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 i5-4200M review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£55PassMark multi-core score:2810N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:3.1 GHzCPU socket:?TDP (Thermal design power):37 W

Intel Core i5-4200M Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i5-4200M
5.8/10

Overall score

Score
5.8/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components

40%

3.7

Technical score

25%

?

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

25%

?

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

10%

?

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

▼Worse than 83% of processors
7.1

Value for money

Value for money
7.1/ 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
▼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components

70%

5.8

Overall score

30%

10

Price

▼Worse than 66%
3.7

Technical score

Technical score
3.7/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components

60%

2.9

Performance

18%

4.0

Architecture

10%

4.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

7.1

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated graphics

▼Worse than 94%
?

Reviews score

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

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • intel-core-i5-4200m
intel-core-i5-4200m
Where to buy
*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 i5-4200M

Technical score
Technical score
3.7/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components:

60%

2.9

Performance

18%

4.0

Architecture

10%

4.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

7.1

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated graphics

3.7
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.1/ 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
▼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components:

70%

5.8

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.1
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
?
Chipset
QM87, HM87, HM86
This processor supports QM87, HM87, HM86 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 57.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 54.4% of processors and equal to that of 3.4% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 80.4% of processors and equal to 19.6% 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
3.1 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.1 GHz which is lower than that of 92.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 2.5 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x2.5 GHz which is lower than that of 88.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
2,810
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 2,810 in PassMark, which is lower than 87.9% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
22 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 22 nm process node, which is older than that of 85% of processors and equal to that of 9.6% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 22 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 84.9% of processors and equal to that of 9.8% of processors.
L3 cache
3 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 3 MB which is smaller than that of 85.6% of processors and equal to that of 5.4% of processors.
L2 cache
0.5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 0.5 MB which is smaller than that of 85.4% of processors and equal to that of 14.5% of processors.
L1 cache
128 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 128 KB which is smaller than that of 83.9% of processors and equal to that of 14.3% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3L
This processor supports DDR DDR3L, which is older than that of 84.6% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,600 MHz, which is lower than that of 87.7% of processors and equal to 10.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3L-1600 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3L-1600 MHz, which is lower than that of 97.6% of processors and equal to 0.9% 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 4600
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 4600 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 64% of processors and equal to that in 2.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
20
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 20 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 51.6% of processors and equal to 4.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
400 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 400 MHz which is higher than that of 68.4% of processors and equal to that of 8.3% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 51.6% of processors and equal to 4.7% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
37 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 37 W which is lower than that of 52.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
37 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 37 W which is lower than that of 52.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
1 second
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 1 second which is longer than that of 97.2% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core i5-4200M vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 3.94x faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,569 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,568.99 vs 398.015
  • 26.6% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (130 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    130 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 4.55x cheaper
    Intel Core i5-4200M is cheaper than the average processor (£55 vs £250).
    £55 vs £250
  • 4.55x cheaper
    Intel Core i5-4200M is cheaper than the average processor (£55 vs £250).
    £55 vs £250
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 3.94x faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,569 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,568.99 vs 398.015
  • 26.6% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (130 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    130 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 83.2% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (877 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    877 vs 5,209
  • 75.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,810 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,810 vs 11,469
  • 29.5% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 36.8% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,617 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,617 vs 2,558
  • 42.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (876 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    876 vs 1,535
  • 47.8% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (256 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    256 vs 490
  • 83.3% larger process node
    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
  • 2.8% worse value for money
    Intel Core i5-4200M has worse value for money than the average processor (7.09 vs 7.3).
    7.09 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 7 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2013 vs 2020).
    September 2013
    2013 vs 2020
  • 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, F16C, FMA3, AES 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, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 83.2% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (877 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    877 vs 5,209
  • 75.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,810 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,810 vs 11,469
  • 29.5% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 36.8% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,617 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,617 vs 2,558
  • 42.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (876 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    876 vs 1,535
  • 47.8% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (256 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    256 vs 490
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x2.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    2 vs 4
  • 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
  • 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
  • 83.3% larger process node
    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
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    0.5 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
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Haswell vs Kaby Lake).
    Haswell vs Kaby Lake
  • 66.7% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (3 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    3 MB vs 9 MB
  • 66.7% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (128 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    128 KB vs 384 KB
  • 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
  • 80.6% fewer transistors
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    0.96 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Less advanced foundry
    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
  • 50% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    1,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 45.4% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (25.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    25.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3L-1600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3L-1600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L vs DDR4).
    DDR3L vs DDR4
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 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
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 27 seconds shorter turbo duration
    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

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

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i5-4200M

  • Solid multitasking performance for its generation due to Hyper-Threading support
  • Capable of handling everyday office tasks and light productivity work smoothly
  • Efficient enough for light to mediocre gaming on older or less demanding titles
  • Improved integrated graphics (HD 4600) compared to previous Ivy Bridge models
  • Stable performance even under high loads like running parallel virtual machines

What customers don't like about Intel Core i5-4200M

  • Being a dual-core chip, it bottlenecks performance in modern quad-core optimized games
  • Prone to high operating temperatures (reaching 90°C-95°C) during intensive gaming sessions
  • Lower battery life compared to 'U' series ultra-low voltage alternatives
  • Significant performance drop when compared to newer generations of mobile processors
  • Architecture is considered dated for intensive modern software and video rendering

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-4200M is a dual-core, 4-thread mobile processor based on the 22nm Haswell architecture, featuring a 2.5 GHz base frequency and a 3.1 GHz max turbo frequency. It includes 3 MB of Intel Smart Cache, a 37W TDP, and supports up to 32 GB of DDR3L-1600 memory alongside integrated Intel HD Graphics 4600. Its main pros include improved per-clock performance over previous generations, support for advanced instruction sets like AVX2 and FMA, and better multitasking efficiency through Hyper-Threading. However, it is limited by its dual-core configuration, which may bottleneck modern gaming or intensive multithreaded tasks, and it is officially unsupported for Windows 11.

Compare Intel Core i5-4200M 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 i5-4200M and other processors

No results found