OVERALL

ALTERNATIVES

SPECS

VS AVERAGE

REVIEWS

Intel Core i3 3225 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£120PassMark benchmark result:2280N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:LGA1155TDP (Thermal design power):55 W

Intel Core i3 3225 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.3

▼Worse than 81% of processors

3.9

▼Worse than 89% of processors

8.2

▲Better than 82% of processors

1.4
Gaming
Gaming
1.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Measures single-core benchmark performance, peak boost clock speeds, and fast L3 cache sizing critical for high frame rates.
When it matters
When you want to play demanding mobile games, 3D titles, or run graphics-intensive apps smoothly.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
30.0%
2.4
PassMark single-core benchmark score
25.0%
1.4
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
20.0%
?
CPU boost clock speed
17.0%
1.3
L3 cache
8.0%
1.0
N. of physical cores
1.3
Video editing
Video editing
1.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Assesses multi-core benchmark throughput, total physical core and thread count, and cache bandwidth for rapid video rendering.
When it matters
When evaluating how effectively this processors meets your specific video editing needs.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
45.0%
1.0
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
20.0%
1.0
N. of physical cores
20.0%
2.1
CPU threads
15.0%
1.3
L3 cache

Best prices

*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

Best rankings

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i3 3225

4.3

Show more

Hide

Platform

7.1

Show more

Hide

Brand name

Intel

Processor type

CPU socket

Chipset

?

CPU architecture

Show more

Performance

3.1

Show more

Hide

N. of physical cores

CPU threads

Threads per core

CPU boost clock speed

N/A

CPU base clock speed

Show more

Cache & Architecture

4.0

Show more

Hide

Semiconductor size

Foundry

L3 cache

L2 cache

L1 cache

Show more

Memory & PCIe

3.7

Show more

Hide

DDR memory version

Maximum memory speed

Max memory speed (JEDEC)

Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)

N/A

Maximum memory capacity

Show more

Integrated Graphics

6.8

Show more

Hide

Integrated graphics

Integrated GPU model

Integrated GPU execution units

Integrated GPU base frequency

Integrated media encoders/decoders

Show more

Power & Thermal

7.8

Show more

Hide

TDP (Thermal design power)

Base power (PL1)

Boost power (PL2)

Tau (power duration limit)

N/A

Configurable TDP

Show more

Intel Core i3 3225 vs the average processor

Why is Intel Core i3 3225 better than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

4.05x faster Blender rendering
Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
1,568.99
★ Better than 93% of models
Market range: <97 – >1.3k
This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,569 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
1,568.99 vs 387.66
Includes stock cooler
Cooler included
yes
▲ Better than 74% of models
This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
33.3% smaller die size
Die size
118 mm²
▲ Better than 83% of models
Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (118 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
118 mm² vs 177 mm²
5 °C higher TJ Max
Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
105 °C
▲ Better than 84% of models
Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
105 °C vs 100 °C
4.71x more popular
Intel Core i3 3225 is more popular than the average processor (4.71 vs 1).
4.71 vs 1
2.3% higher user score
User score
8.2/ 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
▼
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Intel Core i3 3225
the average processor
Intel Core i3 3225 has a higher user score than the average processor (8.19 vs 8.000).
8.19 vs 8
85.7% higher GPU clock speed
Integrated GPU base frequency
650 MHz
▲ Better than 80% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (650 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
650 MHz vs 350 MHz

4.71x more popular
Intel Core i3 3225 is more popular than the average processor (4.71 vs 1).
4.71 vs 1
2.3% higher user score
User score
8.2/ 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
▼
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Intel Core i3 3225
the average processor
Intel Core i3 3225 has a higher user score than the average processor (8.19 vs 8.000).
8.19 vs 8

4.05x faster Blender rendering
Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
1,568.99
★ Better than 93% of models
Market range: <97 – >1.3k
This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,569 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
1,568.99 vs 387.66

33.3% smaller die size
Die size
118 mm²
▲ Better than 83% of models
Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (118 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
118 mm² vs 177 mm²

85.7% higher GPU clock speed
Integrated GPU base frequency
650 MHz
▲ Better than 80% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (650 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
650 MHz vs 350 MHz

Includes stock cooler
Cooler included
yes
▲ Better than 74% of models
This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
5 °C higher TJ Max
Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
105 °C
▲ Better than 84% of models
Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
105 °C vs 100 °C

Why is Intel Core i3 3225 worse than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

88.9% lower multi-core score
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
537
▼ Worse than 95% of models
Market range: <763 – >14k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (537 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
537 vs 4,829
78.4% lower PassMark score
PassMark benchmark result
2,280
▼ Worse than 92% of models
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,280 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
2,280 vs 10,572.5
4 fewer CPU cores
N. of physical cores
2
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
2 vs 6
63.5% lower single-core score
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
537
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Market range: <561 – >2.7k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (537 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
537 vs 1,471
31.8% weaker single-core performance
PassMark single-core benchmark score
1,705
▼ Worse than 83% of models
Market range: <1.4k – >4k
This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,705 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
1,705 vs 2,500
83.3% larger process node
Semiconductor size
22 nm
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (22 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
22 nm vs 12 nm
No configurable TDP
Configurable TDP
no
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
Narrower instruction support
Instruction sets
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX
▼ Worse than 98% of models
This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA

9.7% worse value for money
Intel Core i3 3225 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.98 vs 6.6).
5.98 vs 6.56

Narrower instruction support
Instruction sets
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX
▼ Worse than 98% of models
This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
8 years older release date
Release date
2012
▼ Worse than 95% of models
Market range: <2k – >2k
This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2012 vs 2020).
September 2012
2012 vs 2020

88.9% lower multi-core score
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
537
▼ Worse than 95% of models
Market range: <763 – >14k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (537 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
537 vs 4,829
78.4% lower PassMark score
PassMark benchmark result
2,280
▼ Worse than 92% of models
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,280 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
2,280 vs 10,572.5
4 fewer CPU cores
N. of physical cores
2
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
2 vs 6
63.5% lower single-core score
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
537
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Market range: <561 – >2.7k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (537 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
537 vs 1,471
31.8% weaker single-core performance
PassMark single-core benchmark score
1,705
▼ Worse than 83% of models
Market range: <1.4k – >4k
This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,705 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
1,705 vs 2,500
4 fewer CPU threads
CPU threads
4
▼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
4 vs 8
Lower base clock
CPU base clock speed
2 x 3.3 GHz
▼ Worse than 80% of models
This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
2x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
37.5% lower bus speed
Bus speed
5 GT/s
▼ Worse than 56% of models
Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
37.5% lower bus transfer rate
Bus transfer rate
5 GT/s
▼ Worse than 62% of models
Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
No Turbo Boost
Turbo Boost version
no
▼ Worse than 89% of models
This processor does not support Turbo Boost, the average processor does. 88.6% of processors support Turbo Boost.

83.3% larger process node
Semiconductor size
22 nm
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (22 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
22 nm vs 12 nm
Less advanced microarchitecture
Microarchitecture codename
Ivy Bridge
▼ Worse than 75% of models
This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Ivy Bridge vs Kaby Lake).
Ivy Bridge vs Kaby Lake
80% smaller L2 cache
L2 cache
0.5 MB
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
50% less L2 per core
L2 per core
0.25 MB/core
▼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
66.7% smaller L1 cache
L1 cache
128 KB
▼ Worse than 83% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (128 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
128 KB vs 384 KB
62.5% smaller L3 cache
L3 cache
3 MB
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (3 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
3 MB vs 8 MB
12.5% less L3 per core
L3 per core
1.5 MB/core
▼ 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
83.2% fewer transistors
N. of transistors
0.83 billion
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (0.8 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
0.83 billion vs 4.95 billion
Less advanced foundry
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
▼ Worse than 85% of models
This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 22 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
Intel 22 nm vs Intel 14 nm

Older DDR support
DDR memory version
DDR3
▼ Worse than 86% of models
This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
DDR3 vs DDR4
44.1% lower memory bandwidth
Maximum memory bandwidth
25.6 GB/s
▼ Worse than 86% of models
Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (25.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
25.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
45.4% lower memory speed
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
▼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1600 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
1,600 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
Older PCIe version
PCIe version
2.0
▼ Worse than 92% of models
This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
2.0 vs 3.0
Lower JEDEC memory speed
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1600 MHz
▼ Worse than 89% of models
This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-1600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
DDR3-1,600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
50% less memory capacity
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
▼ Worse than 72% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
32 GB vs 64 GB
Limited PCIe bifurcation
PCIe bifurcation modes
x16, x8/x8
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4

Narrower media codec support
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode)
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
Inferior integrated GPU
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 4000
▼ Worse than 69% of models
This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 4000 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
Intel HD Graphics 4,000 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630

No configurable TDP
Configurable TDP
no
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
22.2% higher base power
Base power (PL1)
55 W
▼ Worse than 64% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (55 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
55 W vs 45 W
22.2% higher TDP
TDP (Thermal design power)
55 W
▼ Worse than 64% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (55 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
55 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

browser.geekbench.com

22/10/2026

Summary of the review

Intel Core i3-3225 Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser

The Intel Core i3-3225 is a 3rd-generation "Ivy Bridge" desktop processor, launched in late 2012, that features two cores, four threads, and a 3.3 GHz clock speed. Its defining feature is the integrated Intel HD Graphics 4000, making it a strong choice for HTPCs or entry-level systems, with a low 55W TDP being a significant pro for power efficiency. However, key cons include the lack of Turbo Boost, a locked multiplier preventing overclocking, and it is a poor value if using a dedicated graphics card. For a detailed look at benchmark results, visit Geekbench.

cpubenchmark.net

Q3 2012

Summary of the review

Intel Core i3-3225 @ 3.30GHz - CPU Benchmarks

The Intel Core i3-3225 is a 22nm Ivy Bridge dual-core processor operating at 3.3 GHz with Hyper-Threading and integrated Intel HD Graphics 4000. It is ideally suited for Home Theater PCs and light office tasks due to its 55W TDP, providing strong single-thread performance and capable integrated graphics without requiring a dedicated graphics card. Pros of the processor include low operating temperatures and efficient power consumption, making it quiet and power-efficient for daily use. Cons include a locked multiplier that restricts overclocking and the absence of Turbo Boost, limiting performance in high-demand scenarios. Additionally, it lacks advanced instruction sets and can struggle with heavy multi-tasking or modern gaming compared to higher-tier alternatives. For detailed specifications, see PassMark Software.

cpu.userbenchmark.com

01/09/2012

Summary of the review

Intel Core i3-3225 BX80637I33225 - CPU UserBenchmarks

The Intel Core i3-3225 is a dual-core Ivy Bridge processor featuring Hyper-Threading and improved Intel HD 4000 graphics, making it a capable, energy-efficient option for entry-level tasks. Its key pros include strong single-threaded performance for everyday usage and a low 55W TDP, alongside superior integrated graphics compared to other i3 models of its generation. However, cons include a lack of Turbo Boost technology, a locked multiplier limiting overclocking potential, and, while capable, limited performance in heavy multi-threaded scenarios compared to contemporary competition.

techradar.com

10/11/2012

Summary of the review

Intel Core i3-3225 review - TechRadar

The TechRadar review of the Intel Core i3-3225 identifies the dual-core 3.3GHz processor as an Ivy Bridge entry point featuring Intel HD 4000 graphics, but lacking the unlocked multiplier of "K-series" chips. While offering respectable general performance and remarkably low power consumption, it lacks Turbo Boost technology and faces stiff competition from multi-core alternatives in its price bracket. Ultimately, because AMD’s Trinity A10-5800K offered better integrated gaming performance and the FX-6200 provided superior multi-threaded value, the review concludes the i3-3225 is only ideal for specific low-power, non-discrete GPU builds. TechRadar

gamestar.de

15/09/2012

Summary of the review

Intel Core i3 3220 & 3225 - Cheapest Ivy Bridge Processors

The GameStar review highlights the Intel Core i3-3220 as a budget-friendly (approx. €115) entry into the Ivy Bridge architecture, featuring a 3.3 GHz dual-core design with Hyper-Threading. While lacking Turbo Boost, it excels in single-thread performance, offering strong results in gaming and applications compared to contemporaries. However, the integrated HD 2500 graphics are weak, making it best suited for builds with a dedicated graphics card. Key pros include high energy efficiency from the 22nm process and compatibility with older Socket 1155 motherboards, while cons include a locked multiplier preventing overclocking and lackluster integrated GPU performance. Copy

next.ink

18/09/2012

Summary of the review

The new Core i3-3225 and i3-3240T face the baptism of fire

The Intel Core i3-3225 and i3-3240T bring 22nm Ivy Bridge architecture to the entry-level market, offering a 10% performance increase over Sandy Bridge with enhanced efficiency. The 3.3 GHz i3-3225 features Intel HD 4000 graphics, while the 35W TDP i3-3240T focuses on low-power operation. Pros include excellent energy efficiency, superior integrated graphics on the 3225, and ideal TDP for small form factors, though both lack Turbo Boost, have locked multipliers, and lack AES-NI/VT-d, making them less suitable for enthusiasts.

ginjfo.com

18/09/2012

Summary of the review

Core i3-3225 and Core i3-3240T: Ivy Bridge and the Mid-Range

The GinjFo review highlights the 22nm Ivy Bridge Core i3-3225 (3.3 GHz, 55W) and Core i3-3240T (2.8 GHz, 35W) as efficient dual-core processors with Hyper-Threading and 3MB L3 cache, offering better performance than previous Sandy Bridge models. The i3-3225 shines with HD Graphics 4000, while the 3240T is optimized for low power consumption, making them solid, cost-effective options for office, media, and light gaming machines. Major downsides include locked multipliers restricting overclocking, lack of Turbo Boost, and absent advanced instruction sets like AES-NI and PCIe 3.0, facing strong competition from higher-performance AMD APUs in gaming, despite offering superior energy efficiency.

redusers.com

18/06/2013

Summary of the review

AMD A10-6800K "Richland" Review: Performance Benchmark vs. i3-3225

The AMD A10-6800K "Richland" is a high-end FM2-socket APU, acting as an iterative refresh of the "Trinity" architecture with 4.1 GHz base clock and integrated Radeon HD 8670D graphics. It offers marginal performance gains, supporting DDR3-2133 MHz memory for improved bandwidth and featuring "Dual Graphics" capability for budget-conscious users. However, the 100W TDP chip runs hot and offers only modest improvements over predecessors while lagging in pure CPU tasks behind competitors.

tomshw.it

15/03/2015

Summary of the review

Test Setup and Benchmarks

This Tom's Hardware review evaluates whether budget Ivy Bridge CPUs (Celeron G1610, Pentium G2020, Core i3-3225) are worthwhile upgrades over legacy LGA 775 systems like the Core 2 Duo E8400 and Quad Q9550. Benchmarks highlight the modern platform's superior per-clock performance, lower power consumption, and better gaming frame rates, with the Core i3-3225 often beating the older quad-core in lightly threaded tasks. While Ivy Bridge excels in efficiency and architecture, cons include locked multipliers that prevent overclocking, making them less suitable for enthusiasts compared to the highly overclockable Q9550, which still dominates in heavily threaded, older applications. Copy

tomshw.it

13/05/2013

Summary of the review

Performance Summary

This 2013 TomsHardware review evaluates whether 22nm Ivy Bridge processors (Celeron G1610, Pentium G2020, Core i3-3225) are worth upgrading to for users on legacy LGA 775 systems like the Core 2 Duo E8400 or Core 2 Quad Q9550. While new budget chips offer higher IPC and efficiency, the review weighs these against the raw, overclockable power of older enthusiast hardware. Performance results show the Core i3-3225 leads in gaming and single-threaded tasks, with modern dual-cores often beating older, stock-clocked, or entry-level chips. However, the overclocked Core 2 Quad Q9550 remains competitive in heavily threaded scenarios. Ivy Bridge chips excel in lower power consumption and superior, stock performance, but suffer from locked multipliers, whereas the old platform offers massive overclocking headroom but relies on dated, power-hungry technology. The analysis concludes that upgrading from a heavily overclocked Core 2 Quad to a budget i3 is rarely worth the cost, recommending a higher-end CPU for a significant boost. Copy

cpu.userbenchmark.com

Accessed March 2026

Summary of the review

UserBenchmark: Intel Core i3-3225 (Benchmarking data)

The Intel Core i3-3225 is a 3rd Gen Ivy Bridge dual-core processor operating at a fixed 3.3 GHz, distinguished by its integrated Intel HD Graphics 4000 and 55W TDP, making it efficient for HTPCs or basic office builds. Pros include exceptional single-threaded performance for its era, cool operation, and capable integrated graphics suitable for light, entry-level gaming. However, cons include the lack of Turbo Boost, a locked multiplier, limited performance in modern, multi-threaded applications, and no official Windows 11 support. Detailed technical specifications and user reviews can be found at TechPowerUp.

techradar.com

10/11/2012

Summary of the review

Intel Core i3-3225 Review

The TechRadar review identifies the Intel Core i3-3225 as a budget-focused Ivy Bridge dual-core processor (3.3GHz) featuring Hyper-Threading and superior HD 4000 integrated graphics. Pros include low power consumption (55W TDP), strong single-thread performance, and the capable HD 4000 graphics, making it ideal for HTPCs. Cons center on the lack of overclocking potential due to a locked multiplier, the absence of Turbo Boost, and stiff competition from AMD's Trinity lineup in the gaming space.

gathering.tweakers.net

16/01/2013

Summary of the review

Intel i3-3225 starts up very slowly

This Gathering of Tweakers forum thread documents a troubleshooting case involving an Intel Core i3-3225 system that exhibits extremely slow cold boot times, taking roughly 10 minutes to start after being off for 10 hours. The user observes a distinct, inconsistent pattern where the system performs faster restarts only after reaching a "warm" operating temperature. Gathering of TweakersThe primary issue highlighted is this severe, inconsistent boot delay compared to the user's previous AMD systems, while the main observation is that the performance stabilizes once warmed up. This behavior points to a potential cold-boot hardware initialization issue rather than a persistent component failure. Gathering of TweakersFor more details, visit Gathering of Tweakers.

hardware.info

16/09/2012

Summary of the review

Intel Core i3 3225 & 3220 review: entry-level Ivy Bridge - Conclusion

The Hardware.info review identifies the Intel Core i3-3220 and i3-3225 as efficient 22nm Ivy Bridge dual-core processors, offering a 10% performance boost over previous Sandy Bridge models. The i3-3225 is distinguished by its superior Intel HD Graphics 4000, while the i3-3220 uses the basic HD 2500, though both share a 55W TDP. While strong in energy efficiency and integrated graphics (i3-3225), key limitations include lack of Turbo Boost, locked multipliers, and an inability to handle high-end gaming.

Third-party reviews

Based on 16 buyer reviews from online shops.

Reviews last updated: May 2026 · How we calculate this

Read buyer reviews on Amazon →

What we like about Intel Core i3 3225

Integrated HD 4000 graphics provide superior on-board visual performance compared to standard i3 models (HD 2500)
Low power consumption (55W TDP) makes it ideal for energy-efficient or small form factor builds
Stays remarkably cool under load, often operating silently even with a stock cooler
Excellent performance for Home Theater PC (HTPC) use, including smooth 1080p video playback and transcoding
Strong single-thread performance for everyday office tasks and web browsing
Hyper-Threading support helps with basic multitasking by providing four logical cores

What we don't like about Intel Core i3 3225

Locked multiplier prevents traditional overclocking, which limits appeal for enthusiasts
Dual-core architecture struggles with modern, heavily multithreaded applications and AAA gaming
Inferior value-to-performance ratio compared to contemporary AMD rivals like the FX-6300 for multi-core tasks
Lack of Turbo Boost technology means it cannot automatically increase clock speeds under heavy load
Integrated graphics, while improved, are still insufficient for demanding 3D games without a dedicated GPU
Considered outdated by current standards, losing significantly to modern entry-level quad-core processors

Verdict

The Intel Core i3-3225 is a 3rd Gen 'Ivy Bridge' desktop processor released in Q3 2012, featuring 2 cores, 4 threads via Hyper-Threading, and a fixed base clock speed of 3.3 GHz on the LGA 1155 socket. Built on a 22nm process with a 55W TDP, it includes 3MB of Intel Smart Cache and natively supports dual-channel DDR3-1333/1600 memory up to 32GB. Its primary advantage is the integrated Intel HD Graphics 4000, which offered superior onboard visual performance compared to standard i3 models of its time, making it ideal for budget HTPCs or office builds without a discrete GPU. However, it lacks Intel Turbo Boost technology, has a locked multiplier that prevents traditional overclocking, and its dual-core architecture struggles with modern highly multi-threaded applications and gaming.

Best alternatives

AMD Ryzen 5 8500G

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 7600

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 7500F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 5700

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 8600G

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 7400F

Processors

Intel Core i3 14100

Processors

Intel Core Ultra 5 225

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 8400F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 7600X

Processors

See best alternatives in Buying Guide

Compare Intel Core i3 3225 with other processors

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i3 3225 and other processors

No results found