Intel Core i5-3210M vs Intel Core i5-750 Comparison

The Verdict

The data shows a straightforward outcome: the Intel Core i5-750 wins every head-to-head benchmark in the database, taking all 5 recorded tests. The i5-750 leads by margins between 3.5% and 3.9% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multi-core workloads. If your priority is raw performance, the i5-750 is the clear choice.

However, the i5-3210M is not without its own appeal. It is a mobile processor with a 35 W TDP, compared to the i5-750's 95 W TDP. The i5-3210M also includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 4000), which the i5-750 lacks entirely. If you need a low-power, mobile-capable chip that can run without a discrete GPU, the i5-3210M is the only option here.

The i5-750 should be picked by anyone building a desktop system where power draw is not a concern and where every bit of performance counts. The i5-3210M should be picked by laptop users or those building compact, low-power systems where the iGPU is essential. The performance gap is real but modest; the i5-750 is not dramatically faster, just consistently faster in every test.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel eras. The i5-3210M uses the Ivy Bridge architecture, built on a 22 nm process node. The i5-750 uses the older Nehalem architecture, specifically the Lynnfield codename, built on a 45 nm process. This process difference is significant: the i5-3210M is manufactured on a node that is effectively half the size, which contributes to its much lower 35 W TDP versus the i5-750's 95 W TDP.

The core configurations differ as well. The i5-3210M has 2 physical cores with 4 threads via Hyper-Threading. The i5-750 has 4 physical cores but only 4 threads, meaning no Hyper-Threading. This is a key architectural distinction: the i5-750's advantage comes from having double the physical cores, while the i5-3210M relies on thread scheduling to fill its capacity.

Cache layouts also differ. The i5-3210M has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 3 MB of shared L3. The i5-750 matches the L1 and L2 per-core sizes, but its shared L3 is much larger at 8 MB. This larger cache pool likely helps the i5-750 in workloads that benefit from more on-die data.

The i5-750 has a larger die at 296 mm² and uses 774 million transistors. The i5-3210M has a die size of 118 mm², with transistor count not recorded in the database. The i5-750 also supports DDR3 memory and has PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The i5-3210M's memory support and PCIe details are not recorded, but it does feature integrated graphics, which the i5-750 does not.

The sockets are incompatible: the i5-3210M uses Intel Socket G2 (988B) for mobile platforms, while the i5-750 uses Intel Socket 1156 for desktops. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a consideration from the data.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?

A: The i5-750 wins all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15, it scores 218 versus the i5-3210M's 210, a 3.7% difference. In R20 multi-core, it scores 912 versus 879, a 3.6% lead. In R23 multi-core, it scores 2172 versus 2095, a 3.5% lead.

Q: Does the i5-3210M have any performance advantage in single-core tests?

A: No. The i5-750 wins every single-core test as well. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 128 versus 123, a 3.9% difference. In R23 single-core, it scores 306 versus 295, a 3.6% lead.

Q: Are these processors comparable in overall standing?

A: Both sit at the 20th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The i5-3210M has an average benchmark score of 758, while the i5-750 has an average score of 747. Their nearest rivals are similar in performance, with the i5-3210M's closest rival being the Intel Core i3-5020U at a 0.1% delta, and the i5-750's closest rival being the Intel Core i5-4200U at a 0.2% delta.

Q: Which processor consumes less power?

A: The i5-3210M has a significantly lower TDP of 35 W, compared to the i5-750's 95 W. This makes the i5-3210M much more suitable for laptops or power-sensitive builds.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: Only the i5-3210M has integrated graphics, specifically the Intel HD 4000. The i5-750 has no integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is required for any display output.

Q: What are the release dates of these two chips?

A: The i5-3210M was released on May 31, 2012. The i5-750 was released earlier, on September 7, 2009, and is marked as end-of-life in the database.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-3210M | Intel Core i5-750 |

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

| Cores | 2 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 2.67 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.10 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 95 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket G2 (988B) | Intel Socket 1156 |

| Architecture | Ivy Bridge | Nehalem |

| Codename | Ivy Bridge | Lynnfield |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 45 nm |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | 296 mm² |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 774 million |

| L3 Cache | 3 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | Not recorded | DDR3 |

| PCIe | Not recorded | Gen 2, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4000 | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Production Status | Not recorded | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2012-05-31 | 2009-09-07 |

| Part Number | SR0MZ | SLBLC |

Note: The i5-3210M has no recorded launch MSRP, and neither does the i5-750.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are uniform: the i5-750 wins all five recorded benchmarks. The margins are tight, but they are consistent across every test.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i5-750 scores 218 against the i5-3210M's 210. That is a 3.7% lead for the i5-750. This is the closest result in the set.

In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the i5-750 scores 912 against 879, a 3.6% margin. The R20 single-core test shows the largest gap: 128 versus 123, a 3.9% difference. This is the biggest win for the i5-750 in percentage terms.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i5-750 scores 2172 against 2095, a 3.5% lead. The R23 single-core test shows 306 versus 295, a 3.6% margin.

The i5-3210M's best performance relative to the i5-750 is in R23 multi-core, where it trails by only 3.5%. Its worst relative performance is in R20 single-core, where it trails by 3.9%. Overall, the i5-750's wins are consistent but not overwhelming. The i5-3210M never comes out ahead, but it also never falls behind by more than 4%.

It is worth remembering the i5-3210M has additional benchmark scores recorded in the database that the i5-750 does not have. The i5-3210M scores 1116 in Geekbench multi-core and 587 in Geekbench single-core. These tests were not run on the i5-750, so a direct comparison is not possible from the recorded data.

Where Each One Wins

The i5-750 wins in every measured benchmark category. If the task is render-heavy, multi-threaded work, the i5-750 takes it: Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core scores are all higher. If the task is lightly threaded, the i5-750 still wins: single-core scores in R20 and R23 are also higher. The i5-750's four physical cores give it a structural advantage in multi-threaded workloads, and its higher base and boost clocks (2.67 GHz and 3.20 GHz versus 2.50 GHz and 3.10 GHz) help in single-threaded tasks.

The i5-3210M wins in areas that are not measured by the benchmark suite. Its 35 W TDP makes it dramatically more power-efficient than the i5-750's 95 W TDP. It also includes Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics, meaning a system built around it does not need a separate GPU for basic display output. Its mobile socket (G2) and market segment designation make it the only choice for a laptop or a compact mobile platform. The i5-750, by contrast, is a desktop chip with no iGPU and is already marked end-of-life.

In practical terms, the i5-750 is the right pick for a desktop build where performance is the sole metric and power draw is not a concern. The i5-3210M is the right pick for a mobile or ultra-low-power system where the iGPU and 35 W TDP are decisive factors. The benchmark data shows the i5-750 is faster, but the i5-3210M occupies a completely different use case that the benchmarks do not capture.