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 i5-2400 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£55PassMark multi-core score:3844N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.4 GHzCPU socket:LGA1155TDP (Thermal design power):95 W

Intel Core i5-2400 Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and 3 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i5-2400
5.5/10

Overall score

Score
5.5/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists, owners and ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 15%, Sentiment score 10%, User 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 90% of models
Score components

40%

4.0

Technical score

25%

4.0

Reviews score

15%

?

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

10%

8.9

Sentiment score

10%

8.9

User score

â–¼Worse than 90% of processors
6.8

Value for money

Value for money
6.8/ 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–¼ Worse than 80% of models
Score components

70%

5.5

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 80%
4.0

Technical score

Technical score
4.0/ 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 85% of models
Score components

60%

3.4

Performance

18%

3.6

Architecture

10%

4.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

7.3

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 85%
4.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.0/ 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 91% of models

4.0

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

80%

7.6

Average grade

20%

7.4

Popularity

Grades by review (3)
3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
â–¼Worse than 91%
8.9

User score

User score
8.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 55% of models

80%

8.9

Rating

20%

8.7

Popularity

â–²Better than 55%
?

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 15% 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
  • intel-core-i5-2400
  • intel-core-i5-2400
  • intel-core-i5-2400
intel-core-i5-2400
intel-core-i5-2400
intel-core-i5-2400
Best prices
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
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 i5-2400

Technical score
Technical score
4.0/ 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 85% of models
Score components:

60%

3.4

Performance

18%

3.6

Architecture

10%

4.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

7.3

Integrated graphics

4.0
Reviews score
4.0
User score
8.9
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.8/ 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–¼ Worse than 80% of models
Score components:

70%

5.5

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.8
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1155
This processor uses the LGA1155 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 53.2% of processors and equal to that of 2.1% of processors.
Chipset
?
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
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX instruction sets, which is narrower support than 97.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% 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
4
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 69% of processors and equal to 25.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.4 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.4 GHz which is lower than that of 84.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.1 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.1 GHz which is lower than that of 59% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
3,844
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 3,844 in PassMark, which is lower than 79% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
32 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 32 nm process node, which is older than that of 97.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 32 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 32 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 97.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
L3 cache
6 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 6 MB which is smaller than that of 62.3% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 68.3% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3
This processor supports DDR DDR3, which is older than that of 86.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.3% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,333 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,333 MHz, which is lower than that of 98.6% of processors and equal to 1.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1333 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-1333 MHz, which is lower than that of 98.5% of processors and equal to 1.3% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 73% of processors and equal to 18.9% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 2000
Integrated GPU execution units
6
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 6 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 83.5% of processors and equal to 6.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
850 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 850 MHz which is higher than that of 93.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
?
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
95 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 95 W which is higher than that of 87.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
95 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 95 W which is higher than that of 87.6% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
?
Show more

Intel Core i5-2400 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 23.6% higher sentiment score
    8.9 vs 7.2
  • 21.9% higher user score
    User score
    8.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
    How we count it
    Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
    Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 55% of models

    80%

    8.9

    Rating

    20%

    8.7

    Popularity

    8.9 vs 7.3
  • 4.55x cheaper
    Intel Core i5-2400 is cheaper than the average processor (£55 vs £250).
    £55 vs £250
  • 2.43x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (850 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    850 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 23.6% higher sentiment score
    8.9 vs 7.2
  • 21.9% higher user score
    User score
    8.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
    How we count it
    Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
    Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 55% of models

    80%

    8.9

    Rating

    20%

    8.7

    Popularity

    8.9 vs 7.3
  • 4.55x cheaper
    Intel Core i5-2400 is cheaper than the average processor (£55 vs £250).
    £55 vs £250
  • 2.43x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (850 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    850 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 40.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.0/ 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 91% of models

    4.0

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

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
    4.0 vs 6.7
  • 66.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,844 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,844 vs 11,469
  • 38.7% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,568 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,568 vs 2,558
  • 61.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (585 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    585 vs 1,535
  • 22.7% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 66.9% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,724 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,724 vs 5,209
  • 2.67x larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (32 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    32 nm vs 12 nm
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 40.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.0/ 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 91% of models

    4.0

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

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
    4.0 vs 6.7
  • 7.1% worse value for money
    Intel Core i5-2400 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.84 vs 7.3).
    6.84 vs 7.33
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 9 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2011 vs 2020).
    2011 vs 2020
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 66.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,844 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,844 vs 11,469
  • 38.7% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,568 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,568 vs 2,558
  • 61.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (585 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    585 vs 1,535
  • 22.7% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 66.9% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,724 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,724 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
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x3.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x3.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 2.67x larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (32 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    32 nm vs 12 nm
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Sandy Bridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Sandy Bridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1 MB vs 3 MB
  • 50% less L2 per core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 22% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (216 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    216 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 76.6% fewer transistors
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.2 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    1.16 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 33.3% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    6 MB vs 9 MB
  • Less advanced foundry
    This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 32 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 32 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 58.3% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1333 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    1,333 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 55.2% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (21 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    21 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-1333 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3-1,333 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Older PCIe version
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2.0 vs 3.0
  • 50% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 2000 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel HD Graphics 2,000 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 75% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (6 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    6 vs 24
  • 2.11x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (95 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    95 W vs 45 W
  • 2.11x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (95 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    95 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

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

7.0
Budget-Builds Official
≈ estimated
24/01/2025
Benchmark review · gaming and general use tests
Verdict
Intel Core i5-2400 still suits budget builds, though it can't hold 60 FPS in demanding games.
7.0
ZIGINSH
≈ estimated
28/11/2024
Hands-on test · 1080p gaming and benchmarks
Verdict
Intel Core i5-2400 still runs most games at 1080p, though it often limits performance and some titles fall short.
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict

What reviewers agree on

Based on 0 · 3

Reviewers mostly praise its gaming performance as solid and capable, though one finds it falls short in more demanding games.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i5-2400

  • Four cores handle browsing, documents and video calls at the same time.
  • A 3.4 GHz boost speeds up short bursts of work.
  • Two memory channels move data faster than a single channel would.
  • Up to 32 GB of memory suits a larger home setup.
  • The AVX instruction set is used by many media programs.
  • Built-in graphics at 850 MHz run a basic desktop screen.

What we don't like about Intel Core i5-2400

  • Low single-core speed makes programs that need one fast core feel slow.
  • A 95 W power rating means the chip runs hot under load.
  • Memory tops out at 1333 MHz, which is slow next to newer memory.
  • Multithreading is missing, so each core handles one thread at a time.
  • Only two displays are supported.

Verdict

Four cores with a 3.4 GHz boost give the Intel Core i5-2400 enough muscle for browsing, documents and video calls. It is a Sandy Bridge chip, so it suits a buyer who wants a plain home or office machine and nothing demanding. The built-in graphics run at 850 MHz, which is fine for a basic desktop screen. Memory can reach 32 GB, but it tops out at 1333 MHz, so it is slower than newer memory. The trade-off shows up in single tasks: a Geekbench single-core score of 585 means programs that rely on one fast core feel slow. It also draws 95 W, so it runs warm under load. Heavy games and photo or video editing are beyond it, but for email, streaming and spreadsheets it does the job without fuss.

Compare Intel Core i5-2400 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 i5-2400 and other processors

No results found