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 i5 10210U Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£260PassMark benchmark result:8565N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.2 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1528TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Core i5 10210U Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.8

Overall score

Score
4.8/ 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 65% of models
Score components

90%

4.8

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 65% of processors
4.8

Technical score

Technical score
4.8/ 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 62% of models
Score components

60%

4.5

Performance

18%

3.9

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

6.9

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 62% 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~ £260

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 i5 10210U

Technical score
Technical score
4.8/ 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 62% of models
Score components:

60%

4.5

Performance

18%

3.9

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

6.9

Integrated Graphics

4.8
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 i5 10210U 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
6.1/ 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 72% of models
Score components:

60%

4.8

Overall score

40%

9.2

Price

6.1
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
FCBGA1528
CPU socket
FCBGA1528
â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1528 CPU socket, which is older than that of 77.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
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
4
N. of physical cores
4
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 50.7% of processors and equal to 28.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
CPU threads
8
â–¼ Worse than 46% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 35.2% of processors and equal to 19.1% 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
4.2 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
4.2 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 52% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.2 GHz which is lower than that of 51.8% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.6 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.6 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x1.6 GHz which is lower than that of 81.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Semiconductor size
14 nm
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 50.6% of processors and equal to that of 33.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.2% of processors and equal to that of 29.3% of processors.
L3 cache
6 MB
L3 cache
6 MB
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 6 MB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
L2 cache
1 MB
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 66.9% of processors and equal to that of 17.7% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
L1 cache
256 KB
â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 59.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
?
Maximum memory speed
2,933 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,933 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 48% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,933 MHz, which is higher than that of 46.6% of processors and equal to 5.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4-2933 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4-2933 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 57% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR4-2933 MHz, which is lower than that of 57% of processors and equal to 0.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 28.4% of processors and equal to 27.5% 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.
Intel UHD Graphics
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 620
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 620
â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 620 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 55.8% of processors and equal to that in 1.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Integrated GPU execution units
24
â–² Better than 49% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.3% of processors and equal to 21.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 58.1% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
?
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
â–² Better than 78% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 78% of processors and equal to that of 16% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Base power (PL1)
15 W
â–² Better than 77% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 77.2% of processors and equal to that of 16.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
47 W
Boost power (PL2)
47 W
â–² Better than 69% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 47 W which is lower than that of 68.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% 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.
Show more

Intel Core i5 10210U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 6.81x faster classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    2,274.84
    â–² Better than 82% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (2,274.8 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    2,274.84 vs 334.1
  • 2.04x faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    790.56
    â–² Better than 82% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (790.6 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    790.56 vs 387.66
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 37.3% smaller die size
    Die size
    111 mm²
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (111 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    111 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 21.7% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    47 W
    â–² Better than 69% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (47 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    47 W vs 60 W
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 6.81x faster classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    2,274.84
    â–² Better than 82% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (2,274.8 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    2,274.84 vs 334.1
  • 2.04x faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    790.56
    â–² Better than 82% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (790.6 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    790.56 vs 387.66
  • 37.3% smaller die size
    Die size
    111 mm²
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (111 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    111 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 21.7% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    47 W
    â–² Better than 69% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (47 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    47 W vs 60 W
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Comet Lake
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 36.4% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    3,069
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,069 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,069 vs 4,829
  • 15.6% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2,110
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,110 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,110 vs 2,500
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 1.6 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1.6 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x1.6 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 19.1% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,190
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,190 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,190 vs 1,471
  • 16.7% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 7.1% worse value for money
    Intel Core i5 10210U has worse value for money than the average processor (6.13 vs 6.6).
    6.13 vs 6.56
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • No crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    This processor does not include crypto acceleration, the average processor does. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1528
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1528 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1528 vs FP4
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 36.4% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    3,069
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,069 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,069 vs 4,829
  • 15.6% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2,110
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,110 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,110 vs 2,500
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 1.6 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1.6 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x1.6 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 19.1% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,190
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,190 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,190 vs 1,471
  • 19% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    8,565
    â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (8,565 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    8,565 vs 10,572.5
  • 50% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 12 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    16
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (16 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    16 vs 28
  • 2.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.2 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 52% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    4.2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Comet Lake
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 16.7% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 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
  • 60% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    1 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    1 MB vs 2.5 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
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    256 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 25% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    6 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    6 MB vs 8 MB
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

L
laptopmedia.com
17/01/2021
Summary of the review
[Preliminary] Apple M1 vs Intel Core i5-10210U – Apple proves that they know how to make processors
C
cpu.userbenchmark.com
March 29, 2026 (Real-time)
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-10210U - CPU UserBenchmarks and Real World Tests
L
laptopmedia.com
18/01/2021
Summary of the review
[Comparison] Intel Core i5-1135G7 vs i5-10210U – the new 1135G7 is slightly better in CPU load, but the GPU is vastly improved
L
laptopmedia.com
03/11/2019
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-10510U vs i5-10210U - don't throw your money at the i7
T
techspot.com
23/10/2019
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-10210U Tested: 10th-Gen Laptop CPU with Adaptix Performance Boost
O
openbenchmarking.org
Q1 2020
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-10210U Benchmarks, Linux Performance Tests Do you need specific benchmark scores (like Cinebench or Geekbench) compared between this mod...
L
laptopmedia.com
03/11/2019
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-10510U vs i5-10210U - don't throw your money at the i7
L
laptopmedia.com
13/02/2020
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-1035G7 vs i5-10210U – the Ice Lake processor is more refined product
N
notebookcheck.com
11/06/2020
Summary of the review
Lenovo ThinkPad E15, i5-10210U - Notebookcheck.net External Reviews
(Translated)Show original
N
nbreview.de
29/07/2020
Summary of the review
ThinkPad L14 Gen 1 (Intel) Review
(Translated)Show original
H
hardwareluxx.de
19/02/2020
Summary of the review
Acer Aspire 5 with Core i5-10210U review
(Translated)Show original
V
valid.x86.fr
Non spécifiée
Summary of the review
CPU-Z Benchmark for Intel Core i5-10210U (8 Threads)
(Translated)Show original
G
galaxus.fr
05/05/2022
Summary of the review
Testing a Mini PC: ECS Liva Q3 Plus (vs. i5-10210U)", "ECS Liva Q3 Plus Mini PC Review (i5-10210U Comparison)
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.biz
09/04/2020
Summary of the review
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s Gen 1 Review (i5-10210U, UHD 620, FHD): Intel is the inferior choice
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.biz
19/08/2020
Summary of the review
Lenovo ThinkPad T14 Review (i5-10210U, UHD 620, FHD): Comet Lake adds very little
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.biz
17/09/2020
Summary of the review
Lenovo ThinkPad X13 Review (i5-10210U, UHD 620, FHD): Small, Light, and 4G Ready
(Translated)Show original
C
cpubenchmark.net
30/03/2026
Summary of the review
CPU Performance Benchmarks: Intel Core i5-10210U @ 1.60 GHz
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
12/02/2020
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-10210U vs i5-8265U – a close call, but the i5-10210U is slightly faster
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
15/05/2020
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 5 4500U vs Intel Core i5-10210U – A Comparison of Popular Processors
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
23/10/2019
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-10710U vs i5-10210U – Analysis of the most balanced processors
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
07/12/2020
Summary of the review
Intel Core i3-1005G1 vs Intel Core i5-10210U Comparison: Benchmark Tests
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
04/04/2020
Summary of the review
Huawei MateBook X Pro 2020 (Core i5-10210U) Review", "Huawei MateBook X Pro 2020 Review: The Core i5-10210U Model", "Testing the Huawei MateBook X Pro...
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
17/09/2020
Summary of the review
Dell Latitude 15 5510 review – a durable laptop with a great keyboard
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
08/05/2020
Summary of the review
Lenovo ThinkPad E15 review – a classic industrial package for the office
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
09/12/2019
Summary of the review
Dell Vostro 5590 review – the Empire strikes back
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
27/04/2020
Summary of the review
HP ProBook 440 G7 review – only a mild refresh but still a great business option
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
23/10/2019
Summary of the review
Lenovo Yoga C740 (14) review – solid chassis plus 10th Gen Intel processors
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
14/04/2020
Summary of the review
Compact Laptop Roundup: Four 14-inch Core i5 Models for 700 Euros
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
01/04/2023
Summary of the review
Laptop Best Buy Guide - April 2023
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
01/10/2020
Summary of the review
Laptop Best Buy Guide - October 2020
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
01/06/2020
Summary of the review
Laptop Best Buy Guide - June 2020
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i5 10210U

  • Reliable for everyday tasks like web browsing, spreadsheets, and office work
  • Significant multi-threaded performance gains compared to older 8th-gen i5 processors
  • Low power consumption (15W TDP) helps maintain longer battery life in many laptops
  • Supports modern features like Wi-Fi 6 and faster DDR4-2666 memory
  • Capable of light, casual gaming on low settings for older or less demanding titles

What we don't like about Intel Core i5 10210U

  • Poor gaming performance in modern AAA titles due to weak integrated Intel UHD 620 graphics
  • Prone to thermal throttling in thin laptop designs during intensive workloads
  • Based on older 14nm architecture, making it less efficient than newer 10nm or 7nm alternatives
  • Locked multiplier prevents any traditional overclocking for extra performance
  • Struggles with heavy professional tasks like high-resolution video editing without a discrete GPU

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-10210U is a power-efficient, quad-core mobile processor from the 10th Gen Comet Lake-U series, featuring 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, a base clock speed of 1.6 GHz, and a maximum turbo frequency of 4.2 GHz. Built on a refined 14nm process with a 15W TDP and 6 MB of Intel Smart Cache, its main pros include improved multi-threaded performance that rivals previous-generation i7 chips, support for faster LPDDR4x-2933 memory, and integrated Wi-Fi 6 compatibility. However, its primary cons are the aging architecture and the use of the older Intel UHD Graphics 620, which offers mediocre performance for gaming and GPU-intensive tasks compared to newer Iris Plus or Iris Xe alternatives.

Compare Intel Core i5 10210U 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 i5 10210U and other processors

No results found