Intel Core i5-3230M vs Intel Pentium G4400 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between these two processors is unusually clean, with each part dominating a distinct category of workload. The Intel Core i5-3230M wins five of the seven recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Pentium G4400 wins the remaining two. The pattern is straightforward: the mobile Core i5 wins every Cinebench test, while the desktop Pentium wins both Geekbench tests.

The Core i5-3230M establishes its advantage in rendering and compute-heavy tasks. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 220 against 187 for the Pentium G4400, a 17.6% lead. That margin carries through Cinebench R20 multi-core (917 vs 781, a 17.4% advantage) and Cinebench R23 multi-core (2184 vs 1861, again 17.4%). Even in single-threaded Cinebench tests, the i5-3230M holds a consistent edge: R20 single-core shows 129 vs 110 (17.3% ahead), and R23 single-core shows 308 vs 262 (17.6% ahead). This consistency across all Cinebench versions suggests the i5-3230M is the stronger choice for threaded rendering workloads, regardless of the specific benchmark generation.

The Pentium G4400, however, wins decisively in Geekbench. In Geekbench multi-core, it scores 1192 against 1018 for the i5-3230M, a 14.6% advantage. The gap widens dramatically in Geekbench single-core: 784 vs 505, a 35.6% lead for the Pentium. These are substantial margins, indicating that the G4400 has a significant architectural advantage in the workloads Geekbench exercises, particularly in single-threaded integer and floating-point operations.

The overall win count is 5-2 in favor of the Core i5-3230M, but the average benchmark scores tell a closer story. The i5-3230M has an average benchmark score of 754, while the G4400 sits at 740. Both parts occupy the 20th percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they are positioned similarly in the overall performance distribution. The choice between them depends entirely on which benchmark family matters more for the intended use case.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and target different market segments. The Core i5-3230M is a mobile part based on Ivy Bridge architecture, built on Intel's 22 nm process node. It was released with a 2012 timestamp and belongs to the Core i5 (Ivy Bridge) generation. The Pentium G4400 is a desktop part based on Skylake architecture, built on the newer 14 nm process node, with a 2015 release timestamp and an active production status.

The transistor counts and die sizes reflect the generational gap. The Pentium G4400 packs 1,400 million transistors on a 150 mm² die, while the Core i5-3230M has a die size of 118 mm² (transistor count is not recorded for the i5). The smaller process node gives the G4400 a denser, more modern implementation despite its lower-tier positioning.

Core and thread configurations differ significantly. Both have 2 physical cores, but the Core i5-3230M supports 4 threads through Hyper-Threading, while the Pentium G4400 has only 2 threads. This explains the i5's multi-core Cinebench advantage: it can process twice as many threads simultaneously, even if each individual core may be less efficient per clock.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The Pentium G4400 runs at a fixed 3.30 GHz base clock with no boost capability. The Core i5-3230M has a 2.60 GHz base clock but can boost to 3.20 GHz when thermal and power headroom allow. The Pentium's higher fixed clock likely contributes to its Geekbench single-core dominance, as it sustains a higher frequency without needing to ramp up.

Cache hierarchies are similar in structure but differ in capacity. Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. The shared L3 cache is 3 MB on the i5-3230M and 4 MB on the Pentium G4400, giving the desktop part a modest cache advantage.

Memory support and platform connectivity also diverge. The Core i5-3230M uses DDR3 memory in dual-channel configuration and sits on Intel Socket G2 (988B). The Pentium G4400 supports both DDR3 and DDR4, also in dual-channel, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. It uses Intel Socket 1151 and offers PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The i5's PCIe configuration is not recorded in the database.

Integrated graphics differ as well: the i5-3230M includes Intel HD 4000, while the G4400 has Intel HD 510. Neither part supports ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers, meaning no overclocking via multiplier adjustment. The mobile part carries a 35 W TDP, while the desktop part draws 51 W, reflecting the different thermal envelopes of laptops versus desktops.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the head-to-head data is the Geekbench single-core test. The Pentium G4400 scores 784 against 505 for the Core i5-3230M, a 35.6% advantage. This is the largest delta in either direction across all seven benchmarks. The multi-core Geekbench test also favors the Pentium, though by a smaller margin: 1192 vs 1018, a 14.6% lead. These results suggest that the Skylake architecture's per-core efficiency, combined with the higher 3.30 GHz clock, delivers substantially better performance in Geekbench's workload mix.

The Cinebench results are uniformly in favor of the Core i5-3230M, with deltas tightly clustered between 17.3% and 17.6%. The multi-core tests show the expected pattern: with twice the thread count, the i5 leverages its Hyper-Threading to outpace the Pentium. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i5 scores 220 vs 187 (17.6% ahead). In R20 multi-core, it scores 917 vs 781 (17.4% ahead). In R23 multi-core, it scores 2184 vs 1861 (17.4% ahead).

More surprising is the single-core Cinebench result. Despite the Pentium's higher base clock (3.30 GHz vs 2.60 GHz) and newer architecture, the i5-3230M wins Cinebench R20 single-core with 129 vs 110 (17.3% ahead) and Cinebench R23 single-core with 308 vs 262 (17.6% ahead). This indicates that the i5's boost clock of 3.20 GHz, combined with Ivy Bridge's per-core efficiency, is sufficient to overcome the Pentium's clock and architecture advantages in Cinebench's specific rendering workload.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the split. The i5-3230M averages 754 across all tests, while the G4400 averages 740. The nearest rivals for each part highlight their respective positions: the i5-3230M sits alongside the Xeon X5460 (754 average, 0% delta), Core i5-4250U (756, -0.2%), Xeon E5450 (756, -0.3%), and Core i3-5020U (757, -0.4%). The Pentium G4400 is bracketed by Core i7-860S (740, 0%), Core i5-670 (741, -0.1%), Phenom II X4 B97 (741, -0.1%), and Xeon E5520 (742, -0.2%). These rival sets show that both parts are comparable to older enthusiast and mid-range parts from earlier generations.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench multi-core tests?

A: The Intel Core i5-3230M wins every Cinebench multi-core test. It leads by 17.6% in R15 (220 vs 187), 17.4% in R20 (917 vs 781), and 17.4% in R23 (2184 vs 1861).

Q: Why does the Pentium G4400 win Geekbench despite losing all Cinebench tests?

A: The Pentium G4400 wins Geekbench multi-core with 1192 vs 1018 (14.6% ahead) and Geekbench single-core with 784 vs 505 (35.6% ahead). The Geekbench workload mix favors its higher fixed 3.30 GHz clock and newer Skylake architecture, whereas Cinebench favors the i5-3230M's Hyper-Threading capability.

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

A: No. Both have 2 physical cores, but the Core i5-3230M supports 4 threads via Hyper-Threading, while the Pentium G4400 has only 2 threads. This thread advantage is a key reason for the i5's Cinebench multi-core wins.

Q: What are the architectural generations of these two CPUs?

A: The Core i5-3230M is based on Ivy Bridge architecture on a 22 nm process node. The Pentium G4400 is based on Skylake architecture on a 14 nm process node. The G4400 also has 4 MB of shared L3 cache versus 3 MB on the i5.

Q: Which processor has a higher clock speed?

A: The Pentium G4400 has a fixed base clock of 3.30 GHz with no boost capability. The Core i5-3230M has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The Pentium runs at a higher sustained frequency, though the i5's boost closes the gap.

Q: Which parts occupy the same performance percentile in the database?

A: Both processors are at the 20th percentile among all CPUs. Their average benchmark scores are close: 754 for the i5-3230M and 740 for the G4400, a difference of only 14 points.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear use-case split. For multi-threaded rendering workloads, as represented by the Cinebench family, the Intel Core i5-3230M is the stronger choice. It leads the Pentium G4400 by roughly 17% across all Cinebench tests, including single-core variants. Its 4-thread capability and boost clock make it particularly effective in tasks that scale with thread count, and even in single-threaded Cinebench rendering it manages to outperform the higher-clocked Pentium.

For Geekbench-style workloads, which typically include a mix of integer, floating-point, and memory operations, the Pentium G4400 is clearly superior. Its 35.6% single-core lead and 14.6% multi-core lead are substantial, indicating that the Skylake architecture's per-core efficiency and the higher 3.30 GHz clock deliver real-world benefits in these scenarios. The G4400 also brings modern platform features: DDR4 memory support, PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, and a larger 4 MB L3 cache.

Neither part is a dominant overall winner. The i5-3230M takes 5 of 7 head-to-head tests, but the G4400 wins the two Geekbench tests by larger margins than the i5 wins any individual Cinebench test. The average scores differ by only 14 points (754 vs 740), reinforcing the notion that these are closely matched parts with different strengths.

Users prioritizing rendering and threaded productivity should select the Core i5-3230M. Users prioritizing Geekbench-style performance, memory flexibility (DDR3 or DDR4), or desktop platform connectivity should select the Pentium G4400. The i5-3230M is a mobile part with a 35 W TDP, while the G4400 is a desktop part with a 51 W TDP, so platform choice will also factor into the decision. Both sit at the 20th percentile overall, meaning either represents a similar tier of performance, just with different workload characteristics.