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 i5-1240P review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£270PassMark multi-core score:15919N. of physical cores:12CPU boost clock speed:4.4 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1744TDP (Thermal design power):28 W

Intel Core i5-1240P Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 2 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.3/10

Overall score

Score
7.3/ 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–² Better than 69% of models
Score components

40%

7.2

Technical score

25%

7.2

Reviews score

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–²Better than 69% of processors
7.8

Value for money

Value for money
7.8/ 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–² Better than 77% of models
Score components

70%

7.3

Overall score

30%

9.1

Price

â–²Better than 77%
7.2

Technical score

Technical score
7.2/ 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–² Better than 71% of models
Score components

60%

7.2

Performance

18%

7.1

Architecture

10%

6.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

8.1

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 71%
7.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.2/ 10
✕
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
â–¼ Worse than 59% of models

7.2

Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 59%
?

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 i5-1240P

Technical score
Technical score
7.2/ 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–² Better than 71% of models
Score components:

60%

7.2

Performance

18%

7.1

Architecture

10%

6.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

8.1

Integrated graphics

7.2
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.8/ 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–² Better than 77% of models
Score components:

70%

7.3

Overall score

30%

9.1

Price

7.8
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
FCBGA1744
This processor uses the FCBGA1744 CPU socket, which is older than that of 73.1% of processors and equal to that of 4.8% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
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
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA instruction sets, which is narrower support than 52.6% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
12
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 12 CPU cores, which is more than 79.9% of processors and equal to 5.7% of processors.
CPU threads
16
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 16 CPU threads, which is more than 69% of processors and equal to 14.6% 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 1.7 GHz & 8x 1.2 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x1.7 GHz & 8x1.2 GHz which is higher than that of 56.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
15,919
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 15,919 in PassMark, which is higher than 60.1% 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 7
This processor is built on the Intel 7 foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 64.8% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
L3 cache
12 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 12 MB which is larger than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 9.3% of processors.
L2 cache
10 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 10 MB which is larger than that of 79% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% of processors.
L1 cache
1,088 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 1,088 KB which is larger than that of 87.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
?
Maximum memory speed
5,200 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 5,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 70.6% of processors and equal to 6.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5-5200 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5-5200 MHz, which is higher than that of 69.1% of processors and equal to 1.9% 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
This processor uses the Intel Iris Xe Graphics integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 77.7% of processors and equal to that in 0.5% 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
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode)
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 61.3% of processors and equal to 10.3% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
28 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.9% of processors and equal to that of 7.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
28 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.7% of processors and equal to that of 7% 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 i5-1240P vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 6 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (12 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    12 vs 6
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 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
  • 3.33x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (10 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    10 MB vs 3 MB
  • 43.4% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,201 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,201 vs 1,535
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • 7.5% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.2/ 10
    ✕
    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
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models

    7.2

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.2 vs 6.7
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 6 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (12 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    12 vs 6
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 43.4% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,201 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,201 vs 1,535
  • 24.4% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,181 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,181 vs 2,558
  • 38.8% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (15,919 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    15,919 vs 11,469
  • 24.1% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (608 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    608 vs 490
  • 2 wider front-end design
    This processor has a higher front-end width than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
    6 vs 4
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (4x1.7 GHz & 8x1.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x1.7 GHz & 8x1.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 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
  • 3.33x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (10 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    10 MB vs 3 MB
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • 2.83x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (1,088 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    1,088 KB vs 384 KB
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • 77.4% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (83.2 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    83.2 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 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
  • 62.5% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (5,200 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    5,200 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5-5200 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5-5,200 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 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
  • 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
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Intel Iris Xe Graphics vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Iris Xe Graphics vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 37.8% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • 37.8% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • 45.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 22.6% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (217 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    217 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1744 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1744 vs FP5
  • 11 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (17 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    17 vs 28
  • 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
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1744 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1744 vs FP5
  • 11 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (17 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    17 vs 28
  • 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
  • 45.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 22.6% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (217 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    217 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)

Video reviews

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

Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
notebookcheck.biz
≈ estimated
16/03/2023
Lab test · Mini PC benchmarks
Verdict
The Intel NUC 12 Pro Kit is a compact mini PC fast enough for home and office, but it trails the Ryzen 7 5700G in long workloads.
8.0
notebookcheck.nl
≈ estimated
14/03/2023
Lab test · Mini PC benchmarks
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-1240P suits office work and light photo or video editing in mini PCs, but trails AMD's Ryzen 7 5700G in long workloads.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i5-1240P

  • Significantly improved multi-core performance compared to previous 11th Gen models due to its 12-core architecture (4 Performance-cores and 8 Efficient-cores).
  • Snappy and reliable for everyday multitasking, office productivity, and statistical software.
  • Capable of handling 3D rendering and basic video editing better than equivalent U-series processors.
  • Offers excellent performance-to-cost ratio, often outperforming older i7 flagship models.
  • Suitable for casual gaming when paired with its integrated Iris Xe graphics.

What customers don't like about Intel Core i5-1240P

  • High power consumption compared to the U-series, which often leads to mediocre battery life in many laptops (typically around 5–6 hours).
  • Prone to running hot and loud under heavy loads if the laptop's thermal solution is not robust.
  • Susceptible to thermal throttling in thin-and-light chassis, which can negate its on-paper performance gains.
  • Integrated GPU performance has stagnated compared to the previous generation, making it less ideal for heavy gaming or professional graphics work without a dedicated GPU.

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-1240P is a 12th-generation Alder Lake mobile processor featuring a hybrid architecture with 12 cores (4 Performance-cores and 8 Efficient-cores) and 16 threads. It operates with a max turbo frequency of 4.40 GHz, a 12 MB L3 cache, and a 28W base power that can scale up to 64W under load. Key advantages include strong multi-threaded performance for productivity, support for modern DDR5-4800 or LPDDR5-5200 memory, and integrated Intel Iris Xe graphics with 80 execution units. However, it can struggle with high thermal output and power consumption during intensive bursts, and its efficiency cores may sometimes lead to inconsistent performance in certain legacy applications or games compared to traditional high-performance H-series chips.

Compare Intel Core i5-1240P 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 i5-1240P and other processors

No results found