Intel Core i3-8130U vs Intel Core i5-2500S Comparison

The Intel Core i5-2500S and the Intel Core i3-8130U make for an unusual comparison: an end-of-life Sandy Bridge desktop processor measured against an active Kaby Lake-R mobile part. Despite the i5-2500S having twice the physical cores, the recorded data shows the i3-8130U winning every head-to-head benchmark. Both chips sit at the 27th percentile versus all CPUs in the database, with average benchmark scores of 1004 and 994 respectively, so this is a fight between two low-tier performers separated by process generation, not by class.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sweep is total: the i3-8130U takes all seven recorded tests, and the i5-2500S takes none.

In Cinebench multi-core, the margins are narrow but consistent. Cinebench R15 multi-core goes to the i3 at 301 versus 288, a 4.3% gap. R20 multi-core lands at 1257 versus 1204 (4.2%), and R23 multi-core at 2995 versus 2867 (4.3%). That a dual-core chip with hyperthreading edges out a true quad-core in threaded rendering workloads says a lot about how much per-clock efficiency moved between Sandy Bridge and Kaby Lake-R. Four weak cores lose, narrowly, to two strong ones plus SMT.

Single-core results widen the story. Cinebench R20 single-core is 177 versus 169 (4.5%), and R23 single-core is 422 versus 404 (4.3%). The i5-2500S actually clocks higher on paper, 3.70 GHz boost against 3.40 GHz, yet still loses single-threaded rendering by a consistent margin. Clock speed is not the whole equation here.

Geekbench is where the generational gap becomes a chasm. Geekbench single-core: 898 for the i3 against 582 for the i5, a 35.2% lead. Geekbench multi-core: 1762 against 1511, a 14.2% lead. Geekbench rewards modern instruction support and per-cycle efficiency more heavily than Cinebench does, and the results make that obvious. If your workload resembles Geekbench's mix, the i3 is in a different league.

Notably, the database has no Cinebench R15 single-core score for the i5-2500S, so that test is excluded from the head-to-head.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster overall?

A: The i3-8130U, across every recorded test. Margins range from about 4% in Cinebench to 35.2% in Geekbench single-core. The average benchmark scores, 994 versus 1004, actually favor the i5 slightly, but that average blends different test mixes; the direct head-to-head data is unambiguous.

Q: Does the i5-2500S win anything?

A: No. Its head-to-head win count is zero out of seven tests. Its best results are the near-ties in Cinebench multi-core, where it trails by roughly 4%.

Q: How do they compare against other CPUs in the database?

A: Both sit at the 27th percentile. The i5-2500S ranks closest to the Intel Core i5-4300M (avgScore 1004), Intel Core i7-5600U (1005), Intel Core i7-2630QM (1005), and AMD FX-9830P (1006). The i3-8130U clusters near the AMD Phenom II X6 1065T (993), Intel Xeon W3565 (993), AMD Opteron 4226 (995), and Intel Core i7-2635QM (995).

Q: Which has lower power consumption?

A: The i3-8130U, by a wide margin. Its TDP is 15 W against 65 W for the i5-2500S, which is the natural consequence of a mobile 14 nm design versus a desktop 32 nm one.

Q: Is either CPU still in production?

A: The i5-2500S is end-of-life. The i3-8130U is listed as active.

Q: Can either chip be overclocked?

A: No. Both have locked multipliers.

Architecture Differences

These chips come from very different eras of Intel design. The i5-2500S is Sandy Bridge, built on Intel's 32 nm process, with 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die. The i3-8130U is Kaby Lake-R (the Kaby Lake-U Refresh), built on 14 nm with a much smaller 123 mm² die. Transistor count for the i3 is not recorded in the database.

Core topology is the headline contrast: 4 cores and 4 threads on the i5 against 2 cores and 4 threads on the i3. The i5 gets its parallelism from physical cores, while the i3 relies on SMT to present four threads. Clocks run 2.70 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost on the i5 versus 2.40 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost on the i3.

Cache also splits them. The i5 carries 6 MB of shared L3 versus 4 MB on the i3, while both have identical per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (256 KB). The i5's PCIe support is recorded as Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes; the i3 has no PCIe data listed. Platform support diverges as well: the i5 uses DDR3 on a dual-channel bus over Socket 1155, while the i3 uses DDR4 on a BGA 1356 package, meaning it is soldered and not user-replaceable. Neither supports ECC memory.

Integrated graphics differ sharply: Intel HD 2000 on the Sandy Bridge part versus UHD 620 on the Kaby Lake-R part, a pairing that mirrors the CPU generation gap.

The Verdict

The data points one direction for performance: the i3-8130U wins every recorded benchmark, from narrow Cinebench margins to a crushing 35.2% Geekbench single-core lead. It also does so at 15 W instead of 65 W, and it is an active product rather than an end-of-life one.

The case for the i5-2500S is not about speed, it is about platform context. It is a desktop Socket 1155 part with four physical cores, more L3 cache, Gen 3 PCIe with 16 CPU lanes, and a socketed, replaceable package. If the choice involves an existing desktop platform, upgradeability, or the need for physical quad-core throughput in software that scales with cores rather than per-thread speed, the i5 is the only one of the two that fits. As a mobile BGA chip, the i3 is not something you build around at all.

For pure compute per the measurements, pick the i3-8130U. For a desktop platform with socketed flexibility, the i5-2500S is the only option of the two, and its Cinebench multi-core scores show it stays within roughly 4% of the i3 in threaded rendering anyway.

Specification Differences

• Cores: 4 (i5-2500S) vs 2 (i3-8130U)
• Threads: 4 vs 4 (identical)
• Base clock: 2.70 GHz vs 2.40 GHz
• Boost clock: 3.70 GHz vs 3.40 GHz
• TDP: 65 W vs 15 W
• Socket: Intel Socket 1155 vs Intel BGA 1356
• Architecture: Sandy Bridge vs Kaby Lake (codename Kaby Lake-R)
• Process node: 32 nm vs 14 nm
• Transistors: 1,160 million vs not recorded
• Die size: 216 mm² vs 123 mm²
• L3 cache: 6 MB shared vs 4 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR3 vs DDR4
• PCIe: Gen 3, 16 lanes (CPU only) vs not recorded
• Integrated graphics: Intel HD 2000 vs UHD 620
• Market segment: Desktop vs Mobile
• Production status: End-of-life vs Active
• Release date: January 2011 vs February 2018 (per database records)
• Multiplier: locked on both
• ECC: unsupported on both

Where Each One Wins

The i3-8130U wins on:

• Single-threaded responsiveness: Geekbench single-core at 898 versus 582, a 35.2% lead, plus Cinebench R20 and R23 single-core wins at 4.5% and 4.3%.
• Mixed real-world workloads: Geekbench multi-core at 1762 versus 1511, up 14.2%.
• Threaded rendering, surprisingly: Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core all go its way by 4.2 to 4.3%, despite having half the physical cores.
• Efficiency: 15 W TDP against 65 W.
• Longevity: active production status and a newer platform with DDR4 support.

The i5-2500S wins on:

• Nothing in the recorded benchmarks. Its seven head-to-head losses are the whole story of this matchup.
• Platform attributes outside the benchmark suite: socketed Socket 1155 desktop design, four physical cores without SMT dependencies, 6 MB of shared L3, Gen 3 PCIe with 16 CPU lanes, and dual-channel DDR3 support. These matter for building or maintaining a desktop system, not for winning speed tests.

In short, the measurements favor the i3-8130U without exception, and the i5-2500S's appeal rests entirely on being a socketed desktop quad-core rather than a faster one.