Intel Core i5-3360M vs Intel Core i5-3380M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests in this comparison?

A: The Intel Core i5-3380M wins 5 of the 7 head-to-head benchmarks, while the Intel Core i5-3360M wins 2. The i5-3380M takes all four Cinebench tests, whereas the i5-3360M wins both Geekbench tests.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core i5-3380M has an average benchmark score of 838, and the Intel Core i5-3360M has an average score of 835. This puts the i5-3380M about 0.4% ahead, a difference that falls within the noise of most workloads.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The i5-3380M sits within 0.3% of the Intel Core i5-5200U and Intel Xeon X3450 (both near 838), and within 0.2-0.3% of the Intel Xeon X5470 and Intel Core i7-920. The i5-3360M trails the same group by 0.2% to 0.5%, with the Xeon X3450 and i5-5200U just ahead of it.

Q: Do both processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are built on Intel's 22 nm process node with a die size of 118 mm². They share the Ivy Bridge architecture and codename, and both are fabricated by Intel.

Q: What are the clock speed differences between the two chips?

A: The i5-3380M has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The i5-3360M runs at 2.80 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. The i5-3380M is therefore 100 MHz higher in both base and boost operation.

Q: Are these processors socket-compatible with each other?

A: No. The i5-3380M uses Intel Socket G2 (988B), while the i5-3360M uses Intel BGA 1023. Despite being architecturally identical, they are physically incompatible due to different packaging.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between these two Ivy Bridge mobile parts is clear-cut and consistent across test families. The Intel Core i5-3380M dominates rendering-style workloads. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 252 against 246 for the i5-3360M — a 2.4% margin. That advantage carries through Cinebench R20 multicore (1051 vs 1029, +2.1%), Cinebench R20 singlecore (148 vs 145, +2.1%), and Cinebench R23 multicore (2504 vs 2451, +2.2%). The single-core gap in Cinebench R23 is the smallest of the set at 2%, with scores of 353 and 346 respectively.

The Intel Core i5-3360M, however, claims victory in Geekbench. Its multicore score of 1110 beats the i5-3380M's 1055 by 5%, and its singlecore score of 518 beats 505 by 2.5%. This is a notable reversal: the chip with lower clock speeds outperforms the higher-clocked sibling in both Geekbench tests.

The practical interpretation is workload-dependent. Users running Cinebench-style rendering tasks — which stress sustained multi-threaded execution and rely heavily on raw clock rate — will see a consistent, if modest, advantage from the i5-3380M. Users whose applications resemble Geekbench's mixed integer, floating-point, and memory-bound patterns may find the i5-3360M delivers better results. The Geekbench multicore delta of 5% is the single largest margin in either direction across all seven head-to-head tests.

Both processors occupy the same performance percentile overall. Each sits at the 22nd percentile against all CPUs in the database, and their average scores (838 vs 835) place them in an almost identical competitive tier — alongside the Intel Core i5-5200U and Intel Xeon X3450, and slightly below the Intel Xeon X5470 and Core i7-920.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same Ivy Bridge architecture, manufactured on Intel's 22 nm process. They share a 118 mm² die size, and both are produced by Intel. The core configuration is identical: 2 physical cores with 4 threads via Hyper-Threading. Cache hierarchies match exactly — 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 3 MB shared L3.

The integrated graphics are the same Intel HD 4000 on both parts. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both feature dual-channel memory buses. The i5-3380M lists DDR3 memory support, while the memory support field for the i5-3360M is not specified in the available data — but both are dual-channel designs.

The meaningful architectural distinction is packaging. The i5-3380M is a socketed part (Intel Socket G2, 988B), while the i5-3360M is a ball-grid-array part (Intel BGA 1023). This affects serviceability and system design: the i5-3380M can be replaced in a compatible socket, whereas the i5-3360M is soldered to the motherboard. There is no architectural difference in execution resources, instruction set, or memory controller behavior between the two.

The release timeline differs by roughly seven months. The i5-3360M was released on 2012-05-31, while the i5-3380M followed on 2012-12-31. Both belong to the same Core i5 (Ivy Bridge) generation. The part numbers differ — SR0X7 for the i5-3380M and SR0MW for the i5-3360M — which is consistent with their different packaging and stepping validation.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a supported avenue for closing the small performance gaps observed.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in only a few physical and electrical specifications. Clock speeds are the primary differentiator: the i5-3380M runs at 2.90 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost, while the i5-3360M runs at 2.80 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. This 100 MHz advantage in both states explains the i5-3380M's lead in Cinebench tests.

The socket is the other major difference. The i5-3380M uses Intel Socket G2 (988B), a PGA-style package. The i5-3360M uses Intel BGA 1023, a soldered package. This is a hard incompatibility — the two parts cannot be interchanged in the same motherboard.

Release dates differ: the i5-3360M launched on 2012-05-31, and the i5-3380M launched on 2012-12-31. The part numbers also differ (SR0X7 vs SR0MW). Memory support is listed as DDR3 for the i5-3380M, with no explicit field for the i5-3360M; both support dual-channel operation.

All other specifications are identical. Both have 2 cores, 4 threads, 35 W TDP, 22 nm process, 118 mm² die size, 3 MB shared L3 cache, and Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics. Neither supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results present a clean narrative: the i5-3380M wins every Cinebench test, and the i5-3360M wins every Geekbench test. The margins are small in Cinebench but more substantial in Geekbench.

Starting with the i5-3380M's victories, the largest margin is in Cinebench R15 multicore. The i5-3380M scores 252 against 246, a 2.4% advantage. This is the highest delta in the i5-3380M's favor across all tests. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 2504 vs 2451, a 2.2% margin. Cinebench R20 multicore delivers 1051 vs 1029, a 2.1% edge, and Cinebench R20 singlecore shows 148 vs 145, also a 2.1% margin. The narrowest win is Cinebench R23 singlecore at 353 vs 346, a 2.0% difference.

These results align precisely with the clock speed advantage. The i5-3380M's 100 MHz higher base and boost clocks translate into roughly 2% faster Cinebench performance, which is exactly what a linear scaling model would predict for a fixed architecture. There is no evidence of thermal throttling or power limiting that would erode the clock advantage in sustained rendering workloads.

The i5-3360M's Geekbench wins are more surprising. In Geekbench multicore, it scores 1110 against 1055 — a 5% margin in favor of the lower-clocked processor. This is the single largest delta in the entire comparison, and it runs counter to the clock-speed narrative. Geekbench singlecore shows 518 vs 505, a 2.5% margin for the i5-3360M.

The Geekbench results suggest that the i5-3360M's score benefits from factors beyond raw clock rate. Possibilities include more favorable turbo behavior under short-burst loads, different power management firmware, or variability between individual silicon samples. The data does not specify why the lower-clocked part wins Geekbench, but the consistency across both Geekbench tests — and the reversal of the Cinebench pattern — indicates a real behavioral difference rather than measurement noise.

Overall, the average benchmark scores tell the final story: 838 for the i5-3380M versus 835 for the i5-3360M. The i5-3380M holds a 0.4% average advantage, which places it essentially in a statistical tie with its nearest rivals — the Intel Core i5-5200U at 838 and Intel Xeon X3450 at 837. The i5-3360M sits just below that group, 0.2% behind the Xeon X3450 and 0.3% behind the i5-5200U.

For buyers choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload. Rendering and content creation favor the i5-3380M by a consistent 2-2.4%. General-purpose and mixed workloads, as measured by Geekbench, favor the i5-3360M by a larger 2.5-5% margin. The i5-3380M offers the additional advantage of a socketed package, which enables future replacement or upgrade. The i5-3360M's BGA packaging means it is permanently attached to the motherboard. Neither part offers a decisive overall victory; the 0.4% average score difference is well within run-to-run variance for most benchmark suites.