Intel Core i5-3380M vs Intel Core i5-5250U Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher base and boost clock speeds?

A: The Intel Core i5-3380M runs at a base clock of 2.90 GHz and boosts to 3.60 GHz. The Intel Core i5-5250U is significantly lower, with a base clock of 1.60 GHz and a boost of 2.70 GHz.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i5-3380M scores 2504 points, while the Intel Core i5-5250U scores 2079 points. The 3380M leads by 17% in this test.

Q: Which processor wins in Geekbench multi-core, and by how much?

A: The Intel Core i5-5250U wins with a score of 1587, compared to 1055 for the Intel Core i5-3380M. That is a 50.4% advantage for the 5250U.

Q: What are the thermal design power (TDP) ratings for each chip?

A: The Intel Core i5-5250U has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Intel Core i5-3380M has a TDP of 35 watts. The 5250U consumes less than half the power budget.

Q: Which processor uses a newer manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Core i5-5250U is built on a 14 nm process, while the Intel Core i5-3380M uses a 22 nm process. The 5250U also has a larger die at 133 mm² compared to 118 mm² for the 3380M.

Q: Do both processors have the same cache configuration?

A: Yes, both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 3 MB of shared L3 cache. They also both support dual-channel DDR3 memory.

The Verdict

The benchmark data splits the two processors into distinct roles. The Intel Core i5-3380M wins five of the seven head-to-head tests, including all four Cinebench workloads and Geekbench single-core. Its lead in Cinebench R20 multi-core is 16.9%, and it posts a 17% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core. For users running Cinebench-style rendering or sustained multi-threaded workloads, the 3380M is the clear choice.

The Intel Core i5-5250U, however, dominates Geekbench. It scores 50.4% higher in multi-core and 63.4% higher in single-core. This suggests a different performance profile, likely tied to its newer architecture and lower power envelope. The 5250U also carries a 15 W TDP versus 35 W for the 3380M, making it the better option for thermally constrained or battery-powered systems.

The overall average benchmark scores are close: the 5250U averages 856 points (23rd percentile among all CPUs), while the 3380M averages 838 points (22nd percentile). The 5250U sits right next to the Intel Core i5-2500T (0% delta) and trails the Intel Core i7-4500U by just 0.4%. The 3380M is nearly tied with the Intel Core i5-5200U (0.1% delta) and the Intel Xeon X3450 (0.1% delta).

For a compact, power-efficient laptop, the i5-5250U delivers strong Geekbench results and a much lower TDP. For raw Cinebench throughput, the i5-3380M is the winner. Neither chip is a universal victor; the choice depends entirely on the workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data reveals a stark split. The Intel Core i5-3380M wins every Cinebench test by a similar margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 252 against 209, a 17.1% lead. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the margin is 1051 versus 873, a 16.9% difference. The single-core Cinebench R20 test shows 148 against 123, again 16.9% in favor of the 3380M. Cinebench R23 multi-core repeats the pattern: 2504 versus 2079, a 17% gap. The R23 single-core test is also 17% apart, with 353 against 293.

The Intel Core i5-5250U flips the script in Geekbench. The multi-core test yields 1587 for the 5250U versus 1055 for the 3380M, a massive 50.4% advantage. The single-core Geekbench result is even more lopsided: 825 versus 505, a 63.4% difference. This is a remarkable reversal, indicating that the 5250U's architecture excels at the specific workloads Geekbench measures.

The overall win count favors the 3380M, with five wins against two for the 5250U. Yet the magnitude of the 5250U's Geekbench victories is far larger than the 3380M's Cinebench margins. The 3380M consistently beats the 5250U by about 17% across Cinebench, while the 5250U beats the 3380M by over 50% in Geekbench multi-core and over 60% in single-core.

When comparing to the broader database, the 5250U's average score of 856 places it level with the Intel Core i5-2500T (0% delta) and just 0.5% ahead of the Intel Xeon X5492. The 3380M's average of 838 puts it 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i5-5200U and 0.2% ahead of the Intel Xeon X5470. These close averages mask the divergent workload-specific results.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The Intel Core i5-5250U has a base clock of 1.60 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-3380M starts at 2.90 GHz. Boost clocks follow the same pattern: 2.70 GHz for the 5250U versus 3.60 GHz for the 3380M.

Thermal design power is a major differentiator. The 5250U is rated at 15 W, while the 3380M draws 35 W. This more than doubles the thermal budget for the older chip.

The sockets are incompatible. The 5250U uses Intel BGA 1168, while the 3380M uses Intel Socket G2 (988B). This means they are not interchangeable in any system.

The integrated graphics differ: the 5250U features Intel HD 6000, whereas the 3380M has Intel HD 4000. The 5250U also supports PCIe Gen 2 with 12 lanes (CPU only); the 3380M has no PCIe data recorded in the database.

Memory bandwidth is listed for the 5250U at 29.9 GB/s, while the 3380M has no recorded bandwidth figure. Both support dual-channel DDR3 and lack ECC memory support.

The 5250U has a launch MSRP of $315. The 3380M has no recorded launch MSRP. Both are mobile-segment parts with 2 cores and 4 threads. The 5250U is marked as end-of-life, while the 3380M has no production status recorded.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i5-5250U is built on the Broadwell architecture, specifically Broadwell-U, using a 14 nm process node. The Intel Core i5-3380M uses the Ivy Bridge architecture on a 22 nm node. This two-generation gap is significant for power efficiency and transistor density.

The 5250U packs 1,900 million transistors into a 133 mm² die. The 3380M has no recorded transistor count but a smaller die at 118 mm². The newer process allows the 5250U to fit more transistors in a larger physical area while consuming far less power.

Cache configurations are identical: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 3 MB of shared L3. Neither chip has a 3D V-Cache. Both are dual-core with four threads, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The 5250U's part number is SR26C, and it was released in early 2015. The 3380M's part number is SR0X7, with a release date at the end of 2012. The 5250U is newer by roughly two years, which explains its architectural advantages.

The integrated graphics differ as noted: HD 6000 versus HD 4000. The 5250U also has a recorded memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, while the 3380M lacks this data point. The 3380M has no PCIe information in the database, while the 5250U lists Gen 2 with 12 lanes.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-3380M is the winner for Cinebench workloads. It leads by 17.1% in R15 multi-core, 16.9% in R20 multi-core, 16.9% in R20 single-core, 17% in R23 multi-core, and 17% in R23 single-core. Any application that resembles Cinebench's rendering pipeline will favor the 3380M. Its higher clock speeds (2.90 GHz base, 3.60 GHz boost) likely drive these results.

The Intel Core i5-5250U is the clear winner in Geekbench. It scores 50.4% higher in multi-core and 63.4% higher in single-core. This suggests that the Broadwell architecture, despite lower clocks, handles Geekbench's specific instruction patterns far better. The 5250U also holds the power efficiency advantage with a 15 W TDP, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where thermals are limited.

The overall average benchmark scores are nearly identical: 856 for the 5250U and 838 for the 3380M. The 5250U's percentile rank is 23rd versus 22nd for the 3380M, a negligible difference. In the database's nearest rival comparisons, the 5250U is level with the Intel Core i5-2500T, while the 3380M matches the Intel Core i5-5200U within 0.1%.

Users with power-constrained designs should choose the i5-5250U for its lower TDP and Geekbench dominance. Users prioritizing Cinebench-style multi-threaded throughput should pick the i5-3380M despite its higher power draw. The data does not support a single winner; it supports two different tools for two different jobs.