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 1035g1 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£250PassMark benchmark result:7146N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.6 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1526TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Core i5 1035g1 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.6

Overall score

Score
4.6/ 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 71% of models
Score components

90%

4.6

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 71% of processors
4.6

Technical score

Technical score
4.6/ 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 67% of models
Score components

60%

3.6

Performance

18%

5.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.5

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 67% 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~ £250

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 1035g1

Technical score
Technical score
4.6/ 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 67% of models
Score components:

60%

3.6

Performance

18%

5.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.5

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated Graphics

4.6
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 1035g1 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%

4.6

Overall score

40%

9.2

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
FCBGA1526
CPU socket
FCBGA1526
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1526 CPU socket, which is older than that of 79% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% 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
3.6 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.6 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.6 GHz which is lower than that of 76.7% of processors and equal to that of 3.6% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.0 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.0 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x1.0 GHz which is lower than that of 93.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Semiconductor size
10 nm
â–² Better than 52% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 52.4% of processors and equal to that of 19.1% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 10 nm
Foundry
Intel 10 nm
â–² Better than 52% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 10 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 52.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% 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
2 MB
L2 cache
2 MB
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 51% of processors and equal to that of 11.2% of processors.
L1 cache
320 KB
L1 cache
320 KB
â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 320 KB which is smaller than that of 55.2% of processors and equal to that of 4.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4
â–² Better than 60% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR4, which is newer than that of 60.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
3,733 MHz
Maximum memory speed
3,733 MHz
â–² Better than 60% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 3,733 MHz, which is higher than that of 60.2% of processors and equal to 1.2% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4-3733 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4-3733 MHz
â–² Better than 57% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR4-3733 MHz, which is higher than that of 57.2% of processors and equal to 1% 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.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics G1
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics G1
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics G1 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 63.2% of processors and equal to that in 0.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
32
Integrated GPU execution units
32
â–² Better than 71% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 32 GPU execution units, which is more than 70.9% of processors and equal to 9.9% 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
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
â–² Better than 81% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), JPEG (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 81% of processors and equal to 0.2% of processors.
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)
25 W
Boost power (PL2)
25 W
â–² Better than 83% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 25 W which is lower than that of 83% of processors and equal to that of 8% 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 1035g1 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4.57x faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,770.02
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,770 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,770.02 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
  • 58.3% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    25 W
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    25 W vs 60 W
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Ice Lake
    â–² Better than 55% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Ice Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Ice Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 30.5% smaller die size
    Die size
    123 mm²
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (123 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    123 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
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/LPDDR4
    â–² Better than 60% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    Intel 10 nm
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 10 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 10 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 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
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, VAES, SHA
    â–² Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, VAES, SHA vs AES, SHA
  • 4.57x faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,770.02
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,770 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,770.02 vs 387.66
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Ice Lake
    â–² Better than 55% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Ice Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Ice Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 30.5% smaller die size
    Die size
    123 mm²
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (123 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    123 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    Intel 10 nm
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 10 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 10 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 16.7% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    10 nm
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (10 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    10 nm vs 12 nm
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/LPDDR4
    â–² Better than 60% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4
  • 27.3% higher memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    58.3 GB/s
    â–² Better than 64% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (58.3 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    58.3 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 27.3% higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    3,733 MHz
    â–² Better than 60% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (3733 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    3,733 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 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
  • 58.3% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    25 W
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    25 W vs 60 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
  • 16.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.6 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 56.6% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,210
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,210 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,210 vs 2,791
  • 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
  • 50.5% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    2,389
    â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,389 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,389 vs 4,829
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 1.0 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x1.0 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 32.4% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    7,146
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,146 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,146 vs 10,572.5
  • 13% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2,175
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,175 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,175 vs 2,500
  • 14.1% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    420
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (420 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    420 vs 489
  • 9.1% worse value for money
    Intel Core i5 1035g1 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.01 vs 6.6).
    6.01 vs 6.56
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1526
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1526 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1526 vs FP4
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, VAES, BMI2
    â–¼ Worse than 52% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, VAES, BMI2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, VAES, BMI2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 16.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.6 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 56.6% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,210
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,210 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,210 vs 2,791
  • 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
  • 50.5% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    2,389
    â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,389 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,389 vs 4,829
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 1.0 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x1.0 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 32.4% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    7,146
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,146 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,146 vs 10,572.5
  • 13% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2,175
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,175 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,175 vs 2,500
  • 14.1% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    420
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (420 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    420 vs 489
  • 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
  • 18 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    10
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (10 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    10 vs 28
  • 12.5% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.5 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 20% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    2 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    2 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 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

Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i5 1035g1

  • Efficient performance for everyday tasks like web browsing, office work, and video calls
  • Good value for money in mid-level ultrabooks
  • Energy-efficient architecture helps prolong laptop battery life
  • Reliable multitasking for basic to heavy productivity tasks
  • Stay relatively cool during standard office use compared to some rivals
  • Improved memory support for faster DDR4 and LPDDR4X RAM

What we don't like about Intel Core i5 1035g1

  • Integrated UHD G1 graphics are weak and unsuitable for modern, demanding games
  • Prone to thermal throttling under heavy loads in thin laptop designs
  • Low base clock frequency (1.0 GHz) can feel slow if turbo boost isn't active
  • Significant performance drop during intensive video editing or 3D rendering
  • May reach high temperatures (up to 100°C) during prolonged heavy use
  • Not a user-replaceable component as it is permanently soldered to the motherboard

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-1035G1 is a 10th-generation 'Ice Lake' quad-core processor built on a 10nm process, featuring 8 threads, a 1.0 GHz base frequency, and a 3.6 GHz max turbo boost. It includes 6MB of Intel Smart Cache and an integrated Intel UHD Graphics G1 with 32 execution units, supporting fast memory types like DDR4-3200 and LPDDR4-3733. Its main pros include high energy efficiency with a 15W default TDP, native support for Wi-Fi 6 and Thunderbolt 3, and stable performance for everyday office tasks and light multitasking. However, its primary cons are its weak integrated graphics, which make it unsuitable for modern gaming or heavy video editing, and its susceptibility to thermal throttling in slim laptop designs.

Compare Intel Core i5 1035g1 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 1035g1 and other processors

No results found