Intel Core i5-3230M vs Intel Core i5-750 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a remarkably close contest between the Intel Core i5-3230M and the Intel Core i5-750. Across all five shared benchmark tests, the i5-3230M emerges as the winner, though the margins are consistently narrow. The largest advantage appears in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the i5-3230M scores 220 against the i5-750's 218, a delta of 0.9%. That is the single biggest gap in the entire comparison, yet it translates to only two points on the scoreboard.

In Cinebench R20 multicore, the i5-3230M posts 917 versus 912 for the i5-750, a 0.5% lead. The single-core results follow the same pattern: the i5-3230M records 129 in Cinebench R20 single-core against 128 for the i5-750, a 0.8% advantage. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 2184 for the i5-3230M and 2172 for the i5-750, a 0.6% edge. Finally, Cinebench R23 single-core sees the i5-3230M at 308 and the i5-750 at 306, a 0.7% gap. The win tally reads 5 to 0 in favor of the i5-3230M, but every victory is measured in single-digit percentage points.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this near-parity. The i5-3230M holds an average score of 754, while the i5-750 sits at 747. Both processors land in the 20th percentile of all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy essentially the same performance tier. The nearest rivals for the i5-3230M include the Intel Xeon X5460 at 754 (0% delta), the Intel Core i5-4250U at 756 (-0.2%), the Intel Xeon E5450 at 756 (-0.3%), and the Intel Core i3-5020U at 757 (-0.4%). For the i5-750, the closest competitors are the Intel Core i5-4200U at 746 (0.2% delta), the AMD A10 PRO-7800B at 746 (0.2%), the AMD FX-9800P at 745 (0.2%), and the Intel Xeon E5520 at 742 (0.7%). These rival lists show that both chips sit within a hair's breadth of several other mid-range processors from their respective eras.

The Verdict

The benchmark data delivers a clear conclusion: the Intel Core i5-3230M is the faster processor in every tested workload, but only by a razor-thin margin. If the decision hinges purely on raw performance numbers, the i5-3230M wins all five head-to-head comparisons. However, the practical difference is negligible. A 0.5% to 0.9% lead in Cinebench tests will not be perceptible in real-world usage, whether in multitasking, content creation, or everyday applications.

The i5-750, despite being older and built on a larger process node, holds its ground remarkably well. It matches the i5-3230M in Cinebench R23 multicore within 12 points and trails by only 5 points in Cinebench R20 multicore. The i5-750 also has the advantage of four physical cores, which the i5-3230M lacks (it relies on two cores with four threads). For workloads that scale with physical core count, the i5-750's architecture could offer a more stable foundation, even if the synthetic scores do not reflect a decisive edge.

Who should pick which? The data suggests that buyers or system builders prioritizing the newer mobile platform and integrated graphics should choose the i5-3230M. It delivers the higher benchmark scores across the board and includes Intel HD 4000 graphics, which the i5-750 lacks entirely. Those building a desktop system with a discrete graphics card and valuing the four physical cores of the i5-750 may find it an equally compelling option, especially given its end-of-life status often places it in inexpensive used markets. But strictly from the recorded performance data, the i5-3230M is the winner.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multicore score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i5-3230M scores 2184, while the Intel Core i5-750 scores 2172. The i5-3230M leads by 0.6%.

Q: How significant is the single-core performance difference?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i5-3230M scores 308 and the i5-750 scores 306, a 0.7% advantage for the i5-3230M. The gap is similarly small in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the i5-3230M posts 129 versus 128.

Q: Does the i5-750 have more cores than the i5-3230M?

A: Yes. The i5-750 has 4 physical cores with 4 threads, while the i5-3230M has 2 physical cores with 4 threads. Both processors support the same thread count, but the i5-750 uses four independent cores.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The i5-3230M has an average benchmark score of 754, and the i5-750 has an average benchmark score of 747. Both fall into the 20th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i5-3230M features Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics. The Intel Core i5-750 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: How does the i5-3230M compare to its closest rival, the Intel Xeon X5460?

A: The i5-3230M and the Intel Xeon X5460 both have an average benchmark score of 754, resulting in a 0% delta. They are effectively tied in the database's measurements.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several fundamental specifications. The Intel Core i5-3230M operates with 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Core i5-750 offers 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clock speeds are close: the i5-3230M runs at 2.60 GHz, and the i5-750 runs at 2.67 GHz. Both share the same boost clock of 3.20 GHz, so single-threaded burst performance is identical on paper.

Thermal design power (TDP) shows a major divergence. The i5-3230M is rated at 35 watts, a figure suited for mobile platforms, whereas the i5-750 draws 95 watts, reflecting its desktop orientation. The sockets are incompatible: the i5-3230M uses Intel Socket G2 (988B), and the i5-750 uses Intel Socket 1156. The i5-3230M is a mobile part, while the i5-750 is a desktop part. The i5-750 has been marked as end-of-life in the database, while the i5-3230M does not carry that status.

Memory support is identical: both accept DDR3 with a dual-channel memory bus. Neither supports ECC memory. The i5-3230M includes Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics, but the i5-750 has no integrated graphics. The i5-750 does list PCIe support as Gen 2 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the i5-3230M has no PCIe data recorded. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not officially supported.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips is substantial. The i5-3230M is built on Ivy Bridge, using a 22 nm process node from Intel. The i5-750 uses the older Nehalem architecture, codenamed Lynnfield, on a 45 nm process node. The i5-750 lists 774 million transistors and a die size of 296 mm², while the i5-3230M records a die size of 118 mm² with no transistor count in the database. The smaller process node gives the i5-3230M a significant efficiency advantage, consistent with its much lower 35 watt TDP.

Cache configurations differ notably. Both processors share 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The key difference lies in L3 cache: the i5-3230M has 3 MB shared, while the i5-750 has 8 MB shared. This gives the i5-750 a 5 MB L3 advantage, which helps explain why its older architecture keeps pace with the newer chip despite the process node gap. The i5-750's larger L3 cache likely compensates for its older core design in memory-heavy workloads.

The i5-3230M belongs to the Core i5 (Ivy Bridge) generation, while the i5-750 belongs to the Core i5 (Lynnfield) generation. The release dates reflect the generational gap: the i5-750 was released in September 2009, and the i5-3230M followed in December 2012. The i5-3230M includes Intel HD 4000 graphics, which is a feature entirely absent from the i5-750. The i5-750's PCIe Gen 2 support with 16 lanes is listed for CPU-only connectivity, but the i5-3230M has no PCIe data in the database, so direct comparison on that front is not possible.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results show the i5-3230M winning every recorded test, but the use-case split goes beyond the scoreboard. The i5-3230M is the pick for mobile applications: it is a mobile processor with a 35 watt TDP, making it suitable for laptops and compact systems where thermal headroom is limited. Its integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics mean it can handle basic display output without a discrete GPU, a clear advantage for integrated builds. The data confirms its performance edge, however small, in all five Cinebench tests.

The i5-750 wins on the desktop side. It offers four physical cores, which can be beneficial for workloads that scale with core count, even if the synthetic scores show only a marginal difference. Its 95 watt TDP is acceptable for a desktop platform with adequate cooling, and its 8 MB L3 cache provides a larger pool of shared cache for multi-threaded tasks. The i5-750 also lists PCIe Gen 2 support with 16 lanes, which is relevant for discrete GPU configurations. For users building a desktop system with a dedicated graphics card and prioritizing physical core count over integrated features, the i5-750 remains a viable option.

In terms of raw performance, the i5-3230M is ahead in every measured category, but the margins are too slim to declare a dominant winner. The i5-3230M is the better choice for mobile or low-power systems, while the i5-750 suits desktop builds where its extra cores and larger cache can be leveraged. Both processors occupy the same 20th percentile tier, and both sit near identical rivals in the database, so neither offers a meaningful performance advantage over the other in practical terms.