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 i3 3240 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£9PassMark benchmark result:2353N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:LGA1155TDP (Thermal design power):55 W

Intel Core i3 3240 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

Overall score

Score
4.3/ 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–¼ Worse than 81% of models
Score components

90%

3.9

Technical score

10%

8.6

User score

â–¼Worse than 81% of processors
3.9

Technical score

Technical score
3.9/ 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–¼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components

60%

3.0

Performance

18%

4.2

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

7.1

Platform

1%

6.5

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 90% of processors
8.6

User score

User score
8.6/ 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–² Better than 87% of models
Score components

70%

8.6

User ratings

30%

8.6

Number of reviews

Based on 335 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
â–²Better than 87% of processors
  • intel-core-i3-3240
  • intel-core-i3-3240
  • intel-core-i3-3240
  • intel-core-i3-3240
  • intel-core-i3-3240
  • intel-core-i3-3240
intel-core-i3-3240
intel-core-i3-3240
intel-core-i3-3240
intel-core-i3-3240
intel-core-i3-3240
intel-core-i3-3240

Best prices

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

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 i3 3240

Technical score
Technical score
3.9/ 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–¼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components:

60%

3.0

Performance

18%

4.2

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

7.1

Platform

1%

6.5

Integrated Graphics

3.9
User score
User score
8.6/ 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–² Better than 87% of models
Score components

70%

8.6

User ratings

30%

8.6

Number of reviews

Based on 335 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
8.6
Popularity
Popularity
8.6/ 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–² Better than 88% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core i3 3240 has a popularity score of 8.6 points, which is higher than that of 88.3% of products in this category.
8.6
Value for money
Value for money
6.0/ 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–¼ Worse than 76% of models
Score components:

60%

4.3

Overall score

40%

10

Price

6.0
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
desktop
Processor type
desktop
â–² Better than 56% of models
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 56% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1155
CPU socket
LGA1155
â–² Better than 55% of models
This processor uses the LGA1155 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 54.8% of processors and equal to that of 2% of processors.
Chipset
?
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
2
N. of physical cores
2
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 79.3% of processors and equal to 20.6% of processors.
CPU threads
4
CPU threads
4
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 67.4% of processors and equal to 26.5% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
â–² Better than 30% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 2 threads per core, which is more than 30.3% of processors and equal to 69.7% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
N/A
CPU base clock speed
2x 3.4 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 3.4 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
This processor has a base clock of 2x3.4 GHz which is lower than that of 79% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
22 nm
Semiconductor size
22 nm
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 22 nm process node, which is older than that of 84.6% of processors and equal to that of 10.1% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 22 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 84.6% of processors and equal to that of 10.1% of processors.
L3 cache
3 MB
L3 cache
3 MB
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 3 MB which is smaller than that of 84.8% of processors and equal to that of 5.6% of processors.
L2 cache
0.5 MB
L2 cache
0.5 MB
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 0.5 MB which is smaller than that of 84.7% of processors and equal to that of 15.3% of processors.
L1 cache
128 KB
L1 cache
128 KB
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 128 KB which is smaller than that of 83.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.8% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3
DDR memory version
DDR3
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR3, which is older than that of 86.3% of processors and equal to that of 13.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,600 MHz, which is lower than that of 87.2% of processors and equal to 11.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
?
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 71.9% of processors and equal to 19.5% 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 HD Graphics 2500
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 2500
â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 2500 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 72.6% of processors and equal to that in 1.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
6
Integrated GPU execution units
6
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 6 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 83.8% of processors and equal to 6.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
650 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
650 MHz
â–² Better than 80% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 650 MHz which is higher than that of 80.4% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode)
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 53% of processors and equal to 4.9% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
55 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
55 W
â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 55 W which is higher than that of 63.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
55 W
Base power (PL1)
55 W
â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 55 W which is higher than that of 64% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
Configurable TDP
no
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Core i3 3240 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes stock cooler
    Cooler included
    yes
    â–² Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
  • Supports memory overclocking
    Memory overclocking
    yes
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 46.9% smaller die size
    Die size
    94 mm²
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (94 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    94 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 5 °C higher TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    â–² 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
  • 8.62x more popular
    Intel Core i3 3240 is more popular than the average processor (8.62 vs 1).
    8.62 vs 1
  • 27.78x cheaper
    Intel Core i3 3240 is cheaper than the average processor (£9 vs £250).
    £9 vs £250
  • 7.9% higher user score
    User score
    8.6/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    Intel Core i3 3240
    the average processor
    Intel Core i3 3240 has a higher user score than the average processor (8.63 vs 8.000).
    8.63 vs 8
  • 85.7% higher GPU clock speed
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    650 MHz
    â–² 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
  • 8.62x more popular
    Intel Core i3 3240 is more popular than the average processor (8.62 vs 1).
    8.62 vs 1
  • 27.78x cheaper
    Intel Core i3 3240 is cheaper than the average processor (£9 vs £250).
    £9 vs £250
  • 7.9% higher user score
    User score
    8.6/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    Intel Core i3 3240
    the average processor
    Intel Core i3 3240 has a higher user score than the average processor (8.63 vs 8.000).
    8.63 vs 8
  • 46.9% smaller die size
    Die size
    94 mm²
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (94 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    94 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Supports memory overclocking
    Memory overclocking
    yes
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 85.7% higher GPU clock speed
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    650 MHz
    â–² 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
    â–² 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
    â–² 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
  • 77.7% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2,353
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,353 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,353 vs 10,572.5
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ 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
  • 76.8% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1,118
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,118 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,118 vs 4,829
  • 63% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    544
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (544 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    544 vs 1,471
  • 29% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,774
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,774 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,774 vs 2,500
  • 83.3% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    22 nm
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Ivy Bridge
    â–¼ 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
  • 8.8% worse value for money
    Intel Core i3 3240 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.03 vs 6.6).
    6.03 vs 6.56
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C 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
    â–¼ 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
  • No crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
    This processor does not include crypto acceleration, the average processor does. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
  • 77.7% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2,353
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,353 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,353 vs 10,572.5
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ 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
  • 76.8% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1,118
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,118 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,118 vs 4,829
  • 63% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    544
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (544 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    544 vs 1,471
  • 29% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,774
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,774 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,774 vs 2,500
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    â–¼ 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 3.4 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x3.4 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x3.4 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 36.9% slower classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    210.89
    Category Benchmark
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (210.9 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    210.89 vs 334.1
  • 37.5% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    5 GT/s
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    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
  • Less advanced foundry
    Foundry
    Intel 22 nm
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2.0 vs 3.0
  • 50% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    32 GB
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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)
    â–¼ 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)
  • 75% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    6
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (6 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    6 vs 24
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Intel HD Graphics 2500
    â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 2500 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel HD Graphics 2,500 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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

O
openbenchmarking.org
Current Data
Summary of the review
Intel Core i3-3240 Benchmarks, Linux Performance
C
cpubenchmark.net
Current Data
Summary of the review
Intel Core i3-3240 @ 3.40GHz - CPU Benchmarks
B
browser.geekbench.com
Current Data
Summary of the review
Intel Core i3-3240 Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser
S
servethehome.com
08/10/2012
Summary of the review
Intel Core i3-3240 55w Dual Core CPU Benchmark and Review
G
gekko-computer.de
22/10/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i3-3240 Dual-Core CPU, Socket 1155, 3.4GHz, 3MB Cache, 5GT/s
(Translated)Show original
V
visionit.in
N/A
Summary of the review
Performance Test: Is the 3rd Generation Intel Core i3 Processor Good?", "Benchmark: How Good is the 3rd Gen Intel Core i3?
(Translated)Show original
G
geekom.fr
28/10/2024
Summary of the review
Intel Celeron vs. Intel Core i3: Which is best for you? (3rd Gen Comparative Analysis)
(Translated)Show original
T
technonagib.fr
06/06/2025
Summary of the review
Upgrading a Dell Optiplex 7010 SFF (i3-3240 Performance Benchmark)
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
Geen datum vermeld
Summary of the review
Intel Core i3-3240 processor - Hardware Info
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

Based on 335 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 3240

  • Excellent power efficiency with a low TDP of 55W, making it cost-effective for long-term use.
  • Runs remarkably cool and quiet even with stock cooling solutions.
  • Solid performance for basic home office tasks, web browsing, and HD media streaming.
  • Features Hyper-Threading (2 cores/4 threads), which provides a slight edge over same-generation Pentiums in multitasking.
  • Supports ECC memory, making it a niche but viable option for low-power storage servers or HTPCs.
  • Capable of running older or less demanding esports titles like Minecraft or CS:GO at playable frame rates when paired with a dedicated GPU.

What we don't like about Intel Core i3 3240

  • Dual-core architecture heavily bottlenecks modern AAA gaming and resource-intensive applications.
  • Integrated Intel HD 2500 graphics are insufficient for anything beyond basic display duties.
  • Lacks modern features like Turbo Boost and the AVX2 instruction set, limiting its performance in calculation-heavy software.
  • Locked multiplier prevents any meaningful overclocking for performance gains.
  • Limited upgrade path due to its reliance on the aging LGA 1155 socket and DDR3 memory.
  • Struggles with modern multitasking; users report significant stuttering and dropped frames in recent titles or heavy browser loads.

Verdict

The Intel Core i3-3240 is a 3rd Generation Ivy Bridge desktop processor released in Q3 2012, featuring 2 cores and 4 threads via Hyper-Threading with a fixed base frequency of 3.40 GHz. Built on a 22nm lithography for the LGA 1155 socket, it includes 3MB of Intel Smart Cache, a 55W TDP, and integrated Intel HD Graphics 2500. Its main advantages include consistent performance for basic office tasks, low power consumption that makes it easy to cool, and support for up to 32GB of DDR3-1333/1600 memory. However, it lacks Turbo Boost technology, does not support PCIe 3.0 or modern instruction sets like AES-NI, and its dual-core architecture significantly bottlenecks modern gaming and intensive creative applications.

Compare Intel Core i3 3240 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 i3 3240 and other processors

No results found