Intel Core i5-4258U vs Intel Core i5-5300U Comparison

The Intel Core i5-4258U and Intel Core i5-5300U are two dual-core mobile processors that, despite their similar names, target different priorities. The data shows a clear split: the newer i5-5300U (Broadwell) consistently wins in Cinebench workloads, while the older i5-4258U (Haswell) takes the Geekbench crown. Both sit at the 24th percentile among all CPUs, indicating they are entry-level performers today, but their benchmark profiles suggest distinct usage scenarios.

Where Each One Wins

The i5-5300U is the victor in the majority of the head-to-head comparisons, securing 5 out of 7 benchmark wins. This sweep is most pronounced in the Cinebench suite, which tests sustained rendering performance across all cores. The i5-5300U leads in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both in multi-core and single-core tests. This indicates that for tasks like video encoding, 3D rendering, or any workload that leverages Cinebench’s rendering engine, the i5-5300U is the more capable chip. The margins are consistent, all hovering around 3% to 3.5%, which is a modest but reliable advantage.

The i5-4258U, conversely, wins decisively in both Geekbench tests. It beats the i5-5300U by 8.1% in Geekbench multi-core (1664 vs 1540) and by 6.7% in single-core (844 vs 791). Geekbench’s workload mix is different from Cinebench, often reflecting more diverse, real-world application tasks like web browsing, photo editing, and office productivity. If your primary concern is snappy everyday responsiveness rather than sustained rendering, the i5-4258U’s architecture appears to hold an edge. This split suggests the two chips are not simply better or worse versions of each other, but rather optimized for different types of software.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental difference lies in the manufacturing process and the microarchitecture generation. The i5-4258U is built on Intel’s 22 nm process with the Haswell architecture, while the i5-5300U uses the newer 14 nm process with the Broadwell architecture. This process shrink is significant. The i5-5300U’s die size is just 82 mm², a substantial reduction from the i5-4258U’s 118 mm². Interestingly, the i5-4258U packs more transistors (1,400 million) than the i5-5300U (1,300 million), but the larger 22 nm process means those transistors occupy more physical space.

The TDP (Thermal Design Power) reflects this efficiency gain. The i5-4258U has a 28 W TDP, while the i5-5300U sips power at just 15 W. This is a major architectural advantage for the i5-5300U in thin-and-light laptops, as it generates less heat and allows for smaller cooling solutions. Both chips share the same cache configuration: 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, with 3 MB of shared L3 cache. They also both support DDR3 memory, have 2 cores and 4 threads, and are not multiplier unlocked.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The i5-4258U features Intel HD 5100, while the i5-5300U is equipped with Intel HD 5500. The i5-5300U also has a specified memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s with dual-channel support, whereas the i5-4258U’s memory bus details are not specified in the data. Finally, the i5-5300U supports PCIe Gen 2 with 12 lanes (CPU only), a feature not listed for the i5-4258U.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results tell a story of narrow but consistent margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i5-5300U scores 230 against the i5-4258U’s 222, a 3.5% difference. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core (960 vs 929, 3.2% delta) and Cinebench R23 multi-core (2287 vs 2213, 3.2% delta). The single-core Cinebench results are similarly close: R20 shows 135 vs 131 (3% delta), and R23 shows 322 vs 312 (3.1% delta). These are not dramatic wins, but they are consistent across all rendering tests, suggesting the i5-5300U’s newer architecture provides a genuine, if slight, IPC improvement in this workload.

The Geekbench results flip the script. The i5-4258U’s multi-core score of 1664 is 8.1% higher than the i5-5300U’s 1540. The single-core gap is 6.7% (844 vs 791). These are much larger deltas than the Cinebench margins, indicating a significant advantage for the Haswell chip in this specific benchmark. The reason for this divergence is not detailed in the data, but it highlights how benchmark selection can dramatically alter the perceived performance ranking. The i5-5300U is not uniformly faster; it wins where Cinebench matters most, but loses where Geekbench’s workload patterns dominate.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications beyond their benchmark scores. The most obvious is the base clock: the i5-4258U runs at 2.40 GHz, while the i5-5300U has a slightly lower base clock of 2.30 GHz. However, both boost to the same 2.90 GHz maximum. The TDP is a stark contrast, with the i5-4258U rated at 28 W and the i5-5300U at just 15 W. This power difference is a direct result of the process node improvement.

The manufacturing details also differ. The i5-4258U uses a 22 nm process, has 1,400 million transistors, and a die size of 118 mm². The i5-5300U uses a 14 nm process, has 1,300 million transistors, and a smaller die size of 82 mm². The integrated graphics are different (HD 5100 vs HD 5500), and the i5-5300U explicitly lists dual-channel memory support with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the i5-4258U’s memory bus is not specified. The i5-5300U also supports PCIe Gen 2 with 12 lanes, a feature absent from the i5-4258U’s specification list. Their release dates are also distinct, with the i5-4258U launching in June 2013 and the i5-5300U in February 2015. The i5-5300U is marked as end-of-life, while the i5-4258U’s production status is not provided. The i5-5300U has a launch MSRP of $315.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core i5-5300U is faster, scoring 2287 compared to the i5-4258U’s 2213. This is a 3.2% difference in favor of the i5-5300U.

Q: Does the i5-4258U win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins both Geekbench tests. It scores 1664 in multi-core (8.1% ahead) and 844 in single-core (6.7% ahead) compared to the i5-5300U’s 1540 and 791, respectively.

Q: What is the TDP difference between these two chips?

A: The i5-4258U has a 28 W TDP, while the i5-5300U is rated at 15 W. This makes the i5-5300U significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Do they have the same amount of cache?

A: Yes, both CPUs have 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 3 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor is built on a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The i5-5300U uses a 14 nm process, whereas the i5-4258U is built on a 22 nm process. The i5-5300U also has a smaller die size at 82 mm² versus 118 mm².

Q: Are these CPUs comparable in overall performance?

A: Their average benchmark scores are very close: the i5-4258U averages 902, and the i5-5300U averages 895. Both hold the 24th percentile rank among all CPUs, indicating they are near-identical in overall standing.

The Verdict

The choice between these two processors depends entirely on your workload priorities. The data is clear: for rendering and multi-threaded content creation, the i5-5300U is the better pick. Its consistent 3% to 3.5% lead across all Cinebench versions shows a genuine architectural advantage in that specific type of compute. Additionally, its 15 W TDP makes it the superior choice for a thin, cool, and power-efficient laptop. If you are editing video or rendering 3D models, the i5-5300U’s wins in 5 out of 7 benchmarks make it the logical selection.

However, if your daily tasks are more general-purpose, the i5-4258U’s substantial 8.1% Geekbench multi-core lead is hard to ignore. Geekbench often correlates better with everyday application performance, so the i5-4258U might feel snappier in typical office work, web browsing, and light photo editing. The trade-off is its higher 28 W TDP, which means more heat and potentially shorter battery life. For a user prioritizing raw responsiveness in diverse applications over rendering throughput, the i5-4258U is the data-backed choice. In short, the i5-5300U is the efficiency-focused renderer, and the i5-4258U is the general-purpose performer.