S does have a larger 6 MB L3 cache versus 4 MB, and its Geekbench scores (1716 multi-core, 623 single-core) are available for reference, though no direct comparison exists for the i3-7300.

In practical terms, the i5-3550S wins only in the context of an existing Intel Socket 1155 system where upgrading the motherboard is undesirable. The i3-7300 wins everywhere else: higher clock speed, newer architecture, lower power draw, DDR4 support, and five benchmark victories. If forced to choose strictly on the numbers, the i3-7300 is the better performer, but the margin is so thin that the decision should come down to platform compatibility rather than raw speed.