OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Core 5 210H Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£160PassMark benchmark result:18464N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:4.8 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1744TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

Intel Core 5 210H Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.3

Overall score

Score
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 75% of models
Score components

90%

7.3

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–²Better than 75% of processors
7.3

Technical score

Technical score
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 76% of models
Score components

60%

7.1

Performance

18%

7.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

8.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.7

Platform

1%

8.4

Integrated Graphics

â–²Better than 76% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £160

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core 5 210H

Technical score
Technical score
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 76% of models
Score components:

60%

7.1

Performance

18%

7.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

8.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.7

Platform

1%

8.4

Integrated Graphics

7.3
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core 5 210H has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 85% of models
Score components:

60%

7.3

Overall score

40%

9.7

Price

8.0
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1744
CPU socket
FCBGA1744
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1744 CPU socket, which is older than that of 71.8% of processors and equal to that of 5% of processors.
Chipset
WM790, HM770
Chipset
WM790, HM770
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
This processor supports WM790, HM770 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 59.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
8
N. of physical cores
8
â–² Better than 63% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 8 CPU cores, which is more than 63.4% of processors and equal to 13.6% of processors.
CPU threads
12
CPU threads
12
â–² Better than 55% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 12 CPU threads, which is more than 55% of processors and equal to 14.1% of processors.
Threads per core
?
CPU boost clock speed
4.8 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
4.8 GHz
â–² Better than 71% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.8 GHz which is higher than that of 71.2% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.2 GHz & 4x 1.6 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.2 GHz & 4x 1.6 GHz
â–² Better than 56% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.2 GHz & 4x1.6 GHz which is higher than that of 55.8% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Semiconductor size
10 nm
â–² Better than 52% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 52.4% of processors and equal to that of 19.1% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 7
Foundry
Intel 7
â–² Better than 66% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 7 foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 66.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.9% of processors.
L3 cache
12 MB
L3 cache
12 MB
â–² Better than 54% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 12 MB which is larger than that of 54.4% of processors and equal to that of 9% of processors.
L2 cache
?
L1 cache
704 KB
L1 cache
704 KB
â–² Better than 77% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 704 KB which is larger than that of 77.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X
★ Better than 97% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X, which is newer than that of 97.3% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
6,400 MHz
Maximum memory speed
6,400 MHz
â–² Better than 84% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 6,400 MHz, which is higher than that of 83.9% of processors and equal to 8.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5-6400 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5-6400 MHz
â–² Better than 84% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5-6400 MHz, which is higher than that of 84.4% of processors and equal to 3.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
96 GB
Maximum memory capacity
96 GB
â–² Better than 56% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 96 GB of memory, which is more than 56% of processors and equal to 5.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Intel Iris Xe Graphics 48EU
Integrated GPU model
Intel Iris Xe Graphics 48EU
â–² Better than 78% of models
This processor uses the Intel Iris Xe Graphics 48EU integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 78.3% of processors and equal to that in 0.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
48
Integrated GPU execution units
48
â–² Better than 83% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 48 GPU execution units, which is more than 82.6% of processors and equal to 4.7% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
400 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
400 MHz
â–² Better than 69% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 400 MHz which is higher than that of 68.7% of processors and equal to that of 7.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode)
â–¼ Worse than 50% of models
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 50.4% of processors and equal to 0.5% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
â–¼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 45 W which is lower than that of 40.1% of processors and equal to that of 11.4% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
45 W
Base power (PL1)
45 W
â–¼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 45 W which is lower than that of 39.9% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
115 W
Boost power (PL2)
115 W
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 115 W which is higher than that of 71.3% of processors and equal to that of 7.3% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
â–¼ Worse than 10% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 3.4% of processors and equal to that of 86.1% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
cTDP: 35 W
Show more

Intel Core 5 210H vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.07x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    9,981
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,981 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    9,981 vs 4,829
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Raptor Lake Refresh
    â–² Better than 79% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raptor Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake).
    Raptor Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake
  • 62.2% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    2,386
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,386 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,386 vs 1,471
  • 12 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    28
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (28 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    28 vs 16
  • 40.8% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    3,520
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,520 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    3,520 vs 2,500
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    5.0
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5.0 vs 3.0
  • 4x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    2 MB/core
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    E-core cluster: 2 MB shared
    2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4
  • 21.9% better value for money
    Intel Core 5 210H has better value for money than the average processor (8 vs 6.6).
    8 vs 6.56
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 4 years newer release date
    Release date
    2024
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2024 vs 2020).
    December 2024
    2024 vs 2020
  • Supports HMP
    Uses HMP
    yes
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    This processor supports HMP, the average processor does not. 22.7% of processors support HMP.
  • 2.07x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    9,981
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,981 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    9,981 vs 4,829
  • 62.2% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    2,386
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,386 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,386 vs 1,471
  • 40.8% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    3,520
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,520 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    3,520 vs 2,500
  • 74.6% higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    18,464
    â–² Better than 68% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (18,464 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    18,464 vs 10,572.5
  • 11.6% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.8 GHz
    â–² Better than 71% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    4.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 2 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    8
    â–² Better than 63% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • 4 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    12
    â–² Better than 55% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (12 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    12 vs 8
  • 2 wider front-end design
    Front-end width
    6
    â–² Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <2 – >7
    This processor has a higher front-end width than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
    P-core 6, E-core 5
    6 vs 4
  • Supports Turbo Core
    Turbo Core version
    3.0
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    This processor supports Turbo Core, the average processor does not. 1.00% of processors support Turbo Core.
    Turbo Boost technology
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 2.2 GHz & 4 x 1.6 GHz
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (4x2.2 GHz & 4x1.6 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x2.2 GHz & 4x1.6 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Raptor Lake Refresh
    â–² Better than 79% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raptor Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake).
    Raptor Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake
  • 4x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    2 MB/core
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    E-core cluster: 2 MB shared
    2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • Uses big.LITTLE design
    big.LITTLE Architecture
    yes
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, the average processor does not. 20.5% of processors use a big.LITTLE design.
    P-cores + E-cores
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    Intel 7
    â–² Better than 66% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm
  • 83.3% larger L1 cache
    L1 cache
    704 KB
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (704 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    704 KB vs 384 KB
  • 16.7% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    10 nm
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (10 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    10 nm vs 12 nm
  • 50% larger L3 cache
    L3 cache
    12 MB
    â–² Better than 54% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (12 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    12 MB vs 8 MB
  • 12 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    28
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (28 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    28 vs 16
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    5.0
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5.0 vs 3.0
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4
  • 2.18x higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    6,400 MHz
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (6400 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    6,400 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    LPDDR5-6400 MHz
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5-6400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5-6,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 50% more memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    96 GB
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (96 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    96 GB vs 64 GB
  • Better integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Intel Iris Xe Graphics 48EU
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Intel Iris Xe Graphics 48EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Iris Xe Graphics 48EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 2x more GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    48
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has more GPU execution units than the average processor (48 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    48 vs 24
  • 1 more supported displays
    Maximum supported displays
    4
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 91.7% higher boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    115 W
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (115 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    115 W vs 60 W
  • 12.5% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.5 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x8/x4/x4
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    AV1 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode)
    â–¼ Worse than 50% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    AV1 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1744
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1744 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1744 vs FP4
  • 6 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    22
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (22 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    22 vs 28
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1744
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1744 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1744 vs FP4
  • 6 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    22
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (22 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    22 vs 28
  • 12.5% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.5 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x8/x4/x4
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    AV1 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode)
    â–¼ Worse than 50% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    AV1 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 91.7% higher boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    115 W
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (115 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    115 W vs 60 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

C
cpubenchmark.net
25/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core 5 210H - CPU Benchmarks
L
laptopmedia.com
14/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core 5 210H - benchmark tests
V
valid.x86.fr
01/03/2026
Summary of the review
CPU-Z Benchmark for Intel Core 5 210H (1T)
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
2024-Q4
Summary of the review
Intel Core 5 210H | LaptopMedia Italy
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core 5 210H

  • Improved clock speeds (up to 4.8 GHz) compared to predecessors like the i5-13420H
  • Solid single-threaded performance for gaming and everyday productivity
  • Good thermal management and temperature control reported by users
  • Supports modern standards including PCIe 5.0 and DDR5-5200 RAM
  • Energy efficient for its class, contributing to better battery life in laptops
  • Features AI acceleration support via Intel Deep Learning Boost

What we don't like about Intel Core 5 210H

  • Criticized for being a 'rebrand' of older Raptor Lake architecture (essentially a refreshed i5-13420H)
  • Limited core count (8 cores / 12 threads) compared to higher-tier modern processors
  • Integrated graphics (Iris Xe 48EU) are entry-level and struggle with high-demand gaming
  • Locked multiplier prevents easy overclocking
  • Some users view it as 'old tech' in a new naming scheme rather than a true generational leap

Verdict

The Intel Core 5 processor 210H is a high-performance laptop CPU from the Raptor Lake-H Refresh series, launched in Q4 2024. Built on the Intel 7 (10nm) process, it features a hybrid architecture with 8 cores (4 Performance-cores and 4 Efficient-cores) and 12 threads, delivering a max turbo frequency of 4.8 GHz and a 12 MB L3 cache. Key strengths include support for modern connectivity like PCIe 5.0 and DDR5-5200 memory (up to 96 GB), making it a capable choice for multitasking and entry-to-mid-level gaming. However, it is restricted to a relatively low 48 Execution Units in its integrated UHD graphics and lacks an unlocked multiplier for overclocking.

Compare Intel Core 5 210H with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core 5 210H and other processors

No results found