Intel Core i5-11400 vs Intel Core i5-1235U Comparison

The Intel Core i5-1235U and Intel Core i5-11400 represent two distinct design philosophies from Intel: one is a power-sipping mobile processor built for thin-and-light laptops, while the other is a desktop workhorse designed for sustained performance. The benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy, but the 1235U manages to secure surprising victories in specific workloads, making this comparison more nuanced than a simple spec-sheet glance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core i5-11400 dominates the overall head-to-head tally with 15 wins against the 1235U’s 4, but the margin of victory varies dramatically by workload type. In multi-core rendering tasks, the desktop chip asserts its superiority with remarkable consistency. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows the 11400 scoring 14,132 against the 1235U’s 9,774, a 30.8% advantage. This pattern repeats across Cinebench R20 (5,935 vs 4,105, -30.8%) and R15 (1,424 vs 985, -30.8%), indicating that the 11400’s higher sustained power delivery translates directly into rendering throughput.

The single-core Cinebench results tell a similar story, with the 11400 leading by 31% in R15 (200 vs 138) and 30.9% in R23 (1,995 vs 1,379). However, Geekbench single-core narrows this gap considerably, with the 11400 scoring 1,750 against the 1235U’s 1,609, a margin of just 8.1%. This suggests that the 1235U’s Alder Lake architecture has superior per-clock efficiency, but the 11400’s higher base clock of 2.60 GHz versus 1.30 GHz compensates in most real-world single-threaded tasks.

The 1235U’s victories are concentrated in specialized mathematical workloads. The most dramatic win comes in PassMark’s find prime numbers test, where the 1235U scores 954 against the 11400’s paltry 49, a staggering 1,846.9% advantage. This extreme outlier likely reflects a pathological weakness in the Rocket Lake architecture for this specific operation. The 1235U also wins PassMark floating-point math with 43,303 vs 34,004, a 27.3% margin, and PassMark single-thread with 3,151 vs 2,990, a 5.4% edge.

In mixed integer workloads, the 11400 reasserts control. PassMark integer math shows the 11400 at 57,601 versus 48,553, a 15.7% lead. The desktop chip also wins PassMark multithread (16,690 vs 12,923, -22.6%), data compression (206,952 vs 147,450, -28.8%), and random string sorting (23,974 vs 17,050, -28.9%). The 11400’s advantage in extended instructions is particularly pronounced at 14,901 vs 8,176, a 45.1% gap, suggesting that the Rocket Lake core’s wider execution resources handle AVX-512 or similar workloads far more effectively. Overall, the 11400’s average benchmark score of 17,067 places it in the 71st percentile of all CPUs, marginally ahead of the 1235U’s 16,770 and 70th percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores, and does that translate to better multi-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Core i5-1235U has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core i5-11400 has 6 cores and 12 threads. Despite the 1235U’s 4-core advantage, the 11400 wins every multi-threaded benchmark in the comparison, including Cinebench R23 (14,132 vs 9,774) and Geekbench multi-core (7,572 vs 5,308). The 11400’s higher TDP of 65W versus 15W allows it to sustain boost clocks for longer periods, compensating for its fewer physical cores.

Q: Is the 1235U better in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the 1235U wins 4 out of 19 head-to-head tests. Its most significant victories are in PassMark find prime numbers (954 vs 49, a 1,846.9% advantage) and PassMark floating-point math (43,303 vs 34,004, a 27.3% advantage). It also edges out the 11400 in PassMark single-thread (3,151 vs 2,990) by 5.4%.

Q: How do their single-core performances compare?

A: The 11400 leads in all Cinebench single-core tests and Geekbench single-core, with margins ranging from 8.1% in Geekbench to 31% in Cinebench R15. However, the 1235U wins PassMark single-thread by 5.4%, indicating workload-dependent results. The 11400’s higher base clock of 2.60 GHz versus 1.30 GHz gives it an advantage in latency-sensitive tasks.

Q: What is the difference in their process nodes and does it matter?

A: The 1235U uses Intel’s 10 nm process, while the 11400 uses the older 14 nm node. Despite the newer process, the 1235U does not translate this into a consistent performance advantage. The 14 nm 11400 wins the majority of benchmarks, suggesting that the 14 nm process, combined with higher power limits, still delivers competitive performance for desktop workloads.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP and what does that imply?

A: The 11400 has a TDP of 65W, compared to the 1235U’s 15W. This 50W difference explains why the 11400 can maintain higher clock speeds under load, resulting in superior multi-core performance. The 1235U’s lower TDP makes it suitable for fanless or passively cooled mobile designs, but it caps sustained performance.

Q: How do their integrated graphics compare?

A: The 1235U features Iris Xe 80EU graphics, while the 11400 comes with UHD Graphics 730. The benchmark data does not include graphics-specific tests, so no numerical performance comparison is available. However, the Iris Xe 80EU is generally positioned as a more capable iGPU for light gaming and media tasks, though this cannot be confirmed from the provided data.

Architecture Differences

The 1235U is built on Intel’s Alder Lake architecture, fabricated on a 10 nm process, and uses a hybrid core design that combines performance and efficiency cores. This is a mobile-first design, as evidenced by its Intel BGA 1744 socket and 15W TDP. The 11400, in contrast, is a Rocket Lake-S desktop processor on the older 14 nm node, using a monolithic design with six identical cores. The process node difference is significant: 10 nm versus 14 nm, which typically implies better power efficiency per transistor for the newer node, but the benchmark data shows the 14 nm chip still wins in most compute-heavy tasks.

Cache configurations differ substantially. Both share 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 12 MB of shared L3 cache, but the L2 cache varies: the 1235U has 1.25 MB per core, while the 11400 has 512 KB per core. The 1235U’s larger L2 cache likely contributes to its floating-point math advantage. The 11400 compensates with a larger die size of 276 mm² versus an unspecified size for the 1235U, reflecting the more complex multi-die packaging of Alder Lake. Memory support also differs: the 1235U supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the 11400 is limited to DDR4. The 11400’s memory bandwidth is specified at 51.2 GB/s, while the 1235U’s is not listed.

Both processors support PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), but their market segments are fundamentally opposed: the 1235U is mobile, and the 11400 is desktop. The 1235U’s integrated graphics are Iris Xe 80EU, whereas the 11400 uses UHD Graphics 730. Production status also differs, with the 1235U listed as Active and the 11400 as End-of-life. The 11400’s release date of 2021-03-15 predates the 1235U’s 2022-02-22 launch by nearly a year.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice for users prioritizing raw compute performance: the Intel Core i5-11400 is the superior processor in 15 of 19 benchmarks, with wins across all Cinebench versions, Geekbench, and most PassMark workloads. Its 30.8% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 30.9% lead in single-core make it the definitive choice for rendering, video encoding, and general productivity. The 11400’s 65W TDP, while higher, enables it to sustain boost clocks that the 15W 1235U cannot match, resulting in consistently higher scores.

However, the 1235U is not without merit. Its 1,846.9% advantage in PassMark find prime numbers and 27.3% lead in floating-point math indicate that for specialized numerical workloads, the Alder Lake architecture’s efficiency cores and larger L2 cache provide tangible benefits. The 1235U also wins PassMark single-thread by 5.4%, and its 10 nm process and support for DDR5 memory make it a more future-proof mobile option.

The verdict depends entirely on the use case. For a desktop workstation or gaming PC where sustained performance is paramount, the 11400 is the clear winner, despite being end-of-life. For a mobile laptop where power efficiency and portability are critical, the 1235U is the only viable option, and its benchmark results show it can handle most tasks adequately, with specific strengths in mathematical operations. The 1235U’s 70th percentile ranking versus the 11400’s 71st percentile confirms they are closely matched in overall standing, but the distribution of wins heavily favors the desktop chip for general-purpose computing.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The 1235U has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the 11400 has 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks differ significantly: the 1235U runs at 1.30 GHz, while the 11400 runs at 2.60 GHz; both boost to 4.40 GHz. TDP is a major differentiator: 15W for the 1235U versus 65W for the 11400. The 1235U uses an Intel BGA 1744 socket, while the 11400 uses Intel Socket 1200. Architecture and codename differ: Alder Lake-U versus Rocket Lake. Process nodes are 10 nm versus 14 nm, and the 11400 has a specified die size of 276 mm², while the 1235U’s is not listed.

Cache configurations differ in L2 size: 1.25 MB per core for the 1235U versus 512 KB per core for the 11400; L1 and L3 are identical at 80 KB per core and 12 MB shared, respectively. Memory support varies, with the 1235U supporting DDR4 and DDR5, while the 11400 only supports DDR4; the 11400 has a specified memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, while the 1235U’s is not listed. Integrated graphics differ: Iris Xe 80EU versus UHD Graphics 730. Market segment is mobile versus desktop, production status is Active versus End-of-life, and release dates are 2022-02-22 versus 2021-03-15. The 11400 has a launch MSRP of $182, while the 1235U has no listed launch MSRP. Both have the same PCIe Gen 4, 20-lane configuration, no ECC support, and are multiplier-unlocked false.