Intel Core i5-3320M vs Intel Core i5-4210U Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two mobile processors along predictable lines, with the Intel Core i5-3320M taking five of seven head-to-head tests while the Intel Core i5-4210U claims two. The 3320M dominates the Cinebench suite, winning every single iteration of that rendering workload. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 3320M scores 2258 against 1962 for the 4210U, a 15.1% advantage. The single-core Cinebench R23 test shows a similar pattern: 318 versus 277, a 14.8% edge. Across all four Cinebench variants, the delta stays tightly clustered between 14.7% and 15.2%, suggesting a consistent architectural or frequency-driven advantage rather than workload-specific behavior.

The 4210U fights back decisively in the Geekbench tests, but only there. In Geekbench multi-core, it scores 1395 against 1146 for the 3320M, a 17.8% reversal. The single-core Geekbench gap is even larger: 745 versus 589, a 20.9% margin in favor of the 4210U. This split between Cinebench and Geekbench is unusual and worth interpreting carefully. Cinebench is a sustained, heavily threaded rendering workload that stresses raw compute throughput, while Geekbench mixes integer, floating-point, and memory patterns with shorter bursts. The data indicates the 3320M sustains higher throughput in long-running render tasks, while the 4210U posts superior scores in Geekbench's broader synthetic mix.

Looking at the average benchmark score, the 3320M lands at 803, the 4210U at 788. The 3320M sits at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, the 4210U at the 21st. These are close overall positions, and the nearest rivals confirm the narrow gap. The 3320M trades blows with the AMD A10-7700K (801 average, 0.2% delta), the AMD Ryzen 3 2200U (805, -0.2% delta), and the Intel Xeon E5530 (801, 0.3% delta). The 4210U sits alongside the Intel Core i5-3610ME (788, 0.1% delta), the AMD Opteron 3350 HE (789, -0.2% delta), and the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (789, -0.2% delta). Neither chip escapes the low-end mobile pack; the differences are real but modest in the broader CPU landscape.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are Intel parts on the same 22 nm process node, and both use the same 118 mm² die size. The similarities end there. The 3320M is built on Ivy Bridge, the 4210U on Haswell. The 3320M carries the part number SR0MY, the 4210U SR1EF. Both are dual-core, four-thread designs with identical cache hierarchies: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 3 MB of shared L3. Neither supports ECC memory.

The clock speeds tell a clear story. The 3320M runs a 2.60 GHz base clock and boosts to 3.30 GHz. The 4210U runs a 1700.00 MHz base clock (1.70 GHz) and boosts to 2.70 GHz. That is a 0.9 GHz gap at base and a 0.6 GHz gap at boost, all in favor of the 3320M. The thermal design power reflects the positioning: the 3320M is rated at 35 W, the 4210U at 15 W. The 4210U is built for low-power ultraportables, while the 3320M targets more conventional laptops with room for higher sustained clocks.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The 3320M ships with Intel HD 4000, the 4210U with Intel HD 4400. The 4210U also explicitly lists DDR3 memory support in the database, while the 3320M's memory support field is not recorded, though both run dual-channel memory. The sockets are different: the 3320M uses Intel BGA 1023, the 4210U uses Intel BGA 1168. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

The transistor count is recorded only for the 4210U at 1,400 million, a figure that reflects the Haswell design's added complexity. The release dates are separated by roughly two years: the 3320M launched in 2012, the 4210U in 2014. The 4210U's newer microarchitecture does not translate into a clock advantage, and the data shows the 3320M's higher clocks win most workloads despite the older core design.

The Verdict

The choice between these two depends entirely on the workload profile, and the recorded data points to a clean split. For sustained rendering tasks, the Intel Core i5-3320M is the stronger part. It wins every Cinebench test by roughly 15%, and that margin holds steady from Cinebench R15 through R23. The 3320M's 3.30 GHz boost clock and 35 W thermal envelope allow it to maintain higher throughput in long-running compute jobs. Anyone running CPU-heavy rendering, video encoding, or batch processing should pick the 3320M based on this data.

For Geekbench-style workloads, the Intel Core i5-4210U is the better performer. Its 745 single-core Geekbench score beats the 3320M's 589 by 20.9%, and the multi-core result (1395 versus 1146) shows a 17.8% edge. The Haswell architecture appears to execute Geekbench's mixed instruction patterns more efficiently, even at lower clocks. Users whose daily tasks involve application launches, web browsing, office productivity, and other bursty workloads would see better responsiveness from the 4210U.

The average scores are nearly tied at 803 versus 788, and the percentile rankings sit adjacent at 22 and 21. This is not a lopsided matchup; it is a trade-off between sustained compute throughput and efficiency-oriented synthetic performance. The 3320M's higher power draw is the cost of its Cinebench wins, while the 4210U delivers its Geekbench victories within a 15 W envelope. There is no universal winner, only the right tool for the task.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core i5-3320M scores 2258, beating the Intel Core i5-4210U's 1962 by 15.1%.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-4210U win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the 4210U wins Geekbench multi-core (1395 versus 1146, a 17.8% lead) and Geekbench single-core (745 versus 589, a 20.9% lead).

Q: What are the clock speeds of these two processors?

A: The 3320M runs a 2.60 GHz base clock with a 3.30 GHz boost. The 4210U runs a 1700.00 MHz base clock with a 2.70 GHz boost.

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

A: Yes, both are dual-core, four-thread designs with 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 3 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The 3320M is rated at 35 W, while the 4210U is rated at 15 W. The 4210U is designed for lower power consumption.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The 3320M averages 803, the 4210U averages 788. The 3320M sits at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs, the 4210U at the 21st.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a consistent pattern with one major exception. The 3320M wins five tests, the 4210U wins two, and the winning margins are substantial in both directions.

Starting with the 3320M's victories: in Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 3320M scores 227 against 197, a 15.2% advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 948 versus 824, a 15% lead. The single-core R20 test gives the 3320M a 133 to 116 result, a 14.7% margin. Cinebench R23 multi-core is the closest of the 3320M's wins in percentage terms at 15.1% (2258 versus 1962), while R23 single-core lands at 14.8% (318 versus 277). Every Cinebench test, from the older R15 to the current R23, produces nearly the same relative gap. This consistency indicates the 3320M's clock advantage (2.60 GHz base, 3.30 GHz boost versus 1.70 GHz base, 2.70 GHz boost) translates directly into rendering performance without any workload-specific interference.

The 4210U's wins are equally consistent but confined to the Geekbench suite. In Geekbench multi-core, the 4210U scores 1395, the 3320M 1146, a 17.8% margin. The single-core Geekbench gap is larger: 745 versus 589, a 20.9% advantage. These are the two biggest margins in the entire head-to-head set, and they run opposite to the Cinebench results. The 4210U's Haswell architecture, despite its lower clocks, extracts substantially better Geekbench performance. This could reflect better memory latency handling, more efficient instruction scheduling, or a different balance of execution units in the Haswell core, though the database does not break down the Geekbench subtests further.

The nearest rivals for each chip reinforce the overall picture. The 3320M's closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 3 2200U at 805 average score, a -0.2% delta, meaning the 3320M essentially ties it. The AMD A10-7700K and Intel Xeon E5530 both sit at 801, just 0.2% to 0.3% behind the 3320M. The 4210U's nearest rival is the Intel Core i5-3610ME at 788, a 0.1% delta, followed by the AMD Opteron 3350 HE and Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 at 789, both -0.2% deltas. These rival lists show that both chips occupy the same performance tier, and the head-to-head deltas between the two are larger than the deltas to their respective nearest neighbors.

The wins tally, five for the 3320M and two for the 4210U, might suggest a clear overall winner. The average benchmark scores, however, tell a more nuanced story. The 3320M's 803 average beats the 4210U's 788 by just 15 points, a 1.9% difference. The percentile rankings (22 versus 21) are separated by a single point. The Geekbench wins for the 4210U are large enough to nearly offset the Cinebench deficits in the overall average. This is a balanced matchup where the choice depends on whether the workload leans toward Cinebench-style rendering or Geekbench-style mixed computing.