CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i5-2500 and Intel Core i3-7300T sit at the same 34th percentile among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are separated by only 0.8% (1220 vs 1211). The newer i3-7300T wins every single head-to-head test, but the margins are uniformly narrow, ranging from 1.0% to 1.1%. This is a matchup where architectural age and core count differences cancel out almost perfectly, leaving the newer dual-core part with a consistent but minor edge in every measured workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The i3-7300T takes all five head-to-head benchmark victories, yet none of them are decisive. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i3-7300T scores 354 against the i5-2500’s 350, a 1.1% lead. The story repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore: 1477 vs 1461, again a 1.1% advantage for the i3-7300T. Cinebench R23 multicore follows the same pattern, 3519 vs 3479, a 1.1% margin. The single-core results are even tighter: Cinebench R20 single-core shows 208 vs 206 (a 1.0% lead), and Cinebench R23 single-core shows 496 vs 491, also a 1.0% lead.

What these numbers reveal is that the i5-2500’s two extra physical cores (four cores vs two) are almost perfectly neutralized by the i3-7300T’s architectural advantages. The i3-7300T’s higher base clock of 3.50 GHz versus 3.30 GHz, combined with a much newer 14 nm process versus 32 nm, allows each of its cores to do more work per clock. The result is that even in heavily threaded Cinebench workloads, the i5-2500 cannot turn its core advantage into a win. The largest gap in any test is just 1.1%, which is well within run-to-run variance for most benchmark suites.

The i5-2500 does appear in the i3-7300T’s nearest rivals list, with the i3-7300T holding a 0.8% higher average score. This is the closest delta in the i3-7300T’s rival group, which also includes the Intel Xeon E5645 (0% delta) and the Intel Xeon E5-1607 v3 (-0.1% delta). For the i5-2500, the i3-7300T is the fourth-closest rival, behind the Core i7-3632QM (0.1% delta), Pentium Silver N6005 (0.2% delta), and Xeon E5-1607 v3 (0.6% delta). Both CPUs sit in a dense performance cluster where a 1% difference separates several distinct processor generations.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more physical cores?

A: The Intel Core i5-2500 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Core i3-7300T has 2 cores and 4 threads. The i5-2500’s two extra physical cores do not translate into a benchmark win in any head-to-head test.

Q: Is the newer i3-7300T faster in single-core tests?

A: Yes, but barely. The i3-7300T leads by 1.0% in both Cinebench R20 single-core (208 vs 206) and Cinebench R23 single-core (496 vs 491). This consistent but small advantage reflects its higher 3.50 GHz base clock versus the i5-2500’s 3.30 GHz.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The i3-7300T supports DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the i5-2500 supports DDR3 with no listed bandwidth figure. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Do both CPUs have integrated graphics?

A: Yes. The i5-2500 includes Intel HD 2000, while the i3-7300T includes Intel HD 630. The i3-7300T’s integrated graphics are from a much newer generation, though no benchmark data for graphics is provided.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The i3-7300T has a TDP of 35 watts, while the i5-2500 has a TDP of 95 watts. This makes the i3-7300T significantly more power-efficient, though the benchmark scores are nearly identical.

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The i5-2500 has an average benchmark score of 1220, which is 0.8% higher than the i3-7300T’s 1211. This is despite the i3-7300T winning all five head-to-head tests, because the i5-2500’s average includes its Geekbench scores (1883 multicore, 670 singlecore) which the i3-7300T does not have.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from vastly different eras of Intel silicon. The i5-2500 uses Sandy Bridge architecture, built on a 32 nm process with 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die. The i3-7300T uses Kaby Lake architecture, built on a 14 nm process, with transistor count and die size not listed. This process shrink is the fundamental driver of the i3-7300T’s efficiency: it delivers comparable performance at 35 watts TDP versus the i5-2500’s 95 watts.

Cache configurations also differ. Both CPUs have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, but the shared L3 cache is 6 MB on the i5-2500 versus 4 MB on the i3-7300T. The i5-2500’s larger L3 cache helps offset its older architecture, but it is not enough to overcome the i3-7300T’s per-core efficiency gains. Memory support shifts from DDR3 on the i5-2500 to DDR4 on the i3-7300T, with the latter featuring a listed 38.4 GB/s memory bandwidth.

Both CPUs use PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), and neither supports ECC memory. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The integrated graphics differ substantially: Intel HD 2000 on the i5-2500 versus Intel HD 630 on the i3-7300T. The i3-7300T’s iGPU is several generations newer, though no graphics benchmarks are provided to quantify the difference.

The production status also separates them: the i5-2500 is end-of-life, while the i3-7300T is active. The i5-2500 was released in January 2011, and the i3-7300T in January 2017, a six-year gap that explains the architectural leap from 32 nm to 14 nm.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: the i5-2500 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the i3-7300T has 2 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 3.30 GHz for the i5-2500 and 3.50 GHz for the i3-7300T; the i5-2500 also has a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, while the i3-7300T has no boost clock listed. TDP is 95 watts for the i5-2500 and 35 watts for the i3-7300T.

Sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1155 for the i5-2500, Intel Socket 1151 for the i3-7300T. Process nodes are 32 nm versus 14 nm. The i5-2500 has 1,160 million transistors and a 216 mm² die size; neither figure is listed for the i3-7300T. L3 cache is 6 MB shared on the i5-2500 versus 4 MB shared on the i3-7300T. Memory support is DDR3 versus DDR4, with the i3-7300T listing 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. Integrated graphics are Intel HD 2000 versus Intel HD 630. Release dates are January 2011 versus January 2017, and production status is end-of-life versus active. Part numbers are SR00T for the i5-2500 and SR35M for the i3-7300T.

Where Each One Wins

The i3-7300T wins every benchmark category where both CPUs have data: Cinebench R15 multicore, R20 multicore, R20 single-core, R23 multicore, and R23 single-core. Its margins are consistent at 1.0-1.1%, which makes it the choice for any workload represented by these tests. The i3-7300T also offers a dramatically lower TDP of 35 watts versus 95 watts, making it suitable for compact or thermally constrained systems. Its DDR4 memory support and newer Intel HD 630 graphics further extend its relevance in modern builds.

The i5-2500 has no head-to-head benchmark wins, but it does hold a higher average benchmark score of 1220 versus 1211. This is driven by its Geekbench multicore score of 1883 and single-core score of 670, tests that the i3-7300T does not have data for. The i5-2500 also has two additional physical cores, which may matter in workloads not captured by the Cinebench suite, though no such benchmark data is provided. Its larger 6 MB L3 cache versus 4 MB is another theoretical advantage.

For users with an existing Socket 1155 motherboard, the i5-2500 could be a drop-in upgrade path, while the i3-7300T requires a Socket 1151 board. The i5-2500’s 3.70 GHz boost clock is higher than the i3-7300T’s 3.50 GHz base clock, though the i3-7300T does not list a boost clock at all.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i3-7300T wins all five head-to-head benchmarks, yet the i5-2500’s average score edges it out by 0.8% due to Geekbench results. For users prioritizing the specific workloads in the Cinebench suite, the i3-7300T is the better processor, but only by a hair. The 1.1% maximum delta means neither CPU offers a meaningful performance advantage over the other in these tests.

The i3-7300T is the logical choice for new builds. It pairs a 35-watt TDP with DDR4 support, a modern 14 nm process, and active production status. Its integrated HD 630 graphics are several generations newer than the i5-2500’s HD 2000. For a low-power desktop or a system where efficiency matters, the i3-7300T wins on nearly every axis.

The i5-2500 remains viable only in specific situations. Its two extra physical cores and larger L3 cache are real, but they do not produce a single benchmark victory. Its 95-watt TDP and DDR3 memory support are clear disadvantages. The only scenario where the i5-2500 makes sense is if you already own a Socket 1155 motherboard and want to avoid a platform change, but even then, the benchmark data shows no performance benefit from doing so.

Both processors sit at the 34th percentile, and both have nearly identical average scores. The i3-7300T is the newer, more efficient, and marginally faster part. The i5-2500 is the older, hotter, and equally fast part. The verdict from the data is simple: pick the i3-7300T unless you are locked into the i5-2500’s platform.