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 1240U Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£270PassMark benchmark result:13953N. of physical cores:10CPU boost clock speed:4.4 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1781TDP (Thermal design power):9 W

Intel Core i5 1240U Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.6

Overall score

Score
6.6/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 64% of models
Score components

90%

6.6

Technical score

10%

?

User score

▲Better than 64% of processors
6.6

Technical score

Technical score
6.6/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 65% of models
Score components

60%

6.0

Performance

18%

7.0

Cache & Architecture

10%

7.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

8.1

Integrated Graphics

▲Better than 65% 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    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 1240U

Technical score
Technical score
6.6/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 65% of models
Score components:

60%

6.0

Performance

18%

7.0

Cache & Architecture

10%

7.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

8.1

Integrated Graphics

6.6
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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core i5 1240U 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
7.3/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 68% of models
Score components:

60%

6.6

Overall score

40%

9.1

Price

7.3
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
▼ 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
FCBGA1781
CPU socket
FCBGA1781
▼ Worse than 71% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1781 CPU socket, which is older than that of 71.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Chipset
Intel 600 Series, Intel 700 Series
Chipset
Intel 600 Series, Intel 700 Series
▲ Better than 81% of models
This processor supports Intel 600 Series, Intel 700 Series chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 81.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
▲ 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
10
N. of physical cores
10
▲ Better than 77% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 10 CPU cores, which is more than 77.1% of processors and equal to 4.3% of processors.
CPU threads
12
CPU threads
12
▲ Better than 55% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 12 CPU threads, which is more than 55% of processors and equal to 14.1% of processors.
Threads per core
?
CPU boost clock speed
4.4 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
4.4 GHz
▲ Better than 51% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.4 GHz which is higher than that of 51.2% of processors and equal to that of 5.1% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.1 GHz & 8x 0.8 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.1 GHz & 8x 0.8 GHz
▼ Worse than 72% of models
This processor has a base clock of 2x1.1 GHz & 8x0.8 GHz which is lower than that of 71.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Semiconductor size
10 nm
▲ 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 7
Foundry
Intel 7
▲ Better than 66% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 7 foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 66.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.9% of processors.
L3 cache
12 MB
L3 cache
12 MB
▲ Better than 54% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 12 MB which is larger than that of 54.4% of processors and equal to that of 9% of processors.
L2 cache
6.5 MB
L2 cache
6.5 MB
▲ Better than 71% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 6.5 MB which is larger than that of 71.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
L1 cache
928 KB
L1 cache
928 KB
▲ Better than 83% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 928 KB which is larger than that of 83.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5
★ Better than 96% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5, which is newer than that of 95.7% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
5,200 MHz
Maximum memory speed
5,200 MHz
▲ Better than 72% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 5,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 72.3% of processors and equal to 6.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5-5200 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5-5200 MHz
▲ Better than 70% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5-5200 MHz, which is higher than that of 70.2% of processors and equal to 2% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
▼ 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
▲ Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU
Integrated GPU model
Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU
▲ Better than 79% of models
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 2.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
80
Integrated GPU execution units
80
★ Better than 92% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 80 GPU execution units, which is more than 91.7% of processors and equal to 3.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
▼ 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
AV1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode)
▼ Worse than 63% of models
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 63.1% of processors and equal to 10.8% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
9 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
9 W
★ Better than 96% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 9 W which is lower than that of 95.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
9 W
Base power (PL1)
9 W
★ Better than 95% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 9 W which is lower than that of 95.2% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
29 W
Boost power (PL2)
29 W
▲ Better than 80% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 29 W which is lower than that of 80.2% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
56 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
56 seconds
▼ Worse than 97% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 56 seconds which is shorter than that of 97.1% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
▲ Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Core i5 1240U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    10
    ▲ Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (10 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    10 vs 6
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5 vs DDR4
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Alder Lake
    ▲ Better than 68% of models
    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
    L2 per core
    1.25 MB/core
    ▲ Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/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
  • 80% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    9 W
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (9 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    9 W vs 45 W
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    4.0
    ▲ Better than 62% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4.0 vs 3.0
  • 27.6% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    3,190
    ▲ Better than 68% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,190 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    3,190 vs 2,500
  • Uses big.LITTLE design
    big.LITTLE Architecture
    yes
    ▲ Better than 80% of models
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, the average processor does not. 20.5% of processors use a big.LITTLE design.
    P-cores + E-cores
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
    ▲ Better than 77% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • Supports HMP
    Uses HMP
    yes
    ▲ Better than 77% of models
    This processor supports HMP, the average processor does not. 22.7% of processors support HMP.
  • 4 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    10
    ▲ Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (10 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    10 vs 6
  • 27.6% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    3,190
    ▲ Better than 68% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,190 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    3,190 vs 2,500
  • 33.5% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1964
    ▲ Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1964 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,964 vs 1,471
  • 4 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    12
    ▲ Better than 55% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (12 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    12 vs 8
  • 32% higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    13,953
    ▲ Better than 58% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (13,953 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    13,953 vs 10,572.5
  • 18.2% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    578
    ▲ Better than 65% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (578 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    578 vs 489
  • 2 wider front-end design
    Front-end width
    6
    ▲ Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <2 – >7
    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
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Alder Lake
    ▲ Better than 68% of models
    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
    L2 per core
    1.25 MB/core
    ▲ Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/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
  • Uses big.LITTLE design
    big.LITTLE Architecture
    yes
    ▲ Better than 80% of models
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, the average processor does not. 20.5% of processors use a big.LITTLE design.
    P-cores + E-cores
  • 2.42x larger L1 cache
    L1 cache
    928 KB
    ▲ Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (928 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    928 KB vs 384 KB
  • 2.6x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    6.5 MB
    ▲ Better than 71% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (6.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    6.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    Intel 7
    ▲ Better than 66% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm
  • 16.7% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    10 nm
    ▲ 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
  • 50% larger L3 cache
    L3 cache
    12 MB
    ▲ Better than 54% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (12 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    12 MB vs 8 MB
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5 vs DDR4
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    4.0
    ▲ Better than 62% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4.0 vs 3.0
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    20
    ▲ Better than 58% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • 77.3% higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    5,200 MHz
    ▲ Better than 72% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (5200 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    5,200 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    LPDDR5-5200 MHz
    ▲ Better than 70% of models
    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
    Integrated GPU execution units
    80
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    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
    Integrated GPU model
    Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU
    ▲ Better than 79% of models
    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
    Maximum supported displays
    4
    ▲ Better than 56% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 80% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    9 W
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (9 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    9 W vs 45 W
  • 80% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    9 W
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (9 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    9 W vs 45 W
  • 51.7% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    29 W
    ▲ Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (29 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    29 W vs 60 W
  • 56% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,227
    ▼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,227 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,227 vs 2,791
  • 30% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.2 MB/core
    ▼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    AV1 (HW decode)
    ▼ Worse than 63% of models
    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)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 21.5% larger die size
    Die size
    215 mm²
    ▼ Worse than 75% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (215 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    215 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 1.1 GHz & 8 x 0.8 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 72% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.1 GHz & 8x0.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x1.1 GHz & 8x0.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x8/x4/x4
    ▼ Worse than 77% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA
    ▼ Worse than 55% of models
    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).
    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
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1781
    ▼ Worse than 71% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1781 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1781 vs FP4
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA
    ▼ Worse than 55% of models
    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).
    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
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1781
    ▼ Worse than 71% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1781 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1781 vs FP4
  • 56% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,227
    ▼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,227 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,227 vs 2,791
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 1.1 GHz & 8 x 0.8 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 72% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.1 GHz & 8x0.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x1.1 GHz & 8x0.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 30% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.2 MB/core
    ▼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 21.5% larger die size
    Die size
    215 mm²
    ▼ Worse than 75% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (215 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    215 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x8/x4/x4
    ▼ Worse than 77% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    AV1 (HW decode)
    ▼ Worse than 63% of models
    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)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 28 seconds shorter turbo duration
    Tau (power duration limit)
    56 seconds
    ▼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
    This processor has a lower turbo duration limit than the average processor (56 seconds vs 28 seconds). The average processor maintains turbo for 28 seconds.
    56 seconds vs 28 seconds

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

C
cpubenchmark.net
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-1240U - CPU Benchmarks
B
browser.geekbench.com
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-1240U Benchmarks - Geekbench
L
laptopmedia.com
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-1240U - benchmark tests
N
notebookcheck.com
29/04/2023
Summary of the review
Dell Latitude 7230 Rugged Extreme Review
(Translated)Show original
B
backinuse.fr
22/10/2026
Summary of the review
Refurbished Review and Test: Dell Latitude 9330 | i5-1240U | 13.3" | 2-in-1
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.biz
01/03/2023
Summary of the review
Review of the Intel NUC 12 Pro Kit (Core i5-1240U mentioned in comparisons)
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
Q1 2022
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-1240U | LaptopMedia
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
01/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-1240U | LaptopMedia Spain
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
01/01/2022
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-1240U: Specs, Benchmarks, and Performance Tests
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
29/04/2023
Summary of the review
Dell Latitude 7230 Rugged Extreme Tablet Review: One of the Best Displays in Its Category
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i5 1240U

  • Efficient multitasking due to 10-core architecture (2 P-cores and 8 E-cores)
  • Extremely low base power consumption (9W TDP), making it ideal for ultra-thin laptops and tablets
  • Solid single-core performance with a turbo boost of up to 4.4GHz
  • Support for modern memory standards including DDR5-4800 and LPDDR5-5200
  • Capably handles everyday productivity tasks and light casual gaming with integrated Iris Xe graphics

What we don't like about Intel Core i5 1240U

  • Sustained performance is heavily limited by the low 9W power envelope compared to the 15W or 28W variants
  • Prone to thermal throttling in fanless or poorly cooled thin-and-light designs
  • Not suitable for demanding professional workloads like 4K video editing or heavy 3D rendering
  • Slower GPU clock speeds (0.9 GHz) compared to the standard Core i5-1235U
  • Requires Windows 11 to fully utilize the Thread Director for optimal core management

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-1240U is a 12th-generation Alder Lake-U mobile processor designed for ultra-thin laptops and tablets, featuring a hybrid architecture with 10 cores (2 Performance, 8 Efficient) and 12 threads. It operates with a base power of just 9W, reaching a max turbo frequency of 4.40 GHz and utilizing 12 MB of Intel Smart Cache alongside integrated Iris Xe graphics (80 EUs). Its primary advantages include exceptional energy efficiency for long battery life, support for modern standards like LPDDR5-5200 RAM and PCIe 4.0, and solid burst performance for everyday multitasking. However, its low sustained power limit significantly restricts heavy multi-core workloads compared to 15W or 28W U-series counterparts, and its gaming capabilities remain limited to entry-level titles.

Compare Intel Core i5 1240U 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 1240U and other processors

No results found