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 4300U Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£230PassMark benchmark result:2489N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:2.9 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1168TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Core i5 4300U Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

3.2

Overall score

Score
3.2/ 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 99% of models
Score components

90%

3.2

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 99% of processors
3.2

Technical score

Technical score
3.2/ 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 99% of models
Score components

60%

2.1

Performance

18%

4.1

Cache & Architecture

10%

3.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

6.3

Platform

1%

6.0

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 99% 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

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 4300U

Technical score
Technical score
3.2/ 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 99% of models
Score components:

60%

2.1

Performance

18%

4.1

Cache & Architecture

10%

3.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

6.3

Platform

1%

6.0

Integrated Graphics

3.2
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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core i5 4300U 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
5.0/ 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 99% of models
Score components:

60%

3.2

Overall score

40%

9.3

Price

5.0
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ 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
FCBGA1168
CPU socket
FCBGA1168
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1168 CPU socket, which is older than that of 94.9% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Chipset
QM87, HM87, HM86
Chipset
QM87, HM87, HM86
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
This processor supports QM87, HM87, HM86 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 57.9% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
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
2
N. of physical cores
2
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 79.3% of processors and equal to 20.6% 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
2
Threads per core
2
â–² Better than 30% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 2 threads per core, which is more than 30.3% of processors and equal to 69.7% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
2.9 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
2.9 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.9 GHz which is lower than that of 94% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.9 GHz & 2x 2.6 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.9 GHz & 2x 2.6 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
This processor has a base clock of 2x1.9 GHz & 2x2.6 GHz which is lower than that of 70.7% 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
3 MB
L3 cache
3 MB
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 3 MB which is smaller than that of 84.8% of processors and equal to that of 5.6% of processors.
L2 cache
0.5 MB
L2 cache
0.5 MB
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 0.5 MB which is smaller than that of 84.7% of processors and equal to that of 15.3% of processors.
L1 cache
128 KB
L1 cache
128 KB
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 128 KB which is smaller than that of 83.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.8% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3L/LPDDR3
DDR memory version
DDR3L/LPDDR3
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR3L/LPDDR3, which is older than that of 83.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% 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
16 GB
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 16 GB of memory, which is less than 91.7% of processors and equal to 6.4% 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.
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 4400
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 4400
â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 4400 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 68.7% of processors and equal to that in 0.6% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
20
Integrated GPU execution units
20
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 20 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 51.5% of processors and equal to 4.4% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
200 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
200 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 200 MHz which is lower than that of 96.7% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
VC-1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
VC-1 (HW decode)
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
This processor supports VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 82.1% of processors and equal to 3.6% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
â–² Better than 78% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 78% of processors and equal to that of 16% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Base power (PL1)
15 W
â–² Better than 77% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 77.2% of processors and equal to that of 16.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
25 W
Boost power (PL2)
25 W
â–² Better than 83% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 25 W which is lower than that of 83% of processors and equal to that of 8% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
â–¼ Worse than 10% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 3.4% of processors and equal to that of 86.1% 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 4300U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4.36x faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,689.5
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,689.5 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,689.5 vs 387.66
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 58.3% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    25 W
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    25 W vs 60 W
  • 33.3% smaller die size
    Die size
    118 mm²
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (118 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    118 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 4.36x faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,689.5
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,689.5 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,689.5 vs 387.66
  • 33.3% smaller die size
    Die size
    118 mm²
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (118 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    118 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 58.3% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    25 W
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    25 W vs 60 W
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 83.7% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    789
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (789 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    789 vs 4,829
  • 76.5% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2,489
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,489 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,489 vs 10,572.5
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 32.6% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    2.9 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    2.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 41.1% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,473
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,473 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,473 vs 2,500
  • 82.1% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    499
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (499 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    499 vs 2,791
  • 46.4% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    789
    â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (789 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    789 vs 1,471
  • 62.4% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    184
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (184 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    184 vs 489
  • 30.9% worse value for money
    Intel Core i5 4300U has worse value for money than the average processor (5.01 vs 6.6).
    5.01 vs 6.56
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 7 years older release date
    Release date
    2013
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2013 vs 2020).
    September 2013
    2013 vs 2020
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1168
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1168 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1168 vs FP4
  • 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
  • 83.7% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    789
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (789 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    789 vs 4,829
  • 76.5% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2,489
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,489 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,489 vs 10,572.5
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 32.6% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    2.9 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    2.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 41.1% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,473
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,473 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,473 vs 2,500
  • 82.1% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    499
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (499 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    499 vs 2,791
  • 46.4% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    789
    â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (789 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    789 vs 1,471
  • 62.4% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    184
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (184 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    184 vs 489
  • 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
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 1.9 GHz & 2 x 2.6 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.9 GHz & 2x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x1.9 GHz & 2x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 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
  • 9 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    19
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (19 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    19 vs 28
  • 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
  • 80% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    0.5 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Haswell
    â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Haswell vs Kaby Lake).
    Haswell 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
  • 66.7% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    128 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    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
  • 62.5% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    3 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (3 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    3 MB vs 8 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
  • 73.7% fewer transistors
    N. of transistors
    1.3 billion
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.3 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    1.3 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
  • 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
  • Older PCIe version
    PCIe version
    2.0
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2.0 vs 3.0
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    12
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (12 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    12 vs 16
  • Older DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR3L/LPDDR3
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L/LPDDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3L/LPDDR3 vs DDR4
  • 75% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    16 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (16 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    16 GB vs 64 GB
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x1/x1/x1/x1
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    VC-1 (HW decode)
    â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Intel HD Graphics 4400
    â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 4400 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel HD Graphics 4,400 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.

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
30/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-4300U @ 1.90GHz - CPU Benchmarks [PassMark]
O
openbenchmarking.org
01/01/2014
Summary of the review
Intel Core I5-4300U Benchmarks, Linux Performance - OpenBenchmarking.org
B
browser.geekbench.com
30/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-4300U Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser
C
cpu.userbenchmark.com
30/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-4300U - CPU UserBenchmarks
N
notebookcheck.com
08/08/2013
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-4300U Notebook Processor - Notebookcheck.com Tech
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
22/10/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-4300U - Benchmarks, Tests and Specs
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i5 4300U

  • Sufficient for basic daily tasks such as web browsing and office productivity
  • Features Hyper-Threading, allowing the dual-core chip to handle four threads
  • Includes Intel vPro technology for enhanced security and management in business environments
  • Highly energy-efficient with a 15W TDP, making it suitable for thin ultrabooks
  • Capable of handling light legacy gaming (e.g., Fallout 3, Skyrim) with adjusted settings

What we don't like about Intel Core i5 4300U

  • Struggles with modern gaming and demanding 3D applications
  • Subject to thermal throttling, which can significantly drop clock speeds during use
  • Lacks native support for Windows 11 due to its age
  • Limited multitasking capabilities compared to modern quad-core or higher processors
  • Integrated HD Graphics 4400 is significantly weaker than newer integrated or dedicated GPUs

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-4300U is a 4th generation 'Haswell' ultra-low voltage dual-core mobile processor featuring 4 threads, a 1.9 GHz base frequency, and a 2.9 GHz max turbo frequency. Built on a 22nm process with a 15W TDP, it includes 3MB of Intel Smart Cache and integrated HD Graphics 4400 with a dynamic frequency up to 1.1 GHz. Key advantages include its high energy efficiency for ultrabooks, support for professional features like Intel vPro and AVX2, and reliable performance for daily office and multimedia tasks. However, it is limited by its older dual-core architecture, which struggles with modern AAA gaming and heavy multi-threaded workloads, and it is prone to thermal throttling under sustained high loads.

Compare Intel Core i5 4300U 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 4300U and other processors

No results found