Intel Core i5-2415M

The Intel Core i5-2415M is a mobile processor from the Sandy Bridge generation, launched in late August 2011, and is now end-of-life. It is a dual-core part with four threads, a 2.30 GHz base clock, and a 35 W TDP, built on Intel's 32 nm process with 624 million transistors on a 149 mm² die. Its benchmark profile places it at the 13th percentile of all CPUs, indicating that it sits firmly in the entry-level segment of the performance spectrum, with an average benchmark score of 590. The data reveals a processor that is heavily outclassed by modern silicon but which still has a defined role for legacy systems and light, single-thread-dependent tasks.

Who Should Consider It

The benchmark results paint a clear picture: the Core i5-2415M is suited only for basic, non-demanding workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 1630 and Geekbench multi-core score of 882 suggest that it can handle everyday office productivity, web browsing, and document editing without severe strain, provided the software is not too modern or resource-hungry. For users running legacy applications or operating systems from the same era, this processor remains functional, but it is not a platform for contemporary multitasking with many open tabs or background processes.

For gaming, the data offers little encouragement. The integrated Intel HD 3000 graphics, combined with a low single-core Geekbench score of 443 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 230, means that even older titles from its release period will struggle at higher settings. The processor simply lacks the computational headroom to feed modern discrete graphics cards, and its integrated solution is only viable for very old or 2D games. Enthusiasts seeking any form of modern gaming performance should look elsewhere, as the 13th percentile ranking confirms this is not a gaming CPU.

Content creation and media editing are similarly out of reach. The Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 684 indicates that video encoding, 3D rendering, or large photo editing batches would take an impractically long time. The dual-core design with four threads is a fundamental limitation; modern creation software scales across many cores, and this chip's two physical cores are a bottleneck. The only users who should consider this processor are those maintaining a vintage laptop for basic word processing, spreadsheets, or as a secondary machine for legacy software that does not leverage modern instruction sets or multi-threading.

Power and Thermals

With a TDP class of 35 W, the Core i5-2415M is a standard-voltage mobile chip, not an ultra-low-power variant. This rating implies that a modest cooling solution is required, typically a small fan and heatpipe assembly found in mainstream laptops from its era. The 32 nm process node helps keep heat generation manageable, but the 35 W envelope means the processor can sustain its 2.30 GHz base clock under load without immediate thermal throttling, provided the laptop's cooling system is clean and functional.

The data does not include boost clock specifications or sustained power draw figures, so thermal behavior under peak turbo conditions cannot be quantified. However, the absence of a high core count or a large L3 cache — only 3 MB shared — suggests that power density is concentrated in a small area. In practical terms, a capable air cooler is sufficient, and the processor should not require exotic cooling. For a 2011-era laptop, this TDP was typical, and the thermals are predictable: warm under sustained load but not dangerously hot if the chassis has adequate ventilation.

Benchmark Performance

The benchmark results consistently show a processor at the bottom of the performance curve. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the score of 164 is low even by 2011 standards, reflecting the dual-core limitation. The Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 684 and R23 multi-core score of 1630 reinforce this, with the latter being roughly one-tenth of what a modern mid-range desktop CPU would achieve. The single-core scores are equally telling: Cinebench R20 single-core at 96 and R23 single-core at 230 indicate that even single-threaded tasks are slow, as modern CPUs often score several times higher.

The Geekbench results mirror this trend. A multi-core score of 882 and a single-core score of 443 place the i5-2415M in a bracket where it is competitive with early quad-core Phenom processors but far behind anything from the last decade. Its average benchmark score of 590 is exactly matched by the AMD Phenom II X4 810, with a deltaPct of 0, meaning they are statistically identical in overall performance. The Intel Core i5-655K is a hair faster at 0.1% above, while the Intel Pentium G3250 and Intel Xeon E5420 are both 0.2% below, at 591 and 591 average scores respectively. These deltas are negligible, placing all four processors in the same performance tier.

How It Compares

Against the AMD Phenom II X4 810, the i5-2415M is a dead heat in average score (590 vs 590, 0% delta). This is notable because the Phenom has four physical cores, while the i5 has only two with Hyper-Threading. The data suggests that for the averaged benchmark suite, the i5's architectural efficiency and higher clock per core compensate for its lower core count, making the two effectively interchangeable for general use.

The Intel Core i5-655K is a desktop part that edges out the mobile i5-2415M by a 0.1% margin in average score (590 vs 590, delta 0.1). This tiny difference is within noise, but it highlights that the mobile chip's 35 W TDP and 2.30 GHz clock are not significantly disadvantaged against a desktop chip of the same generation, likely due to similar IPC and the i5-655K's own dual-core design.

The Intel Pentium G3250, a much newer dual-core desktop processor, scores 591, which is 0.2% higher than the i5-2415M. This is surprising given the G3250 lacks Hyper-Threading, but its higher clock speed and newer architecture compensate. The delta is so small that real-world differences would be imperceptible, showing that the i5-2415M's age is not a massive handicap against low-end modern chips in this narrow benchmark set.

The Intel Xeon E5420, a server processor from an older era with four cores, also scores 591, 0.2% above the i5-2415M. The Xeon's advantage comes from its core count, but its older architecture and lower clock speed prevent it from pulling ahead meaningfully. The comparison shows that the i5-2415M's Sandy Bridge IPC is strong enough to rival a quad-core server chip from a few years prior, though neither is suitable for modern workloads.

Platform and Compatibility

The Core i5-2415M uses the Intel BGA 1023 socket, which means it is soldered to the motherboard and not upgradeable in a traditional sense. This is a mobile platform, so the entire laptop must be replaced to change processors. The architecture is Sandy Bridge, Intel's second-generation Core microarchitecture, built on a 32 nm process. It supports DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration, which is typical for the era, but the data does not specify maximum capacity or speed.

PCIe support is not listed in the data, so the availability of PCIe lanes and their generation cannot be confirmed. The integrated graphics is Intel HD 3000, which was a mid-tier integrated solution in its time, but it shares memory bandwidth with the CPU. The platform's upgrade path is essentially nonexistent, as the BGA socket and end-of-life status mean no future processor can be installed. For memory, users are limited to DDR3, which is now obsolete, and the dual-channel bus is a fixed feature. The lack of ECC support (eccMemory: false) further confirms this is a consumer-oriented mobile platform, not a workstation or server part.

FAQ

Q: Does this processor support overclocking?

A: No, the multiplier is locked (multiplierUnlocked: false), so the 2.30 GHz base clock cannot be increased via the multiplier.

Q: What is the performance percentile of this CPU?

A: It sits at the 13th percentile of all CPUs, meaning it is slower than approximately 87% of processors in the database.

Q: How much L3 cache does it have?

A: It has 3 MB of shared L3 cache, alongside 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core.

Q: Is the integrated graphics capable of gaming?

A: The Intel HD 3000 is present, but given the low single-core scores (e.g., 230 in Cinebench R23), it is only suitable for very old or casual titles, not modern games.

Q: What memory type does it support?

A: It supports DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration, but ECC memory is not supported.

Q: What is the release date and production status?

A: It was released on August 31, 2011, and is now end-of-life, meaning Intel no longer produces or supplies it.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The split between single-thread and multi-thread scores reveals a processor that is uniformly weak but slightly less weak in multi-threaded scenarios. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 1630 is 7.09 times the single-core score of 230, which is a high ratio for a dual-core chip with four threads. This suggests Hyper-Threading is providing a significant boost, as the theoretical maximum from two physical cores would be around 2x, but the 7x ratio is misleading because the single-core score is so low. In real terms, the multi-core score is still tiny, but the scaling indicates that the processor can utilize its threads effectively when software is optimized for parallel execution.

In Geekbench, the multi-core score of 882 is 1.99 times the single-core score of 443, which is nearly perfect 2x scaling. This is the expected result for a dual-core processor with two threads per core under a workload that scales linearly. The discrepancy between the Cinebench and Geekbench ratios is due to different test methodologies and the fact that Cinebench's multi-core test is more sensitive to memory latency and cache contention. For users, this means that multi-threaded tasks like video encoding or batch processing will see a modest benefit from the four threads, but the absolute performance ceiling is so low that the advantage is academic. Single-threaded tasks, such as legacy games or older applications, will perform at the level of a mid-range 2011 processor, which is to say, slowly by modern standards. The data implies that this chip is best used for tasks that are not time-sensitive, as it lacks the raw throughput to excel in either single or multi-threaded workloads.