Intel Core i5-3450 vs Intel Core i5-4460T Comparison

The Intel Core i5-3450 and the Intel Core i5-4460T are both quad-core desktop processors from Intel, but they represent different architectural generations and power targets. The i5-3450 is an Ivy Bridge part with a 77W TDP, while the i5-4460T is a Haswell part with a 35W TDP. The benchmark data reveals a split: the i5-3450 dominates Cinebench tests, while the i5-4460T takes the lead in Geekbench. This analysis examines the recorded scores, architectural differences, and specification gaps to determine which processor suits which workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a clear pattern across the Cinebench suite. The i5-3450 wins all five Cinebench tests, with deltas hovering around 23.6% to 24%. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i5-3450 scores 387 against 313 for the i5-4460T, a 23.6% advantage. The same delta appears in Cinebench R20 multicore (1613 vs 1305) and Cinebench R23 multicore (3842 vs 3109). Single-core Cinebench results follow suit: R20 singlecore shows 227 vs 183 (24% delta), and R23 singlecore shows 542 vs 438 (23.7% delta). These are substantial margins, indicating the i5-3450 holds a consistent edge in rendering and CPU-intensive compute tasks.

The i5-4460T, however, flips the script in Geekbench. In Geekbench multicore, it scores 2170 against 1985 for the i5-3450, a delta of -8.5% (meaning the i5-4460T is 8.5% higher). In Geekbench singlecore, the gap widens: 809 vs 681, a -15.8% delta. This is a notable reversal. The i5-4460T is 15.8% faster in Geekbench single-core, which suggests its architecture handles certain workloads more efficiently despite lower clock speeds.

The average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story. The i5-3450 has an average score of 1166, while the i5-4460T averages 1190. That puts the i5-4460T ahead by about 2% overall, even though it loses five of seven head-to-head tests. Both processors sit at the 33rd percentile among all CPUs, meaning they occupy the same performance tier in the database. The i5-3450's nearest rivals include the AMD Opteron 6220 (avg 1168, -0.2% delta) and the Intel Core i5-3570S (avg 1169, -0.2% delta). The i5-4460T's nearest rivals include the AMD Opteron 6234 (avg 1191, -0.1% delta) and the Intel Core i5-2400 (avg 1187, 0.3% delta). These rival deltas are tiny, confirming both CPUs sit in a tightly packed performance band.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split suggests distinct use cases. The i5-3450 is the clear winner for Cinebench workloads, which are representative of 3D rendering, video encoding, and other multi-threaded compute tasks. Its 23.6% to 24% advantage across all Cinebench tests is consistent and decisive. If the workload relies on Cinebench-style rendering, the i5-3450 is the stronger choice.

The i5-4460T wins in Geekbench, which often reflects different instruction-level efficiency and memory access patterns. Its 8.5% multicore and 15.8% single-core advantages in Geekbench indicate it handles general-purpose tasks, web browsing, office applications, and light productivity with better responsiveness. The single-core gap is particularly large, suggesting the i5-4460T's Haswell architecture extracts more performance per clock in certain integer and floating-point operations.

The average score difference (1190 vs 1166) slightly favors the i5-4460T, but this is driven entirely by its Geekbench wins. For users who prioritize rendering, the i5-3450 is the obvious pick. For users who prioritize everyday responsiveness and single-threaded tasks, the i5-4460T has the edge. The i5-4460T also does this at a much lower TDP (35W vs 77W), which is a significant operational advantage for compact or power-sensitive builds.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different microarchitectures. The i5-3450 uses Ivy Bridge, while the i5-4460T uses Haswell. Both are built on Intel's 22 nm process node and contain 1,400 million transistors, but the die size differs: the i5-3450 measures 160 mm², while the i5-4460T is larger at 177 mm². The larger die on the same node suggests Haswell added more functional blocks, likely including improved integrated graphics and power management circuitry.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The i5-3450 pairs with Intel HD 2500, while the i5-4460T includes Intel HD 4600. The HD 4600 is a more capable iGPU, which aligns with the i5-4460T's lower TDP and likely better media handling. Both CPUs support DDR3 memory in dual-channel mode with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth, and both use PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Neither supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The sockets are incompatible: the i5-3450 uses Intel Socket 1155, while the i5-4460T uses Intel Socket 1150. This means motherboard compatibility is a hard separator. The release dates also differ, with the i5-3450 launching on 2012-04-28 and the i5-4460T on 2014-02-28. Both are end-of-life products.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

• Base clock: i5-3450 at 3.10 GHz, i5-4460T at 1900.00 MHz (1.90 GHz)
• Boost clock: i5-3450 at 3.50 GHz, i5-4460T at 2.70 GHz
• TDP: i5-3450 at 77W, i5-4460T at 35W
• Socket: Intel Socket 1155 vs Intel Socket 1150
• Architecture: Ivy Bridge vs Haswell
• Codename: Ivy Bridge vs Haswell
• Generation: Core i5 (Ivy Bridge) vs Core i5 (Haswell)
• Die size: 160 mm² vs 177 mm²
• Integrated graphics: Intel HD 2500 vs Intel HD 4600
• Release date: 2012-04-28 vs 2014-02-28
• Launch MSRP: i5-3450 at $174, i5-4460T has no recorded launch MSRP
• Part number: SR0PF vs SR1S7

Shared specifications include 4 cores, 4 threads, 64 KB L1 cache per core, 256 KB L2 cache per core, 6 MB shared L3 cache, DDR3 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, 25.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, no ECC support, PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, and a locked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speed?

A: The i5-3450 has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz, while the i5-4460T has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 2.70 GHz. The i5-3450 is significantly faster in both metrics.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench tests?

A: The i5-3450 wins all five Cinebench tests, with deltas ranging from 23.6% to 24%. For example, in Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 3842 versus 3109 for the i5-4460T.

Q: Which processor wins in Geekbench tests?

A: The i5-4460T wins both Geekbench tests. In Geekbench multicore, it scores 2170 versus 1985, and in Geekbench singlecore, it scores 809 versus 681.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The i5-3450 has a TDP of 77W, while the i5-4460T has a TDP of 35W. The i5-4460T consumes less than half the power.

Q: Do both processors have the same cache configuration?

A: Yes, both have 64 KB L1 cache per core, 256 KB L2 cache per core, and 6 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The i5-3450 has an average benchmark score of 1166, while the i5-4460T has an average of 1190. The i5-4460T is slightly higher overall.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear trade-off. The i5-3450 is the superior choice for Cinebench-style rendering and multi-threaded compute workloads, where it leads by roughly 24% across the board. Its higher clock speeds (3.10 GHz base, 3.50 GHz boost) directly contribute to this advantage. Users who run 3D rendering, video encoding, or batch processing should favor the i5-3450.

The i5-4460T, on the other hand, wins in Geekbench, particularly in single-core performance where it is 15.8% ahead. Its lower TDP of 35W makes it a better fit for power-constrained systems, small form factor builds, or always-on machines. The average benchmark score also slightly favors the i5-4460T (1190 vs 1166), suggesting it offers a more balanced overall profile for general-purpose use.

The choice ultimately depends on the workload. For rendering and compute-heavy tasks, the i5-3450 is the clear winner. For everyday responsiveness, lower power consumption, and Geekbench-oriented tasks, the i5-4460T is the better pick. The socket difference (1155 vs 1150) also dictates motherboard compatibility, so the platform decision may override performance considerations. Both processors are end-of-life, but the recorded data shows they remain competitive in their respective niches.