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 10300H Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£200PassMark benchmark result:8194N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.5 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1440TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

Intel Core i5 10300H Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.5

Overall score

Score
4.5/ 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 75% of models
Score components

90%

4.5

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 75% of processors
4.5

Technical score

Technical score
4.5/ 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 70% of models
Score components

60%

3.9

Performance

18%

4.0

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 70% 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~ £200

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 10300H

Technical score
Technical score
4.5/ 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 70% of models
Score components:

60%

3.9

Performance

18%

4.0

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated Graphics

4.5
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 10300H 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
6.0/ 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%

4.5

Overall score

40%

9.5

Price

6.0
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1440
CPU socket
FCBGA1440
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1440 CPU socket, which is older than that of 81.8% of processors and equal to that of 4.7% 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
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
4.5 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
4.5 GHz
â–² Better than 57% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.5 GHz which is higher than that of 56.5% of processors and equal to that of 5.4% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.5 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.5 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.5 GHz which is lower than that of 66.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% 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
8 MB
L3 cache
8 MB
â–¼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 8 MB which is larger than that of 39.7% of processors and equal to that of 11.8% 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
DDR3L/DDR4
DDR memory version
DDR3L/DDR4
â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR3L/DDR4, which is older than that of 77.7% of processors and equal to that of 5.4% of processors.
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)
?
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
â–² Better than 62% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 61.9% of processors and equal to 21.4% 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 UHD Graphics 630
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 630
â–¼ Worse than 47% of models
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 630 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 44.3% of processors and equal to that in 8.3% 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
350 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
â–² Better than 42% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 350 MHz which is higher than that of 42.3% of processors and equal to that of 26.1% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), JPEG (HW dec
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
â–¼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 45 W which is lower than that of 40.1% of processors and equal to that of 11.4% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
45 W
Base power (PL1)
45 W
â–¼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 45 W which is lower than that of 39.9% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
cTDP: 35 W
Show more

Intel Core i5 10300H vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 31.1% smaller die size
    Die size
    122 mm²
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (122 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    122 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 2x more memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    128 GB
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2, RDRAND, RDSEED
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2, RDRAND, RDSEED 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, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2, RDRAND, RDSEED vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 4.7% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.5 GHz
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    4.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard
    â–¼ Worse than 52% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2, RDRAND, RDSEED
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2, RDRAND, RDSEED 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, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2, RDRAND, RDSEED vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard
    â–¼ Worse than 52% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 4.7% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.5 GHz
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    4.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 31.1% smaller die size
    Die size
    122 mm²
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (122 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    122 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 2x more memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    128 GB
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • 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
  • 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
  • 31.1% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1924
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1924 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,924 vs 2,791
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), JPEG (HW dec
    Category Benchmark
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), JPEG (HW dec vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), JPEG (HW dec vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 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
  • 22.5% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    8,194
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (8,194 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    8,194 vs 10,572.5
  • 9.3% worse value for money
    Intel Core i5 10300H has worse value for money than the average processor (6 vs 6.6).
    6 vs 6.56
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1440
    â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1440 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1440 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
  • 31.1% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1924
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1924 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,924 vs 2,791
  • 22.5% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    8,194
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (8,194 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    8,194 vs 10,572.5
  • 16% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    4,055
    â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (4,055 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    4,055 vs 4,829
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 2.5 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.5 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x2.5 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 6.7% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    456
    â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (456 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    456 vs 489
  • 6.2% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,380
    â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,380 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,380 vs 1,471
  • 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
  • 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
  • Older DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR3L/DDR4
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), JPEG (HW dec
    Category Benchmark
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), JPEG (HW dec vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), JPEG (HW dec vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)

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
30/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-10300H - LaptopMedia
C
cpubenchmark.net
30/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-10300H @ 2.50GHz - CPU Benchmarks
L
laptopmedia.com
24/01/2020
Summary of the review
[Exclusive] Intel Core i5-10300H vs Core i5-9300H – 10th Gen Intel Core, LaptopMedia's first hands-on
L
laptopmedia.com
22/10/2026
Summary of the review
All our articles tagged with Core i5-10300H
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
07/05/2021
Summary of the review
Our articles with the Intel Core i5-10300H tag
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.com
12/05/2021
Summary of the review
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-55 Review: Best Budget King with RTX 3060
(Translated)Show original
N
notebooks-und-mobiles.de
23/12/2020
Summary of the review
Comet Lake - Intel Core i5-10300H Review
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.biz
07/11/2020
Summary of the review
Intel Comet Lake i5-10300H Laptop Processor - Benchmarks and Specs
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
24/01/2020
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-10300H vs Core i5-9300H – 10th Gen Intel Core LaptopMedia Exclusive
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopspirit.fr
28/01/2020
Summary of the review
Intel Comet Lake-H Quad Core i5-10300H Laptop Processor Tested by LaptopSpirit
(Translated)Show original
G
geeknetic.es
20/07/2020
Summary of the review
ACER Nitro 7 with Core i5-10300H and GTX 1660 Ti Review
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.it
21/08/2020
Summary of the review
HP Pavilion Gaming 16 Laptop Review: A Reasonably Priced Gaming Device
(Translated)Show original
F
forum.tomshw.it
02/12/2022
Summary of the review
OFFICIAL - Acer Nitro 5 (i5-10300H) Review
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
24/01/2020
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-10300H vs Core i5-9300H: 10th Gen Intel Core Comparison
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
13/05/2022
Summary of the review
Microsoft Surface Laptop Studio Review
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
14/06/2020
Summary of the review
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-55-52DV Review
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i5 10300H

  • Great value for budget-conscious buyers and entry-level gaming laptops
  • Strong single-core performance, which is beneficial for gaming
  • Capable of handling multitasking and standard productivity tasks like video editing or CAD
  • Higher boost clocks (up to 4.5 GHz) compared to its predecessor, the i5-9300H
  • Supports faster DDR4-2933 memory, providing a performance bump over older generations

What we don't like about Intel Core i5 10300H

  • Prone to high operating temperatures (often exceeding 90°C), which can lead to thermal throttling
  • Limited to 4 cores and 8 threads, which may struggle with modern, highly threaded multiplayer games in 2025 and beyond
  • Uses an older 14nm manufacturing process, making it less energy-efficient than newer 10nm or 7nm chips
  • Integrated UHD 630 graphics are weak and unsuitable for smooth gaming without a dedicated GPU
  • Lacks support for modern features like DDR5 memory, making it less future-proof

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-10300H is a 10th-generation quad-core processor designed for high-performance laptops, featuring 4 cores, 8 threads, and an 8 MB Intel Smart Cache. Built on a 14nm process, it operates at a 2.50 GHz base frequency with a maximum turbo boost of 4.50 GHz and a 45W TDP. Main pros include solid single-core performance for entry-level gaming and everyday productivity, support for up to 128 GB of DDR4-2933 RAM, and integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630. However, cons include poor energy efficiency compared to newer architectures, a tendency to run very hot (often exceeding 95°C) under heavy loads, and limited multi-core performance that can bottleneck modern, demanding applications.

Compare Intel Core i5 10300H 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 10300H and other processors

No results found