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 3450 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£25PassMark benchmark result:4522N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.5 GHzCPU socket:LGA1155TDP (Thermal design power):77 W

Intel Core i5 3450 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

3.9

Overall score

Score
3.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components

90%

3.4

Technical score

10%

8.4

User score

â–¼Worse than 90% of processors
3.4

Technical score

Technical score
3.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components

60%

2.4

Performance

18%

4.1

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 97% of processors
8.4

User score

User score
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 84% of models
Score components

70%

8.7

User ratings

30%

7.5

Number of reviews

Based on 137 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
â–²Better than 84% of processors
  • intel-core-i5-3450
intel-core-i5-3450

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 3450

Technical score
Technical score
3.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components:

60%

2.4

Performance

18%

4.1

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated Graphics

3.4
User score
User score
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 84% of models
Score components

70%

8.7

User ratings

30%

7.5

Number of reviews

Based on 137 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
8.4
Popularity
Popularity
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 84% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core i5 3450 has a popularity score of 7.5 points, which is higher than that of 84.4% of products in this category.
7.5
Value for money
Value for money
5.7/ 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 86% of models
Score components:

60%

3.9

Overall score

40%

10

Price

5.7
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
desktop
Processor type
desktop
â–² Better than 56% of models
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 56% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1155
CPU socket
LGA1155
â–² Better than 55% of models
This processor uses the LGA1155 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 54.8% of processors and equal to that of 2% of processors.
Chipset
?
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
N. of physical cores
4
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 50.7% of processors and equal to 28.5% of processors.
CPU threads
4
CPU threads
4
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 67.4% of processors and equal to 26.5% of processors.
Threads per core
1
Threads per core
1
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 1 threads per core, which is fewer than 69.8% of processors and equal to 30.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.5 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.5 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.5 GHz which is lower than that of 80.4% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.1 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.1 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 57% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.1 GHz which is lower than that of 57.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
22 nm
Semiconductor size
22 nm
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 22 nm process node, which is older than that of 84.6% of processors and equal to that of 10.1% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 22 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 84.6% of processors and equal to that of 10.1% of processors.
L3 cache
6 MB
L3 cache
6 MB
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 6 MB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
L2 cache
1 MB
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 66.9% of processors and equal to that of 17.7% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
L1 cache
256 KB
â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 59.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3
DDR memory version
DDR3
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR3, which is older than that of 86.3% of processors and equal to that of 13.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,600 MHz, which is lower than that of 87.2% of processors and equal to 11.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
?
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 71.9% of processors and equal to 19.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Intel HD Graphics 2,500
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 2500
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 2500
â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 2500 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 72.6% of processors and equal to that in 1.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
6
Integrated GPU execution units
6
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 6 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 83.8% of processors and equal to 6.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
650 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
650 MHz
â–² Better than 80% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 650 MHz which is higher than that of 80.4% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 58.1% of processors and equal to 1.3% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
77 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
77 W
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 77 W which is higher than that of 86.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
77 W
Base power (PL1)
77 W
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 77 W which is higher than that of 86.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
1 second
Tau (power duration limit)
1 seconds
★ Better than 97% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 1 second which is longer than that of 97.1% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
Configurable TDP
no
Configurable TDP
no
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Core i5 3450 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes stock cooler
    Cooler included
    yes
    â–² Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
  • Supports memory overclocking
    Memory overclocking
    yes
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 5 °C higher TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 7.46x more popular
    Intel Core i5 3450 is more popular than the average processor (7.46 vs 1).
    7.46 vs 1
  • 10x cheaper
    Intel Core i5 3450 is cheaper than the average processor (£25 vs £250).
    £25 vs £250
  • 4.4% higher user score
    User score
    8.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
    When it matters
    When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    Intel Core i5 3450
    the average processor
    Intel Core i5 3450 has a higher user score than the average processor (8.35 vs 8.000).
    8.35 vs 8
  • 85.7% higher GPU clock speed
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    650 MHz
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (650 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    650 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 7.46x more popular
    Intel Core i5 3450 is more popular than the average processor (7.46 vs 1).
    7.46 vs 1
  • 10x cheaper
    Intel Core i5 3450 is cheaper than the average processor (£25 vs £250).
    £25 vs £250
  • 4.4% higher user score
    User score
    8.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
    When it matters
    When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    Intel Core i5 3450
    the average processor
    Intel Core i5 3450 has a higher user score than the average processor (8.35 vs 8.000).
    8.35 vs 8
  • Supports memory overclocking
    Memory overclocking
    yes
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 85.7% higher GPU clock speed
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    650 MHz
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (650 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    650 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • Includes stock cooler
    Cooler included
    yes
    â–² Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
  • 5 °C higher TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 87.5% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    606
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (606 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    606 vs 4,829
  • 89.6% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    290
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (290 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    290 vs 2,791
  • 58.8% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    606
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (606 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    606 vs 1,471
  • 57.2% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    4,522
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,522 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,522 vs 10,572.5
  • 74.2% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    126
    â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (126 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    126 vs 489
  • 18.6% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.5 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 25% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,874
    â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,874 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,874 vs 2,500
  • 83.3% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    22 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (22 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    22 nm vs 12 nm
  • 14.1% worse value for money
    Intel Core i5 3450 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.75 vs 6.6).
    5.75 vs 6.56
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, AES
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 8 years older release date
    Release date
    2012
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2012 vs 2020).
    April 2012
    2012 vs 2020
  • No crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    This processor does not include crypto acceleration, the average processor does. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 87.5% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    606
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (606 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    606 vs 4,829
  • 89.6% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    290
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (290 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    290 vs 2,791
  • 58.8% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    606
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (606 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    606 vs 1,471
  • 57.2% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    4,522
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,522 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,522 vs 10,572.5
  • 74.2% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    126
    â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (126 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    126 vs 489
  • 18.6% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.5 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 25% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,874
    â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,874 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,874 vs 2,500
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
    1 vs 2
  • 37.5% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    5 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    5 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    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
  • 83.3% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    22 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (22 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    22 nm vs 12 nm
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Ivy Bridge
    â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Ivy Bridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Ivy Bridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 50% less L2 per core
    L2 per core
    0.25 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/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
  • 60% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    1 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    1 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 12.5% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.5 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    256 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    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
  • 71.7% fewer transistors
    N. of transistors
    1.4 billion
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.4 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    1.4 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Less advanced foundry
    Foundry
    Intel 22 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 22 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 22 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 25% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    6 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    6 MB vs 8 MB
  • Older DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR3
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • 44.1% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    25.6 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (25.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    25.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 45.4% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    1,600 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1600 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    1,600 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 50% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    32 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    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
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x16, x8/x8
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
    â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 75% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    6
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    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
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Intel HD Graphics 2500
    â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 2500 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel HD Graphics 2,500 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 71.1% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    77 W
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (77 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    77 W vs 45 W
  • 71.1% higher TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    77 W
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (77 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    77 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    105 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 27 seconds shorter turbo duration
    Tau (power duration limit)
    1 seconds
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
    This processor has a lower turbo duration limit than the average processor (1 seconds vs 28 seconds). The average processor maintains turbo for 28 seconds.
    1 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

P
pcreview.co.uk
05/09/2012
Summary of the review
Intel Ivy Bridge Structure with Core i5-3450 Performance and OC Share
S
servethehome.com
06/09/2012
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-3450 Quad Core Benchmarks and Review
C
cpu.userbenchmark.com
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-3450 - CPU UserBenchmarks
C
cpubenchmark.net
Q2 2012
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-3450 @ 3.10GHz - CPU Benchmarks
B
browser.geekbench.com
N/A
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-3450 Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser
C
community.hwbot.org
05/09/2012
Summary of the review
Intel Ivy Bridge Structure with Core i5-3450 Performance and OC Share
O
overclock.net
05/09/2012
Summary of the review
Intel Ivy Bridge Structure with Core i5-3450 Performance...
P
pcgameshardware.de
15/05/2012
Summary of the review
Core i5-3450 Reviews - PCGH
(Translated)Show original
G
gamestar.de
23/05/2012
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5 3450 - The most affordable Ivy Bridge quad-core
(Translated)Show original
T
tomshardware.fr
23/04/2012
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-3770K Ivy Bridge Review (including i5-3450)
(Translated)Show original
P
profesionalreview.com
29/05/2012
Summary of the review
ASUS P8Z77-WS Review (i5-3450 Performance Benchmarks)
(Translated)Show original
P
profesionalreview.com
25/07/2012
Summary of the review
Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD5H-WB WiFi Review (Performance benchmarks with i5-3450)
(Translated)Show original
P
profesionalreview.com
06/07/2012
Summary of the review
ASUS P8Z77-V PRO/THUNDERBOLT Review (Performance benchmarks with i5-3450)
(Translated)Show original
P
profesionalreview.com
13/06/2012
Summary of the review
Asus P8Z77-V PRO Review (i5-3450 Performance Benchmarks)
(Translated)Show original
P
profesionalreview.com
17/05/2012
Summary of the review
Gigabyte Z77X-D3H Review (i5-3450 Performance Benchmarks)
(Translated)Show original
P
profesionalreview.com
31/03/2012
Summary of the review
Gigabyte Z77MX-D3H Review: Performance Benchmarks with i5-3450
(Translated)Show original
P
profesionalreview.com
16/06/2012
Summary of the review
Gigabyte G1.SNIPER3 Review (i5-3450 Performance Benchmarks)
(Translated)Show original
M
muycomputer.com
04/06/2012
Summary of the review
ASUS ET2411INTI: Review of the All-in-One PC with Intel Core i5-3450
(Translated)Show original
T
techzine.nl
23/04/2012
Summary of the review
Intel Ivy Bridge review: Core i7 3770K, i5 3570K and i5 3550 tested
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
23/04/2012
Summary of the review
Intel introduces 22nm Ivy Bridge processors
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
19/01/2013
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5 3450 Boxed - peter123 - Product reviews
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
05/06/2012
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5 3450 - Reviews - Tweakers
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

Based on 137 buyer reviews from online shops.
Reviews last updated: May 2026 · How we calculate this
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →

What we like about Intel Core i5 3450

  • Solid performance for its age in everyday multitasking and gaming
  • Excellent power efficiency with a 77W TDP
  • Runs relatively cool even under load
  • Supports PCI Express 3.0 for better compatibility with modern GPUs
  • Capable of modest overclocking up to 3.7 GHz - 3.9 GHz on certain motherboards
  • Reliable and durable for long-term use

What we don't like about Intel Core i5 3450

  • Integrated Intel HD 2500 graphics are weak and unsuitable for modern gaming
  • Locked multiplier limits significant overclocking potential compared to 'K' series models
  • Lacks Hyper-Threading, featuring only 4 physical cores and 4 threads
  • Officially supports only up to DDR3-1600 memory speeds
  • Can become a bottleneck in highly CPU-intensive modern AAA titles or simulation games
  • Missing some advanced features found in higher-end models, such as VT-d and vPro

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-3450 is a 3rd Gen Ivy Bridge quad-core processor built on a 22nm lithography, featuring a base clock speed of 3.1 GHz and a maximum turbo frequency of 3.5 GHz. With 4 cores, 4 threads, and a 6 MB Intel Smart Cache, this 77W TDP desktop CPU includes integrated Intel HD Graphics 2500 and supports up to 32 GB of dual-channel DDR3-1333/1600 memory. Its main pros include reliable entry-level performance for everyday productivity and light gaming, compatibility with PCIe 3.0, and a relatively low thermal output that prevents overheating under standard loads. However, its notable cons are the lack of Hyper-Threading technology, the absence of an unlocked multiplier for significant overclocking, and a legacy architecture that struggles to keep up with modern multi-threaded applications and high-end gaming.

Compare Intel Core i5 3450 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 3450 and other processors

No results found