Intel Core i5-4690 vs Intel Core i5-8365UE Comparison

The Intel Core i5-8365UE and Intel Core i5-4690 represent two distinct eras of Intel’s design philosophy, yet benchmark data reveals a remarkably close performance parity. The 8365UE is a Whiskey Lake-U mobile processor built on a 14 nm process, while the 4690 is a Haswell desktop chip fabricated on 22 nm. Despite a five-year gap in release dates and fundamentally different power envelopes, the aggregate benchmark scores show the 4690 holds a slim edge across every tested Cinebench workload, though the margins are consistently under 1.6%. This analysis breaks down their architectural divergence, specification differences, and the precise benchmark outcomes that define their head-to-head comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher aggregate benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-4690 posts an average benchmark score of 1375, while the Intel Core i5-8365UE scores 1362. This puts the 4690 slightly ahead, though both land at the 36th percentile among all CPUs.

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

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i5-4690 scores 4754, while the i5-8365UE scores 4710. The delta is -0.9% in favor of the 4690, indicating near-identical sustained multi-threaded rendering capability.

Q: What is the difference in their single-core Cinebench R15 scores?

A: The i5-4690 achieves a single-core score of 67, versus 66 for the i5-8365UE. This represents a -1.5% difference, the largest performance gap seen in any benchmark between the two processors.

Q: Which processor features a higher base clock speed?

A: The i5-4690 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz, substantially higher than the i5-8365UE’s 1.60 GHz base clock. However, the 8365UE boosts to 4.10 GHz, exceeding the 4690’s 3.80 GHz boost clock.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?

A: No. The i5-8365UE supports DDR4 memory with dual-channel configuration and a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the i5-4690 uses DDR3 memory over a dual-channel bus; no memory bandwidth figure is listed for the 4690.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each chip?

A: The i5-8365UE is rated at 15 W, making it a low-power mobile part. The i5-4690 consumes 84 W, reflecting its desktop-oriented design and higher sustained power draw.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is stark, defined primarily by process technology, power target, and threading capability. The i5-8365UE is built on Intel’s Whiskey Lake-U architecture using a 14 nm process node, while the i5-4690 utilizes the older Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process. This generational leap allows the 8365UE to achieve significantly higher efficiency, evidenced by its 15 W TDP compared to the 4690’s 84 W TDP.

Both chips feature 4 physical cores, but the 8365UE enables Hyper-Threading, providing 8 threads, whereas the 4690 is limited to 4 threads. This threading advantage does not translate into higher benchmark scores, as the data shows the 4690 winning every multi-core test. The 8365UE compensates for its lower base clock (1.60 GHz versus 3.40 GHz) with a higher boost clock (4.10 GHz versus 3.80 GHz), suggesting aggressive turbo behavior for burst workloads.

Cache hierarchies are identical in capacity: both offer 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The 4690’s larger die (177 mm²) and higher transistor count (1,400 million) reflect its older, less dense manufacturing process. The 8365UE’s datasheet lists no transistor or die size figures, underscoring its status as a more integrated mobile solution.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The 8365UE pairs with UHD Graphics 620, while the 4690 includes Intel HD 4600. Neither GPU is detailed with performance metrics in the data, but their presence indicates both chips can drive displays without a discrete graphics card. The 8365UE uses a BGA 1528 socket and targets the mobile segment, while the 4690 fits Socket 1150 for desktop builds.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows the i5-4690 winning all six head-to-head tests, but the margins are so narrow that the practical distinction is minimal. The 4690’s largest advantage comes in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it leads by 1.5% (67 versus 66). This suggests a slight edge in lightly-threaded, frequency-sensitive tasks, likely stemming from its higher base clock and mature Haswell design.

Conversely, the i5-8365UE’s wins are not in raw performance but in platform characteristics. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for fanless or low-power mobile designs, while the 4690’s 84 W TDP requires active cooling and a desktop power supply. The 8365UE also supports DDR4 memory, offering higher bandwidth at 38.4 GB/s, and a newer PCIe Gen 3 implementation with 16 lanes. For users prioritizing portability, battery life, or compact systems, the 8365UE is the logical choice despite its slight performance deficit.

In multi-core workloads, the 4690 maintains a lead, but the 8365UE’s 8 threads narrow the gap. For example, in Cinebench R20 multi-core, the difference is just 0.9% (1996 versus 1978). This indicates that the 8365UE’s Hyper-Threading helps it compete with the higher-clocked 4690, making it a capable option for light rendering or compilation tasks in a mobile context.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge sharply on several key specifications, with the most consequential being power and platform targets. The i5-8365UE operates at a 15 W TDP, while the i5-4690 draws 84 W. This 69 W gap defines their use cases: the former is a mobile part, the latter a desktop part.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The 8365UE has a base clock of 1.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. The 4690 runs at a base clock of 3.40 GHz and boosts to 3.80 GHz. The 8365UE’s boost clock is 0.30 GHz higher, but its base clock is 1.80 GHz lower, indicating a design that relies on turbo bursts rather than sustained frequency.

Memory support is another differentiator. The 8365UE uses DDR4 with a listed memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s; the 4690 uses DDR3 with no bandwidth figure provided. Both use dual-channel buses. The 8365UE also lists a PCIe configuration of Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the 4690 simply lists PCIe Gen 3 without lane details.

Process node and physical characteristics differ as well: the 8365UE is on 14 nm, while the 4690 uses 22 nm and reports 1,400 million transistors and a 177 mm² die size. The 8365UE has no transistor or die size data. Socket types are incompatible: BGA 1528 for the 8365UE, Socket 1150 for the 4690. The 8365UE is listed as active in production with a launch MSRP of $297; the 4690’s production status and launch MSRP are not provided.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The six Cinebench tests paint a consistent picture: the i5-4690 wins every round, but by margins that would be imperceptible in real-world use. Starting with Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 4690 scores 479 against the 8365UE’s 474, a -1% delta. The single-core R15 test shows the 4690 at 67 and the 8365UE at 66, a -1.5% delta — the largest gap in the entire comparison.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the 4690 again leads in both tests. Multi-core scores are 1996 for the 4690 and 1978 for the 8365UE, a -0.9% delta. Single-core results are 281 versus 279, a -0.7% delta. These numbers highlight that the 8365UE’s higher boost clock does not translate into a win, likely due to thermal or power constraints in the mobile form factor.

The most recent workload, Cinebench R23, follows the same pattern. Multi-core: 4754 for the 4690, 4710 for the 8365UE, a -0.9% delta. Single-core: 671 versus 665, a -0.9% delta. Across all tests, the 4690’s average benchmark score of 1375 exceeds the 8365UE’s 1362 by 13 points, or roughly 1%.

The nearest rivals for each chip reinforce their positioning. The 8365UE is bracketed by the Core i5-6500T (identical average score of 1362), the Core i7-3820QM (1366, -0.3%), and the Xeon D-1521 (1367, -0.4%). The 4690 sits near the Core i5-1030NG7 (1376, -0.1%), Core i7-3740QM (1378, -0.2%), and Ryzen 3 PRO 1200 (1379, -0.3%). These comparisons show both processors are firmly in the mid-range tier, with no clear performance outlier either way. The data ultimately suggests that raw compute capability is nearly identical, and the choice between them should rest on platform needs rather than benchmark scores.