Intel Core i5-3360M vs Intel Core i5-L16G7 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core i5-L16G7 has 5 cores and 5 threads, while the Intel Core i5-3360M has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption between the two?

A: The Intel Core i5-3360M has a TDP of 35 W, whereas the Intel Core i5-L16G7 has a TDP of 7 W, a substantial difference for mobile thermal management.

Q: Which chip has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core i5-L16G7 has 4 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core i5-3360M has 3 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor wins in the recorded Cinebench R23 multi-core benchmark?

A: The Intel Core i5-L16G7 scores 2793 versus 2451 for the Intel Core i5-3360M, putting the L16G7 ahead by 12.2%.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No, neither the Intel Core i5-3360M nor the Intel Core i5-L16G7 supports ECC memory.

Q: What is the manufacturing process for each chip?

A: The Intel Core i5-3360M is built on a 22 nm process, while the Intel Core i5-L16G7 uses a 10 nm process.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i5-3360M and the Intel Core i5-L16G7 come from different architectural generations. The i5-3360M is based on Ivy Bridge, a 22 nm design from Intel, with a die size of 118 mm². The i5-L16G7 belongs to the Lakefield family, fabricated on a 10 nm process with a die size of 82 mm² and a transistor count of 4,050 million.

The core configurations diverge sharply. The i5-3360M is a conventional dual-core part with 4 threads, using a symmetric layout. The i5-L16G7 is a hybrid design with 5 cores and 5 threads, reflecting Lakefield's heterogeneous architecture that pairs high-performance cores with efficiency cores. This difference explains why the L16G7 can offer more parallel throughput per watt.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The i5-3360M provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, with 3 MB of shared L3. The i5-L16G7 has 80 KB of L1, 512 KB of L2, and 4 MB of shared L3. The larger aggregate caches on the L16G7 support its higher core count.

Memory subsystems are not the same. The i5-3360M uses dual-channel memory, while the i5-L16G7 uses single-channel LPDDR4X with a recorded bandwidth of 17.1 GB/s. The i5-L16G7 also lists PCIe Gen 3 with 6 lanes (CPU only), whereas the i5-3360M has no PCIe specification in the database.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The i5-3360M carries Intel HD 4000, while the i5-L16G7 uses UHD Graphics 64EU. Both target mobile segments, but the i5-L16G7 is marked end-of-life, while the i5-3360M has no production status recorded.

Clock behavior is notable. The i5-3360M has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. The i5-L16G7 has a base clock listed as 1400.00 MHz (1.40 GHz) and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. Despite the lower base clock, the L16G7 achieves higher benchmark scores in every recorded comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head comparisons cover five Cinebench workloads, and the Intel Core i5-L16G7 wins all of them. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the L16G7 scores 281 against 246 for the i5-3360M, a delta of 12.5% in favor of the L16G7. The i5-3360M trails by that same margin in relative terms.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 1173 for the L16G7 versus 1029 for the i5-3360M, a 12.3% lead for the newer chip. Single-core R20 follows the same pattern: 165 for the L16G7 and 145 for the i5-3360M, a 12.1% advantage.

Cinebench R23 multi-core results continue the trend. The L16G7 reaches 2793, while the i5-3360M scores 2451, a 12.2% difference. In R23 single-core, the L16G7 records 394 against 346 for the i5-3360M, again a 12.2% margin.

The consistent deltas across all five workloads indicate that the L16G7's advantage is not workload-specific; it is a general performance edge in Cinebench. The i5-3360M does not have a single recorded win in this comparison set, with winsA equal to 0 and winsB equal to 5.

Looking at the broader database averages, the i5-3360M has an average benchmark score of 835, while the i5-L16G7 sits at 816. That puts the i5-3360M slightly ahead in the aggregate database average by about 2.3%, despite losing every head-to-head Cinebench test. This apparent contradiction stems from the fact that the average includes different benchmark mixes and the i5-3360M has Geekbench results (multi-core 1110, single-core 518) that the L16G7 lacks in the recorded set.

Percentile rankings are identical: both processors sit at the 22nd percentile among all CPUs in the database. The nearest rivals for the i5-3360M include the Intel Xeon X3450 (avg 837, delta -0.2%), the Intel Core i5-5200U (avg 838, delta -0.3%), and the Intel Core i5-3380M (avg 838, delta -0.4%). For the i5-L16G7, the nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon X3440 (avg 815, delta 0.1%), the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 (avg 813, delta 0.4%), and the Intel Core i7-5550U (avg 813, delta 0.4%).

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two processors differ according to the database.

| Field | Intel Core i5-3360M | Intel Core i5-L16G7 |

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

| Cores | 2 | 5 |

| Threads | 4 | 5 |

| Base clock | 2.80 GHz | 1400.00 MHz |

| Boost clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 7 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1023 | Not specified |

| Architecture | Ivy Bridge | Lakefield |

| Codename | Ivy Bridge | Lakefield |

| Generation | Core i5 (Ivy Bridge) | Core i5 (Lakefield) |

| Process node | 22 nm | 10 nm |

| Transistors | Not specified | 4,050 million |

| Die size | 118 mm² | 82 mm² |

| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB |

| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512 KB |

| L3 cache | 3 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | Not specified | LPDDR4X |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | Not specified | 17.1 GB/s |

| PCIe | Not specified | Gen 3, 6 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Intel HD 3D | UHD Graphics 64EU |

| Production status | Not specified | End-of-life |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | $281 |

| Part number | SR0MW | SRH4U, SRJGA |

| Geekbench multi-core score | 1110 | Not recorded |

| Geekbench single-core score | 518 | Not recorded |

The i5-3360M is the only one of the two with Geekbench entries in the database. Its Geekbench multi-core score of 1110 and single-core score of 518 provide a reference point for non-Cinebench workloads, though comparisons to the L16G7 cannot be drawn from those numbers directly since the L16G7 has no Geekbench results.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-L16G7 wins every recorded head-to-head Cinebench benchmark. Its strongest margins are 12.5% in R15 multi-core and 12.3% in R20 multi-core, with 12.2% leads in R23 multi-core and R23 single-core, and 12.1% in R20 single-core. For users prioritizing Cinebench-style rendering workloads, both multi-threaded and single-threaded, the L16G7 is the clear choice based on recorded data.

The L16G7 also offers architectural advantages in power efficiency. With a 7 W TDP versus 35 W for the i5-3360M, the L16G7 delivers higher Cinebench scores while consuming far less power. This makes it suited for fanless or ultra-low-power mobile designs. Its 10 nm process, 5 cores, and larger L3 cache (4 MB versus 3 MB) support that efficiency profile.

The Intel Core i5-3360M, despite losing all head-to-head tests, has a higher average benchmark score in the database at 835 versus 816. That aggregate edge comes from its Geekbench results, which are not present for the L16G7. The i5-3360M also has a higher boost clock (3.50 GHz versus 3.00 GHz) and dual-channel memory support, which can matter for memory-bandwidth-sensitive applications even though no direct benchmarks in this comparison capture that effect.

The i5-3360M is also the only one of the two with a defined socket (Intel BGA 1023) and a recorded release date of 2012-05-31. Its Ivy Bridge architecture and 22 nm process represent an older generation, but its dual-channel memory bus and higher clock speeds may appeal to legacy platform compatibility.

In practical terms, the L16G7 wins for modern low-power mobile devices where Cinebench performance and efficiency matter. The i5-3360M holds value in scenarios where Geekbench performance, dual-channel memory, or an established socket footprint are priorities. Neither chip has ECC support, and both are unlocked in terms of multiplier, meaning they are locked processors.

The percentile rankings tie at 22, indicating both chips occupy the same performance tier relative to the full CPU database. The nearest rival sets reinforce this: the i5-3360M sits within 0.5% of the Xeon X3450, Core i5-5200U, Core i5-3380M, and Xeon X5470, while the L16G7 sits within 0.5% of the Xeon X3440, Core 2 Extreme QX9775, Core i7-5550U, and Xeon E5540. These are close groupings, but the head-to-head Cinebench data gives the performance edge to the L16G7 across the board.