Intel Core i3-380M

The Intel Core i3-380M is a mobile processor from 2010, built on the Westmere architecture at a 32 nm process node. It is a dual-core part with Hyper-Threading, offering four threads at a fixed 2.53 GHz base clock with no boost capability. The data places it at the 5th percentile among all CPUs, meaning it sits near the very bottom of modern performance charts, and its average benchmark score of 390 reflects that position. This is a legacy part, now end-of-life, suited primarily for basic computing tasks or as a reference point for older systems.

Benchmark Performance

The benchmark results for the Core i3-380M are uniformly low, which is expected for a mobile chip from its era. In Cinebench R23, the multicore score is 1027, while the single-core score is 145. The ratio between these scores—roughly 7:1—highlights a significant weakness in single-threaded performance, which is critical for everyday responsiveness. In Geekbench, the multicore score is 639, and the single-core score is 328, again showing a similar disparity. The Cinebench R20 results follow the pattern: 431 multicore and 60 single-core, while the older Cinebench R15 multicore test yields a score of 103.

Comparing to its nearest rivals, the data shows a tight cluster of performance. The AMD A8-4555M has an average score of 390, which is 0.1% higher than the Core i3-380M’s average of 390. The AMD Athlon II X3 405e scores 389, a 0.3% deficit. The Intel Core i5-430M, a direct sibling, scores 392, putting it 0.6% ahead. The Intel Celeron G1610T scores 388, trailing by 0.6%. These deltas are negligible in real-world terms; the i3-380M is functionally identical in performance to these rivals within a margin of error. None of these chips offer a meaningful advantage over the others, so the choice between them would come down to platform features rather than raw speed.

Power and Thermals

The Core i3-380M carries a TDP of 35 watts, which classifies it as a low-power mobile part. This TDP level is typical for mainstream laptops from its generation, allowing for compact cooling solutions without active fans in some chassis, though most implementations used a small fan. For a builder or user handling this processor today, the thermal requirement is modest: a basic mobile cooler designed for 35-watt CPUs will suffice. The 32 nm process node helps keep heat density manageable, but the lack of a boost clock means the chip runs at a constant 2.53 GHz under load, which simplifies thermal behavior—there are no transient power spikes to accommodate. The integrated graphics are a chipset feature, not part of the CPU die, so the 35-watt TDP covers only the processor cores, cache, and memory controller.

Platform and Compatibility

This processor uses the Intel Socket G1, a mobile socket that is long obsolete. The architecture is Westmere with the codename Arrandale, and it supports DDR3 memory only, with no ECC capability. PCIe support is Gen 2, which was standard for its time but is now several generations behind. The chip has 382 million transistors on an 81 mm² die, with a cache hierarchy of 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 3 MB of shared L3. The integrated graphics are not in the CPU; they are a chipset feature, meaning the motherboard must provide the video output capability. The upgrade path is nonexistent in modern terms—Socket G1 motherboards are not produced anymore, and any system using this CPU is likely a legacy laptop. The memory bus and bandwidth are not specified in the data, but DDR3 support limits maximum speeds to what that generation of memory offered.

How It Compares

vs AMD A8-4555M: The A8-4555M scores 390, essentially tied with the Core i3-380M at a 0.1% delta. Both are mobile parts from the same era, and their average benchmark scores are indistinguishable. The AMD chip likely has better integrated graphics, but the data does not cover that, so on pure CPU compute, there is no winner. A user would see no difference in application performance between these two.

vs AMD Athlon II X3 405e: The Athlon II X3 405e scores 389, which is 0.3% behind the Core i3-380M. Despite having three physical cores versus the Intel’s two cores and four threads, the average performance is nearly identical. This suggests the Intel’s Hyper-Threading effectively compensates for the missing physical core in mixed workloads. The delta is so small that it falls within run-to-run variance.

vs Intel Core i5-430M: The Core i5-430M scores 392, 0.6% ahead of the Core i3-380M. This is the closest rival, and the small edge likely comes from the i5’s higher base clock or possibly a turbo feature, though the data does not specify clock speeds for the i5. In practice, this delta is imperceptible; both chips will feel the same in everyday use.

vs Intel Celeron G1610T: The Celeron G1610T scores 388, trailing the Core i3-380M by 0.6%. This is a desktop part, but its low-power design puts it in the same performance class. The i3-380M has a slight edge, but the Celeron might offer better platform features on the desktop side. The performance gap is negligible, so the decision would rest on socket and system requirements.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The Core i3-380M exhibits a pronounced split between single-thread and multi-thread performance, but not in a favorable way. In Cinebench R23, the single-core score is 145 versus a multicore score of 1027, which is a 7.1x scaling factor. This indicates that the chip’s two physical cores and four threads scale well when fully utilized, but the absolute single-thread performance is very low. For real workloads, this means that lightly threaded tasks—such as web browsing, document editing, or even basic OS navigation—will feel sluggish. The Geekbench single-core score of 328 confirms this: it is a very low number by modern standards. In contrast, multi-threaded tasks like video encoding or batch photo processing will use all four threads and achieve better relative performance, but the absolute scores are still far below any recent processor. The lack of a boost clock exacerbates the single-thread weakness, as the chip cannot temporarily raise its frequency for bursty tasks. Users should expect this CPU to handle background multi-threaded chores adequately but struggle with interactive, single-threaded responsiveness.

FAQ

Q: Is the Intel Core i3-380M suitable for modern operating systems?

A: The data shows a 5th percentile ranking among all CPUs and single-core scores of 145 in Cinebench R23 and 328 in Geekbench. These figures are far below current requirements, so modern OSes will run, but with noticeable lag in UI and basic tasks.

Q: How does the Core i3-380M compare to the Intel Core i5-430M?

A: The Core i5-430M has an average score of 392, which is 0.6% higher than the Core i3-380M’s 390. This is a negligible difference, and the two chips perform nearly identically in benchmarks.

Q: Can this processor be overclocked?

A: No, the multiplier is locked. The base clock is fixed at 2.53 GHz with no boost clock, so the operating frequency cannot be increased beyond the factory setting.

Q: What cooling solution is required for the Core i3-380M?

A: With a TDP of 35 watts, a standard mobile cooler designed for that thermal class is sufficient. The constant 2.53 GHz clock means no thermal spikes, so a simple fan or passive heatsink in a well-ventilated chassis will manage temperatures.

Q: Does the Core i3-380M support ECC memory?

A: No, ECC memory is not supported. The processor only supports standard DDR3 memory, and the memory bus specifications are not listed in the data.

Q: What is the upgrade path from Socket G1?

A: There is no modern upgrade path. The Socket G1 is an end-of-life mobile socket, and the processor is marked as end-of-life. Any system using this CPU would require a full motherboard and possibly memory replacement to move to a newer platform.