Intel Core i5-2500S vs Intel Core i5-4300M Comparison

The Intel Core i5-4300M and the Intel Core i5-2500S are a study in generational contrast, separated by over two years of architecture development and aimed at entirely different market segments. Despite their identical average benchmark scores of 1004 and matching 27th percentile rankings among all CPUs, the data reveals they achieve parity through fundamentally different strengths. The i5-2500S dominates Cinebench across the board, while the i5-4300M counterattacks decisively in Geekbench, leaving the final verdict dependent on which benchmark suite better reflects your intended workload.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split: the Intel Core i5-2500S is the superior choice for sustained multi-threaded rendering workloads, while the Intel Core i5-4300M wins decisively in single-threaded and legacy test scenarios. In Cinebench, the i5-2500S leads every iteration, with margins ranging from 11.8% to 12.3% across R15, R20, and R23 multicore and singlecore tests. Specifically, it scores 288 versus 253 in R15 multicore, 1204 versus 1056 in R20 multicore, and 2867 versus 2515 in R23 multicore. The singlecore Cinebench results follow the same pattern: 169 versus 149 in R20, and 404 versus 355 in R23.

However, the Geekbench results flip the narrative entirely. The i5-4300M posts a 20.3% advantage in Geekbench multicore (1817 versus 1511) and a massive 51.5% lead in Geekbench singlecore (882 versus 582). This suggests the i5-2500S's four physical cores give it an edge in Cinebench's rendering engine, while the i5-4300M's newer Haswell architecture extracts far better performance from Geekbench's workload patterns. Users running Cinebench-heavy applications should choose the i5-2500S; those relying on Geekbench-scored software should favor the i5-4300M. The i5-2500S also holds a practical advantage as a desktop part with an end-of-life status, while the i5-4300M is a mobile processor with a higher 37W TDP but no production status listed.

Architecture Differences

The two processors embody different design philosophies from Intel's roadmap. The i5-4300M is built on the 22 nm Haswell architecture, packing 1,400 million transistors into a compact 118 mm² die. It features 2 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The i5-2500S, by contrast, uses the older 32 nm Sandy Bridge architecture, with 1,160 million transistors spread across a much larger 216 mm² die. It offers 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz.

Cache configurations diverge significantly. The i5-4300M has 3 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i5-2500S doubles that to 6 MB shared. Both share identical L1 (64 KB per core) and L2 (256 KB per core) caches. The i5-2500S supports dual-channel DDR3 memory and includes PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), whereas the i5-4300M lists DDR3 memory support without specifying bus or lane details. Integrated graphics differ as well: the i5-4300M pairs with Intel HD 5000, while the i5-2500S uses the older Intel HD 2000. The i5-4300M targets the mobile segment on Intel Socket G3, while the i5-2500S is a desktop chip on Intel Socket 1155. Neither supports ECC memory, and both lack an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results tell a consistent story of i5-2500S dominance. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i5-2500S scores 288 against the i5-4300M's 253, a 12.2% deficit for the mobile chip. The margin narrows only slightly in R20 multicore, where 1204 versus 1056 represents a 12.3% gap. R23 multicore shows 2867 versus 2515, again 12.3% apart. Singlecore Cinebench tests reveal the same pattern: R20 singlecore has the i5-2500S at 169 versus 149 (11.8% ahead), and R23 singlecore shows 404 versus 355 (12.1% ahead). These consistent margins suggest the i5-2500S's four physical cores and higher boost clock provide a structural advantage in Cinebench's rendering algorithm.

Geekbench, however, belongs to the i5-4300M. The multicore score of 1817 versus 1511 gives the Haswell chip a 20.3% advantage, while the singlecore score of 882 versus 582 is a staggering 51.5% lead. This divergence is remarkable: the i5-4300M loses every Cinebench test by roughly 12% yet wins Geekbench multicore by over 20% and singlecore by over 50%. The deltaPct values in the nearestRivals data confirm the two chips are statistical equals overall, with a 0% difference in average score. The i5-4300M's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-5600U at -0.1% and the Intel Core i7-2630QM at -0.1%, while the i5-2500S shares the exact same rival list, underscoring their benchmark equivalence despite opposite architectural approaches.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core i5-2500S has 4 cores, while the Intel Core i5-4300M has 2 cores. Both support 4 threads.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: They are exactly identical. Both the i5-4300M and i5-2500S have an average benchmark score of 1004, and their deltaPct against each other is 0%.

Q: Which chip wins in Geekbench singlecore?

A: The Intel Core i5-4300M wins decisively, scoring 882 versus 582 for the i5-2500S, a 51.5% advantage.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The i5-4300M has a TDP of 37W, while the i5-2500S has a TDP of 65W. The i5-2500S draws nearly twice the power.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core i5-2500S has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, double the i5-4300M's 3 MB.

Q: Are both processors the same generation?

A: No. The i5-4300M is from the Haswell generation (Core i5 Haswell), while the i5-2500S is from the Sandy Bridge generation (Core i5 Sandy Bridge).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-2500S is the clear winner for Cinebench-based workloads. It wins all five Cinebench tests across R15, R20, and R23, covering both multicore and singlecore variants. The margins are consistent, ranging from 11.8% to 12.3%, which indicates a stable performance advantage that scales across different Cinebench versions. This makes it the preferred choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, and other tasks that rely on Cinebench's specific threading and cache utilization patterns. Its larger 6 MB L3 cache and four physical cores likely contribute to this edge.

The Intel Core i5-4300M wins in Geekbench, taking both multicore and singlecore tests. The multicore win of 20.3% and singlecore win of 51.5% are substantial, suggesting the Haswell architecture's newer instruction set and improved memory handling give it a significant edge in Geekbench's workload simulation. This makes the i5-4300M the better option for general productivity software, web browsing, and office applications that may align more closely with Geekbench's scoring methodology. The i5-4300M also offers the advantage of newer integrated graphics (Intel HD 5000 versus HD 2000) and a lower TDP of 37W versus 65W, which could be relevant for compact or thermally constrained systems.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. The i5-4300M has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the i5-2500S has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are close—2.60 GHz for the i5-4300M versus 2.70 GHz for the i5-2500S—but boost clocks show a similar pattern: 3.60 GHz versus 3.70 GHz. TDP is a major differentiator, with the i5-4300M at 37W and the i5-2500S at 65W. Sockets differ entirely: Intel Socket G3 for the mobile chip versus Intel Socket 1155 for the desktop chip.

Architecture and process node separate them by a generation: Haswell on 22 nm for the i5-4300M versus Sandy Bridge on 32 nm for the i5-2500S. Transistor counts are 1,400 million versus 1,160 million, while die sizes are 118 mm² versus 216 mm²—the newer process packs more transistors into a smaller area. L3 cache is 3 MB shared for the i5-4300M versus 6 MB shared for the i5-2500S. Memory support lists DDR3 for both, but the i5-2500S specifies dual-channel operation and PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), details absent from the i5-4300M's entry. Integrated graphics are Intel HD 5000 versus Intel HD 2000. Market segments are Mobile versus Desktop, release dates are 2013-08-31 versus 2011-01-08, production status is absent for the i5-4300M but End-of-life for the i5-2500S, and part numbers differ (none listed versus SR009).