Intel Core i5-750

The Intel Core i5-750 is a 2009-era desktop processor built on the 45 nm Nehalem architecture, code-named Lynnfield. It ships with 4 physical cores and 4 threads, a base clock of 2.67 GHz, and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz, operating within a 95 W TDP. The data places this chip at the 19th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 743, indicating that it now sits firmly in entry-level territory for modern workloads.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The benchmark results reveal a significant disparity between single-threaded and multi-threaded performance. In Cinebench R23, the processor scores 304 points in single-core and 2159 points in multi-core. That multi-core figure is roughly 7.1 times the single-core score, which is far higher than the 4x ratio one would expect from a perfectly scaling quad-core without simultaneous multithreading. This indicates that while the chip has only 4 threads, its multi-core performance benefits disproportionately from the workload’s ability to utilize all cores fully, whereas the single-core score is dragged down by the age of the architecture.

The single-core score of 304 in Cinebench R23 is exceptionally low by modern standards. This is a direct consequence of the 45 nm process and the Nehalem microarchitecture’s limitations in instructions per clock (IPC). For everyday tasks like web browsing, document editing, or light productivity, this single-thread weakness will be the primary bottleneck. The boost clock of 3.20 GHz helps, but the underlying architecture simply cannot execute as many instructions per cycle as newer designs.

Conversely, the multi-core results show a different story. The Cinebench R20 multicore score of 906 and the R23 multicore score of 2159 demonstrate that the processor can still marshal all four cores effectively when a workload is properly threaded. This is particularly relevant for older video encoding software, batch image processing, or compiling code, where the 4 cores can be kept busy. However, the lack of hyper-threading means that heavily threaded modern workloads, which often expect 8 or more threads, will see diminishing returns.

The 8 MB of shared L3 cache is a notable asset for multi-threaded tasks, as it allows all four cores to access a common pool of data without repeatedly hitting the memory bus. Yet, the dual-channel DDR3 memory support and the absence of any integrated graphics mean that the memory subsystem and the CPU itself are entirely responsible for data throughput. In practice, the data suggests a chip that is severely lopsided: capable of respectable multi-core throughput when pressed, but crippled in latency-sensitive single-thread scenarios.

Who Should Consider It

Given the 19th percentile ranking, this processor is not suitable for modern gaming. The single-core score of 304 in Cinebench R23 is far below the threshold needed to maintain high frame rates in contemporary titles, which rely heavily on one or two strong cores. The lack of integrated graphics also mandates a dedicated GPU, and even then, the CPU will likely bottleneck the graphics card in most gaming scenarios. Gamers should look elsewhere.

For content creation, the picture is mixed. If the workload is strictly multi-threaded and well-optimized for exactly four threads, the i5-750 can still deliver usable results. The Cinebench R20 multicore score of 906 and R23 score of 2159 indicate that it can handle tasks like rendering a 3D scene or transcoding video, albeit slowly. However, any modern creative suite that leverages AVX2 or newer instruction sets, or that scales beyond four threads, will expose the i5-750’s limitations. The absence of SMT means that a modern 8-thread workload will simply saturate the CPU, causing severe slowdowns.

Office productivity and general desktop use are where this chip is most at home, but with caveats. The low single-thread performance means that spreadsheet calculations, PDF rendering, and even large browser tabs will feel sluggish. The data shows a 0.2% difference in average score compared to the Intel Core i3-5010U, which is a low-power mobile chip — this underscores that the i5-750 is now on par with energy-efficient laptop parts in overall performance. It is best suited for a legacy desktop system where the user is running older software or a lightweight Linux distribution that does not demand high single-thread speeds.

Benchmark Performance

The average benchmark score of 743 places the i5-750 in a tight cluster of rivals, all within a fraction of a percent of each other. The nearest rival, the AMD FX-9800P, scores 745, which is 0.3% higher than the i5-750. The Intel Core i3-5010U and the Intel Xeon E5520 both score 742 and 741 respectively, representing deltas of 0.2% and 0.3% in favor of the i5-750. The AMD Phenom II X4 B97 also scores 741, a 0.3% delta.

These differences are statistically negligible, meaning the i5-750 performs effectively identically to all four of these processors in aggregate benchmarks. The practical takeaway is that the i5-750 is not meaningfully faster or slower than its immediate competition — it is a benchmark dead heat. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score of 2159 and single-core score of 304 provide a more granular view, but the average score is the headline metric. The 19th percentile ranking confirms that this chip sits in the bottom fifth of all CPUs ever tested, which is a stark indicator of its age.

The Cinebench R20 multicore score of 906 is interesting because it is roughly 42% of the R23 multicore score, which is expected given the different rendering workloads. The R15 multicore score of 217 is the lowest of the set, indicating that older benchmark versions are even more punishing. None of these scores suggest any hidden headroom; the chip is performing exactly as its architecture dictates. The data shows no anomalies — it is a consistent, predictable performer that is simply outclassed by the vast majority of modern hardware.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core i5-750 compare to the AMD FX-9800P?

A: The average benchmark scores are 743 for the i5-750 and 745 for the FX-9800P, resulting in a 0.3% delta in favor of the AMD chip. This difference is negligible in real-world use.

Q: What is the single-core performance of this processor?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i5-750 scores 304 points. This is a very low score, indicating poor performance in tasks that rely on a single thread, such as many games and basic desktop applications.

Q: Does the i5-750 support ECC memory?

A: No, ECC memory is not supported. The processor supports dual-channel DDR3 memory only.

Q: What is the multi-core performance in Cinebench R20?

A: The Cinebench R20 multicore score is 906. This shows that the four cores can work together effectively for threaded workloads, but the absolute performance is low compared to modern CPUs.

Q: Is this processor unlocked for overclocking?

A: No, the multiplier is locked. Overclocking is not officially supported through the multiplier, though base clock adjustments may be possible on some motherboards.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size?

A: The processor contains 774 million transistors on a 296 mm² die, manufactured on Intel’s 45 nm process.

How It Compares

Against the Intel Core i3-5010U, the i5-750 is 0.2% faster in average score. The i3-5010U is a low-power mobile chip, so this comparison highlights that the i5-750’s desktop 95 W TDP buys almost no performance advantage over a power-sipping laptop part. Both are equally matched in aggregate, but the i5-750 will consume far more power to achieve the same result.

The AMD Phenom II X4 B97 is a direct contemporary rival, and the i5-750 edges it out by 0.3%. Both are quad-core designs from the same era, and the data shows that they perform within statistical noise of each other. This is a classic case of two older architectures reaching the same performance ceiling, with neither offering a compelling advantage.

The AMD FX-9800P is 0.3% faster than the i5-750. The FX-9800P is a later APU with integrated graphics, but its CPU cores are also weak by modern standards. The i5-750’s lack of integrated graphics means the AMD chip has a functional advantage in systems without a discrete GPU, despite the negligible CPU performance gap.

The Intel Xeon E5520 matches the i5-750 within 0.3%. The Xeon is a server part, but it shares the same Nehalem lineage. The data suggests that for single-socket desktop workloads, the i5-750 is effectively equivalent to this older Xeon, meaning any server-grade robustness does not translate into better benchmark scores.

Platform and Compatibility

The i5-750 uses the Intel Socket 1156 platform, which is long discontinued and end-of-life. The processor is not compatible with any modern motherboard, so any new build would require finding a used LGA 1156 board, which may lack modern features like USB 3.0 or SATA III. The chip supports PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes from the CPU only, meaning all expansion cards must go through those lanes.

Memory support is limited to dual-channel DDR3, with no ECC capability. This restricts the system to older, slower memory modules. The 45 nm process and 95 W TDP mean that cooling is straightforward, but the platform’s age makes it difficult to source replacement parts. The production status is end-of-life, and the release date of September 2009 confirms that this is a legacy platform with no forward-looking upgrade path. The part number is SLBLC, and the multiplier is locked, so overclocking is not a supported feature. For any user considering this chip, the data clearly shows that it is best suited as a historical reference or for a retro build, not for modern computing tasks.