Intel Core i5-4288U vs Intel Core i7-4600U Comparison

The Intel Core i7-4600U and Intel Core i5-4288U are both dual-core Haswell mobile processors, yet benchmark results show a clear split in their performance profiles. Across seven head-to-head tests, the i7-4600U wins five rounds, while the i5-4288U takes two, with the overall average benchmark scores nearly identical at 931 for the i7 versus 927 for the i5. The data reveals that the i7-4600U leads in Cinebench workloads, while the i5-4288U counters in Geekbench tests, making the choice between them dependent on the specific application type.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-4600U has an average benchmark score of 931, while the Intel Core i5-4288U scores 927, a difference of 0.4%.

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

A: The i7-4600U scores 2306 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 3.1% ahead of the i5-4288U’s 2237 points.

Q: Does the i5-4288U win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the i5-4288U wins both Geekbench tests: it scores 1745 in multi-core (a 4.6% advantage) and 896 in single-core (a 0.8% advantage) over the i7-4600U.

Q: What is the difference in thermal design power between the two?

A: The i7-4600U has a TDP of 15 watts, while the i5-4288U has a TDP of 28 watts, making the i7 more power-efficient.

Q: Are both processors based on the same architecture?

A: Both use the Haswell architecture and the 22 nm process node, but the i7-4600U uses the Haswell-ULT codename, while the i5-4288U uses the Haswell codename.

Q: Which chip has a larger L3 cache?

A: The i7-4600U has 4 MB of shared L3 cache, whereas the i5-4288U has 3 MB of shared L3 cache.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built by Intel on the 22 nm process node and feature two cores with four threads, but they diverge in several architectural details. The i7-4600U belongs to the Haswell-ULT codename, indicating an ultra-low-power variant, while the i5-4288U uses the standard Haswell codename. This distinction is reflected in their thermal design power: the i7-4600U is rated at 15 watts, while the i5-4288U is rated at 28 watts, a substantial difference for mobile platforms.

The transistor counts differ slightly, with the i7-4600U containing 1,300 million transistors versus 1,400 million in the i5-4288U, despite both sharing the same die size of 118 mm². Cache hierarchies are also different: the i7-4600U offers 4 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i5-4288U provides 3 MB. Both chips have identical L1 and L2 caches at 64 KB and 256 KB per core, respectively. Integrated graphics differ as well, with the i7-4600U featuring Intel HD 5000 and the i5-4288U featuring Intel HD 5100. The i7-4600U has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.30 GHz, whereas the i5-4288U starts higher at 2.60 GHz base but boosts lower at 3.10 GHz. Neither chip supports ECC memory, and both are locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent pattern of the i7-4600U outperforming the i5-4288U by roughly 3% across all tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i7 scores 232 versus 225 for the i5, a 3.1% lead. This margin repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core (968 vs 939) and R23 multi-core (2306 vs 2237), both also at 3.1%. Single-core Cinebench results are similar: R20 single-core gives the i7 a 3% edge (136 vs 132), and R23 single-core shows a 3.2% lead (325 vs 315). These consistent margins suggest that the i7-4600U’s higher boost clock of 3.30 GHz, combined with its larger L3 cache, provides a measurable advantage in rendering workloads.

The Geekbench results tell a different story. The i5-4288U wins Geekbench multi-core with a score of 1745 versus 1664 for the i7-4600U, a 4.6% difference that favors the i5. In Geekbench single-core, the i5 also edges ahead at 896 versus 889, a narrower 0.8% margin. This split is notable because the i5-4288U has a higher base clock (2.60 GHz) but a lower boost clock (3.10 GHz) compared to the i7-4600U’s 2.10 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost. The Geekbench multi-core win for the i5 suggests that sustained performance at base clock matters more in that workload, while the Cinebench results indicate that peak boost and cache capacity dominate rendering tasks.

The overall benchmark average sits nearly level: the i7-4600U averages 931 points, and the i5-4288U averages 927 points, a 0.4% difference. Both processors rank in the 25th percentile among all CPUs, placing them in the same performance tier despite the individual test variations. The nearest rivals for the i7-4600U include the Intel Core i7-870 (avg score 928, delta 0.3%) and the i5-4288U itself (delta 0.4%), while the i5-4288U’s closest competitor is the Intel Core i3-4350T (avg 926, delta 0.1%).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The i7-4600U has a base clock of 2.10 GHz, while the i5-4288U operates at 2.60 GHz. Boost clocks are reversed in advantage: the i7 boosts to 3.30 GHz, while the i5 boosts to 3.10 GHz. Thermal design power is a major differentiator, with the i7 at 15 watts and the i5 at 28 watts. The transistor count is higher in the i5 at 1,400 million versus 1,300 million for the i7, though both share the same 118 mm² die size. L3 cache is larger on the i7 at 4 MB shared, compared to 3 MB shared on the i5. Integrated graphics differ: the i7 uses Intel HD 5000, while the i5 uses Intel HD 5100. The codenames also differ (Haswell-ULT for the i7, Haswell for the i5), and the i5 has a part number of SR189, while the i7 has none listed. Both processors share the same socket (Intel BGA 1168), memory support (DDR3), and lack ECC support.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-4600U is the clear winner in Cinebench rendering benchmarks, taking all four multi-core and two single-core Cinebench tests with margins between 3% and 3.2%. This makes it the stronger choice for workloads that rely on sustained boost clocks and larger cache, such as 3D rendering, video encoding, or other multi-threaded compute tasks. The i7’s 4 MB L3 cache and 3.30 GHz boost clock appear to give it an edge in these scenarios, and its lower 15-watt TDP also makes it more suitable for thermally constrained ultraportable designs.

The Intel Core i5-4288U wins in Geekbench, both multi-core (1745 vs 1664, a 4.6% lead) and single-core (896 vs 889, a 0.8% lead). This suggests that in general-purpose computing tasks, such as everyday productivity, web browsing, or software compilation, the i5-4288U’s higher base clock of 2.60 GHz helps it outperform the i7. The Geekbench multi-core win is particularly significant, as it is the largest margin of any head-to-head test, indicating that the i5 maintains better performance under sustained load without relying on boost states. For users who prioritize responsiveness in typical desktop-like tasks over peak rendering throughput, the i5-4288U offers a measurable advantage.

The Verdict

The data presents a split decision: the Intel Core i7-4600U wins 5 of 7 head-to-head benchmarks, but the Intel Core i5-4288U wins the two Geekbench tests, including the largest single margin of 4.6% in multi-core. The average benchmark scores are effectively tied (931 vs 927), placing both processors in the same 25th percentile tier. For rendering and compute-heavy applications, the i7-4600U is the superior choice based on its consistent 3%+ lead in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. For general-purpose performance, particularly in Geekbench-style workloads, the i5-4288U is better, and it also offers a higher base clock for tasks that don’t boost as aggressively.

The i7-4600U’s lower TDP of 15 watts versus 28 watts makes it the more power-efficient option, which is critical for thin-and-light laptops. However, the i5-4288U’s higher transistor count (1,400 million vs 1,300 million) and its Geekbench wins suggest it may handle sustained loads more effectively despite the higher power draw. Ultimately, the choice depends on workload: pick the i7-4600U for rendering and cache-sensitive tasks, or the i5-4288U for general responsiveness and Geekbench-oriented benchmarks. Both processors are locked, use DDR3 memory, and share the same BGA 1168 socket, so platform compatibility is not a differentiating factor.