Intel Core i5-3210M vs Intel Core i5-4250U Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-3210M and Intel Core i5-4250U are closely matched mobile processors, with average benchmark scores of 758 and 756 respectively, a difference of only 0.3%. The 3210M wins five of the seven recorded head-to-head tests, while the 4250U wins two. The split is clean: the 3210M dominates Cinebench workloads across every version tested, while the 4250U takes both Geekbench tests. This is a case where the benchmark suite itself determines the winner.

The 3210M is the choice for sustained multi-threaded rendering tasks. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 210 against 182 for the 4250U, a 15.4% advantage. The gap persists in Cinebench R20 multicore at 879 versus 760 (15.7%), and in Cinebench R23 multicore at 2095 versus 1811 (15.7%). The single-core Cinebench results tell the same story: 123 versus 107 in R20 (15%), and 295 versus 255 in R23 (15.7%). Every Cinebench iteration, regardless of workload type, favors the 3210M by roughly 15%.

The 4250U wins the Geekbench tests, and it wins them decisively. In Geekbench multicore, it scores 1434 against 1116 for the 3210M, a 22.2% advantage. In Geekbench singlecore, it scores 742 against 587, a 20.9% lead. These are substantial margins, larger in percentage terms than the 3210M's Cinebench victories. The 4250U also draws level in the overall database ranking: both sit at the 20th percentile among all CPUs, and their nearest rivals overlap heavily. The 3210M's nearest rival list includes the 4250U itself at a 0.3% delta, while the 4250U's list includes the 3210M at a 0.2% delta.

The practical interpretation is that the 3210M is better suited to rendering and compute-heavy applications that resemble Cinebench, while the 4250U is better suited to the mixed workloads that Geekbench represents. The 4250U is also the lower-power part, with a 15 W TDP against 35 W for the 3210M, which matters for fanless or thin-and-light designs. The 3210M offers higher clock speeds at 2.50 GHz base and 3.10 GHz boost, while the 4250U runs at 1.30 GHz base and 2.60 GHz boost, so the performance profile follows the clock speed pattern in Cinebench but not in Geekbench.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-3210M has an average benchmark score of 758, while the Intel Core i5-4250U has 756, a difference of 0.3%. The 3210M is effectively 0.3% ahead in the database average.

Q: How many tests does each processor win in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Intel Core i5-3210M wins 5 of the 7 recorded tests, all of them Cinebench variants. The Intel Core i5-4250U wins 2 tests, both Geekbench variants.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head results?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench multicore, where the Intel Core i5-4250U scores 1434 against 1116 for the 3210M, a 22.2% advantage. The largest 3210M advantage is 15.7%, seen in Cinebench R20 multicore, Cinebench R23 multicore, and Cinebench R23 singlecore.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both have 2 cores and 4 threads. They also share the same 22 nm process node, 118 mm² die size, and 3 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i5-3210M has a boost clock of 3.10 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-4250U has a boost clock of 2.60 GHz. The 3210M also has a higher base clock at 2.50 GHz versus 1.30 GHz.

Q: How do the two processors compare in power consumption?

A: The Intel Core i5-4250U has a TDP of 15 W, while the Intel Core i5-3210M has a TDP of 35 W. The 4250U is the more power-efficient part by a wide margin.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results form a consistent block. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 3210M scores 210 and the 4250U scores 182, giving the 3210M a 15.4% win. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the scores are 879 and 760, a 15.7% win. Cinebench R23 multicore repeats the pattern at 2095 and 1811, again 15.7%. The single-core Cinebench results are equally lopsided: R20 singlecore is 123 versus 107 (15%), and R23 singlecore is 295 versus 255 (15.7%). Across all five Cinebench tests, the 3210M leads by 15% to 15.7%, a remarkably stable margin that suggests the higher clocks of the 3210M (2.50 GHz base, 3.10 GHz boost) translate directly into rendering performance.

The Geekbench results reverse the picture. In Geekbench multicore, the 4250U scores 1434 against 1116, a 22.2% advantage. In Geekbench singlecore, it scores 742 against 587, a 20.9% advantage. These are larger percentage gaps than any of the 3210M's Cinebench wins. The 4250U achieves this despite a much lower base clock of 1.30 GHz and a boost clock of 2.60 GHz, both below the 3210M's figures. The Geekbench advantage likely reflects architectural improvements in the Haswell design, which is the 4250U's architecture, versus the older Ivy Bridge architecture of the 3210M. The 4250U also has a newer generation designation, Core i5 (Haswell), compared to Core i5 (Ivy Bridge) for the 3210M.

The overall average benchmark score is nearly identical: 758 for the 3210M and 756 for the 4250U. The 3210M's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-5020U at 757 (0.1% delta), the Intel Xeon E5450 at 756 (0.2% delta), the 4250U itself at 756 (0.3% delta), and the Intel Core i3-3240 at 761 (-0.3% delta). The 4250U's nearest rivals include the Xeon E5450 at 756 (-0.1% delta), the Core i3-5020U at 757 (-0.2% delta), the Intel Core i5-3230M at 754 (0.2% delta), and the 3210M at 758 (-0.2% delta). Both processors cluster tightly in the same performance tier, with the 4250U's closest rival being the 3210M at a 0.2% delta and the 3210M's closest rival being the 4250U at a 0.3% delta.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The base clock is 2.50 GHz for the 3210M and 1.30 GHz for the 4250U, a substantial difference. The boost clock is 3.10 GHz for the 3210M and 2.60 GHz for the 4250U. The TDP is 35 W for the 3210M and 15 W for the 4250U, making the 4250U far more suitable for power-constrained designs. The socket differs: the 3210M uses Intel Socket G2 (988B), while the 4250U uses Intel BGA 1168. The 3210M supports dual-channel memory, while the 4250U lists DDR3 memory support but no memory bus information in the database. The integrated graphics differ: the 3210M has Intel HD 4000, while the 4250U has Intel HD 5000. The release dates differ as well: the 3210M was released on 2012-05-31, while the 4250U was released on 2013-06-03. The part numbers are SR0MZ for the 3210M and SR16M for the 4250U. Neither processor has a recorded launch MSRP, and neither supports ECC memory or has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel's 22 nm process node with a 118 mm² die size. The 3210M uses the Ivy Bridge architecture, while the 4250U uses the newer Haswell architecture. The 4250U has a recorded transistor count of 1,400 million, while no transistor count is listed for the 3210M. The cache hierarchy is identical: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 3 MB shared L3 cache for both. The 3210M is based on the Core i5 (Ivy Bridge) generation, while the 4250U is based on the Core i5 (Intel Haswell) generation. The 4250U's integrated graphics is Intel HD 5000, which is a newer and more capable graphics solution than the 3210M's Intel HD 4000.

The architectural differences help explain the Geekbench results. Despite lower clocks, the Haswell-based 4250U outperforms the Ivy Bridge-based 3210M in Geekbench by over 20% in both singlecore and multicore tests. The 3210M's higher clocks, combined with the older architecture, produce consistent Cinebench wins of about 15%. The architectural generation gap is also reflected in the performance profile: the 4250U is the newer design with lower power consumption (15 W TDP) and higher transistor count, which typically correlates with better instruction-level efficiency in certain workloads.

The Verdict

The choice between these two processors depends entirely on the workload. For Cinebench rendering tasks, the Intel Core i5-3210M is the clear winner. It leads in all five Cinebench tests by margins of 15% to 15.7%, including Cinebench R15 multicore (210 versus 182), Cinebench R20 multicore (879 versus 760), Cinebench R20 singlecore (123 versus 107), Cinebench R23 multicore (2095 versus 1811), and Cinebench R23 singlecore (295 versus 255). The 3210M achieves this with a higher base clock (2.50 GHz versus 1.30 GHz) and higher boost clock (3.10 GHz versus 2.60 GHz), at the cost of a 35 W TDP versus 15 W.

For Geekbench-style workloads, the Intel Core i5-4250U is the better performer. It wins Geekbench multicore by 22.2% (1434 versus 1116) and Geekbench singlecore by 20.9% (742 versus 587). The 4250U is also the more power-efficient option at 15 W TDP, uses the newer Haswell architecture, has a higher transistor count of 1,400 million, and features Intel HD 5000 graphics instead of Intel HD 4000. Its newer release date (2013-06-03 versus 2012-05-31) means it benefits from a more recent design generation.

The overall average scores are nearly identical: 758 for the 3210M and 756 for the 4250U, a 0.3% difference. Both are at the 20th percentile among all CPUs. Users who prioritize rendering performance and are willing to accept higher power consumption should choose the 3210M. Users who prioritize power efficiency, newer architecture, and better Geekbench results should choose the 4250U. The data does not show a single overall winner; it shows two processors with complementary strengths. The 3210M wins 5 tests, the 4250U wins 2, and the performance delta in each direction is significant enough to matter for the right workload.