Intel Core i5-2500T vs Intel Core i5-3360M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a remarkably consistent picture across all five shared Cinebench tests: the Intel Core i5-2500T wins every single head-to-head matchup, but by margins so narrow that they fall within typical run-to-run variance. The largest advantage appears in multi-core workloads, where the i5-2500T leads by 1.6% in three separate tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i5-2500T scores 250 against 246 for the i5-3360M. The same 1.6% delta repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core (1045 versus 1029) and Cinebench R23 multi-core (2489 versus 2451). These results indicate that despite having twice the physical core count, the desktop part only edges ahead by a single-digit margin in threaded rendering tasks.

Single-core performance tells an almost identical story. The i5-2500T posts 147 in Cinebench R20 single-core versus 145 for the i5-3360M, a 1.4% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap remains at 1.4% with scores of 351 and 346. The consistency of these deltas across different Cinebench versions suggests a stable, predictable performance relationship rather than workload-specific variability. Neither processor demonstrates a decisive advantage in any measured test, and the i5-3360M's higher boost clock of 3.50 GHz does not translate into a win on any benchmark in the database.

The aggregate benchmark score reinforces this near-parity. The i5-2500T averages 856 across all recorded tests, while the i5-3360M averages 835. That 21-point difference places the two processors in adjacent percentile rankings: the i5-2500T sits at the 23rd percentile of all CPUs, and the i5-3360M at the 22nd percentile. For context, the i5-2500T's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-5250U (matching at 856, within 0.1%), the Intel Core i7-4500U (859, 0.4% faster), and the AMD A8-7650K (860, 0.5% faster). The i5-3360M's nearest rivals cluster even tighter: the Intel Xeon X3450 (837, 0.2% faster), the Intel Core i5-5200U (838, 0.3% faster), and the Intel Core i5-3380M (838, 0.4% faster). Both processors occupy a performance tier where scores from different vendors and generations overlap heavily.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different Intel microarchitectures and manufacturing nodes. The i5-2500T uses Sandy Bridge, built on a 32 nm process with 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die. The i5-3360M uses Ivy Bridge, built on a smaller 22 nm process with a die size of just 118 mm². This node shrink explains the i5-3360M's lower 35 W TDP despite a higher base clock of 2.80 GHz versus 2.30 GHz for the i5-2500T. The i5-2500T's boost clock reaches 3.30 GHz, while the i5-3360M boosts higher to 3.50 GHz.

Core configuration differs substantially. The i5-2500T offers 4 physical cores with 4 threads, while the i5-3360M offers 2 physical cores with 4 threads via Hyper-Threading. Cache allocation reflects this: the i5-2500T shares 6 MB of L3 cache, double the 3 MB shared L3 on the i5-3360M. Both processors provide 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The i5-2500T's extra cores and larger L3 cache likely compensate for its lower clocks, explaining why it maintains a slight edge in multi-threaded tests despite the i5-3360M's clock advantage.

Memory and platform support also diverge. The i5-2500T explicitly supports DDR3 memory with a dual-channel bus and offers PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The i5-3360M also uses dual-channel memory but the database does not list its memory type or PCIe configuration. The i5-2500T targets desktop sockets (Intel Socket 1155), while the i5-3360M uses a mobile package (Intel BGA 1023). Integrated graphics differ as well: the i5-2500T carries Intel HD 2000, while the i5-3360M ships with the newer Intel HD 4000. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in the database?

A: The Intel Core i5-2500T wins all 5 recorded head-to-head tests. The i5-3360M wins none.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: The i5-2500T leads by 1.6% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests. Scores are 250 versus 246, 1045 versus 1029, and 2489 versus 2451 respectively.

Q: Does the i5-3360M's higher clock speed give it a single-core advantage?

A: No. Despite a 3.50 GHz boost clock versus 3.30 GHz, the i5-3360M scores lower in both single-core tests: 145 versus 147 in Cinebench R20 and 346 versus 351 in Cinebench R23.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The i5-2500T sits within 0.5% of the Intel Core i5-5250U, Intel Core i7-4500U, AMD A8-7650K, and Intel Xeon X5492. The i5-3360M sits within 0.5% of the Intel Xeon X3450, Intel Core i5-5200U, Intel Core i5-3380M, and Intel Xeon X5470.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each?

A: The i5-2500T has 4 cores and 4 threads. The i5-3360M has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The i5-2500T has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, double the 3 MB found on the i5-3360M.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-2500T | Intel Core i5-3360M |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Threads | 4 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.30 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.30 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 35 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1155 | Intel BGA 1023 |

| Architecture | Sandy Bridge | Ivy Bridge |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 22 nm |

| Transistors | 1,160 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 216 mm² | 118 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 3 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | Not listed |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Not listed |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 2000 | Intel HD 4000 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2011-01-08 | 2012-05-31 |

| Part Number | SR00A | SR0MW |

Both processors share dual-channel memory buses, L1 cache of 64 KB per core, L2 cache of 256 KB per core, non-ECC memory support, and locked multipliers. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

The Verdict

The data supports a narrow but consistent victory for the Intel Core i5-2500T across all measured Cinebench workloads. Its 4 physical cores and 6 MB of L3 cache give it a structural advantage in multi-threaded rendering, while its slightly higher single-core scores suggest the Sandy Bridge architecture extracts comparable per-thread performance despite lower clock speeds. The i5-3360M counters with a smaller 22 nm process, lower 35 W TDP, newer integrated graphics, and a 400 MHz higher boost clock, but none of these translate into benchmark wins in the recorded data.

For users prioritizing raw benchmark performance, the i5-2500T is the safer choice. Its 23rd percentile ranking versus 22nd for the i5-3360M reflects a small but real edge. However, the margins are so thin (1.4% to 1.6%) that real-world differences would be imperceptible outside synthetic rendering tests. The i5-3360M's lower power draw and mobile form factor make it the practical option for portable systems, but the database does not show any performance scenario where it wins. The i5-2500T wins 5 of 5 head-to-head tests, and that is the decisive fact.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-2500T wins in every benchmark category recorded: multi-core Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, plus single-core Cinebench R20 and R23. Its strengths lie in threaded workloads where 4 physical cores outperform 2 cores with Hyper-Threading. Users running CPU-bound rendering tasks, video encoding, or compilation workloads would favor the i5-2500T based on these results. The 6 MB L3 cache also helps in data-heavy scenarios that benefit from larger shared cache pools.

The Intel Core i5-3360M, despite having zero benchmark wins, holds advantages in other recorded specifications. Its 22 nm process and 35 W TDP make it more power-efficient, which matters in thermally constrained mobile environments. The Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics is a generation newer than the HD 2000 found on the i5-2500T, offering better iGPU capabilities for basic display and media tasks. The i5-3360M also boosts to 3.50 GHz, giving it a theoretical peak clock advantage, though the benchmarks show this does not produce higher scores.

In practical terms, the i5-2500T is the choice for anyone prioritizing Cinebench-style rendering performance, even at the cost of higher power consumption and a desktop-only socket. The i5-3360M appeals to mobile users who need adequate performance with lower power draw and accept a slight measured deficit in every recorded test. The aggregate scores (856 versus 835) and percentile rankings (23rd versus 22nd) confirm that neither processor dominates the other by a meaningful margin, but the i5-2500T holds the performance crown in every direct comparison the database provides.