OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core i5-11300H review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£270PassMark multi-core score:10760N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.4 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1449TDP (Thermal design power):35 W

Intel Core i5-11300H Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.4/10

Overall score

Score
6.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
Score components

40%

5.1

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 59% of processors
7.2

Value for money

Value for money
7.2/ 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 60% of models
Score components

70%

6.4

Overall score

30%

9.1

Price

â–¼Worse than 60%
5.1

Technical score

Technical score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
Score components

60%

4.0

Performance

18%

6.4

Architecture

10%

6.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.5

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

8.8

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 59%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £270
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 i5-11300H

Technical score
Technical score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
Score components:

60%

4.0

Performance

18%

6.4

Architecture

10%

6.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.5

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

8.8

Integrated graphics

5.1
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 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 60% of models
Score components:

70%

6.4

Overall score

30%

9.1

Price

7.2
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1449
This processor uses the FCBGA1449 CPU socket, which is older than that of 81.5% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
Chipset
QM580, HM570, WM590
This processor supports QM580, HM570, WM590 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 56.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 83.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 33.4% of processors and equal to 18.8% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.4 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.4 GHz which is higher than that of 48.6% of processors and equal to that of 5.1% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.6 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.6 GHz which is lower than that of 66.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
10,760
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 10,760 in PassMark, which is lower than 51.4% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 50.8% of processors and equal to that of 19.5% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 10 nm SuperFin
This processor is built on the Intel 10 nm SuperFin foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 53% of processors and equal to that of 2.5% of processors.
L3 cache
8 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 8 MB which is smaller than that of 50.7% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% of processors.
L2 cache
5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 5 MB which is larger than that of 62.9% of processors and equal to that of 2.5% of processors.
L1 cache
320 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 320 KB which is smaller than that of 56.1% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4X
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR4X, which is newer than that of 61.4% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
4,267 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 4,267 MHz, which is higher than that of 62.1% of processors and equal to 2.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4X-4267 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR4X-4267 MHz, which is higher than that of 59.4% of processors and equal to 2.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU
This processor uses the Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 78.5% of processors and equal to that in 2.4% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
80
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 80 GPU execution units, which is more than 91.4% of processors and equal to 3.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
400 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 400 MHz which is higher than that of 68.4% of processors and equal to that of 8.3% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 85.4% of processors and equal to 5.4% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.2% of processors and equal to that of 14% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.3% of processors and equal to that of 14.1% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
64 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 64 W which is lower than that of 49.6% of processors and equal to that of 3.8% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 4.4% of processors and equal to that of 85.3% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core i5-11300H vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.5x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, VAES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA).
    AES, VAES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4
  • 66.7% larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    5 MB vs 3 MB
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 10 nm SuperFin vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 10 nm SuperFin vs Intel 14 nm
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, VAES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA).
    AES, VAES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • 8.1% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,766 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,766 vs 2,558
  • 8.9% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,672 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,672 vs 1,535
  • 2.5x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 66.7% larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    5 MB vs 3 MB
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 10 nm SuperFin vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 10 nm SuperFin vs Intel 14 nm
  • 17.5% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (146.1 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    146.1 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4
  • 33.3% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (4,267 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    4,267 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 3.33x more GPU execution units
    This processor has more GPU execution units than the average processor (80 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    80 vs 24
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 22.2% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    35 W vs 45 W
  • 67.9% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,672 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,672 vs 5,209
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 74.2% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (87.8 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    87.78 vs 340.075
  • 27.5% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (2034 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    2,034 vs 2,804.5
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1449 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1449 vs FP5
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1449 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1449 vs FP5
  • 67.9% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,672 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,672 vs 5,209
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 74.2% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (87.8 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    87.78 vs 340.075
  • 27.5% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (2034 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    2,034 vs 2,804.5
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    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

Video reviews

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

Overview video
Overview video

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i5-11300H

  • Strong single-core performance suitable for daily tasks and office work
  • Significant performance jump (up to 37%) compared to older 9th and 10th gen i5 models
  • Improved Iris Xe integrated graphics are much faster than previous UHD graphics
  • Support for modern standards like PCIe 4.0, Wi-Fi 6, and Thunderbolt 4
  • Good value for money in budget or entry-level gaming laptops
  • Lower power consumption (35W TDP) compared to traditional 45W H-series chips

What customers don't like about Intel Core i5-11300H

  • Limited to only 4 cores, which struggles with modern multi-threaded applications and heavy multitasking
  • Often outperformed by AMD Ryzen 5000 series (e.g., 5600H) which offers more cores for a similar price
  • Marketed as a 'gaming' chip but can bottleneck high-end GPUs or struggle with triple-A titles
  • Lower boost clock (4.4GHz) compared to some 10th gen predecessors like the i5-10300H (4.5GHz)
  • Cannot be overclocked due to the locked multiplier
  • Energy efficiency is considered lower-than-average for its class as of mid-2023

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-11300H is a mid-range quad-core laptop processor from the Tiger Lake-H35 series, featuring 4 cores, 8 threads, and an 8 MB L3 cache. Built on a 10 nm SuperFin process, it operates at a base frequency of 3.10 GHz and can boost up to 4.40 GHz, with a configurable TDP typically ranging between 28W and 35W. Key strengths include its integrated Intel Iris Xe Graphics (80 EUs), support for PCIe 4.0, and compatibility with high-speed LPDDR4x-4267 or DDR4-3200 memory, making it well-suited for everyday multitasking and light content creation. However, its primary drawbacks are the limited four-core architecture, which can bottleneck demanding modern multi-threaded workloads, and a tendency to run hot in slim laptop designs, often leading to thermal throttling.

Compare Intel Core i5-11300H 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 i5-11300H and other processors

No results found