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 i5-5200U review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£230PassMark multi-core score:2501N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:2.7 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1168TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Core i5-5200U Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 2 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.7/10

Overall score

Score
4.7/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

40%

3.2

Technical score

25%

3.2

Reviews score

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

â–¼Worse than 99% of processors
6.1

Value for money

Value for money
6.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components

70%

4.7

Overall score

30%

9.3

Price

â–¼Worse than 95%
3.2

Technical score

Technical score
3.2/ 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 99% of models
Score components

60%

2.1

Performance

18%

4.3

Architecture

10%

3.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.1

Power & Thermal

4%

6.7

Platform

1%

6.7

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 99%
3.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.2/ 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 99% of models

3.2

Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.7

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 99%
?

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
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £230
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 i5-5200U

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

60%

2.1

Performance

18%

4.3

Architecture

10%

3.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.1

Power & Thermal

4%

6.7

Platform

1%

6.7

Integrated graphics

3.2
Reviews score
3.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components:

70%

4.7

Overall score

30%

9.3

Price

6.1
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
FCBGA1168
This processor uses the FCBGA1168 CPU socket, which is older than that of 95.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
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
2.7 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.7 GHz which is lower than that of 96.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 2.2 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x2.2 GHz which is lower than that of 92.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
2,501
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 2,501 in PassMark, which is lower than 90.3% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.9% of processors and equal to that of 29% 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
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
1,600 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)
DDR3-1600 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-1600 MHz, which is lower than that of 89.1% of processors and equal to 8.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 16 GB of memory, which is less than 92.2% of processors and equal to 6.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 5500
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 5500 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 63% of processors and equal to that in 0.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.1% of processors and equal to 20.8% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
?
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 79.2% of processors and equal to that of 15.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 78.3% of processors and equal to that of 15.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
25 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 25 W which is lower than that of 84.8% of processors and equal to that of 7.2% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 4.4% of processors and equal to that of 85.3% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 7.5 W
Show more

Intel Core i5-5200U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 98.6% faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (790.6 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    790.56 vs 398.015
  • 66.7% lower base power
    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
  • 53.7% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (82 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    82 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 60.9% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    25 W vs 64 W
  • 5 °C higher temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    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
  • 98.6% faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (790.6 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    790.56 vs 398.015
  • 53.7% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (82 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    82 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 66.7% lower base power
    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
  • 60.9% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    25 W vs 64 W
  • 5 °C higher temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    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
  • 52.2% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.2/ 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 99% of models

    3.2

    Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.2 vs 6.7
  • 78.2% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,501 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,501 vs 11,469
  • 38.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.7 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
  • 41.8% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,490 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,490 vs 2,558
  • 71% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,510 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,510 vs 5,209
  • 79.2% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (584 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    584 vs 2,804.5
  • 48.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (785 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    785 vs 1,535
  • 52.2% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.2/ 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 99% of models

    3.2

    Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.2 vs 6.7
  • 19.9% worse value for money
    Intel Core i5-5200U has worse value for money than the average processor (6.07 vs 7.3).
    6.07 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
  • 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
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1168 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1168 vs FP5
  • 5 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2015 vs 2020).
    January 2015
    2015 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
  • 78.2% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,501 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,501 vs 11,469
  • 38.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.7 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
  • 41.8% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,490 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,490 vs 2,558
  • 71% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,510 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,510 vs 5,209
  • 79.2% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (584 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    584 vs 2,804.5
  • 48.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (785 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    785 vs 1,535
  • 49.4% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (248 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    248 vs 490
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x2.2 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
  • 6 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (22 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    22 vs 28
  • 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
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 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
  • 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
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Broadwell vs Kaby Lake).
    Broadwell vs Kaby Lake
  • 73.7% fewer transistors
    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
  • 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
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Older PCIe version
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-1600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3-1,600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (12 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    12 vs 16
  • 75% less memory capacity
    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
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    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

Video reviews

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

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
07/01/2015
First look · CES prototype tests
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-5200U is a steady step up from the i5-4200U, with clear multi-core gains, but the early results come from unfinished test laptops.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i5-5200U

  • Excellent power efficiency with a 15W TDP, making it suitable for thin and light ultrabooks.
  • Solid performance for daily productivity, office work, and multimedia consumption.
  • Integrated HD Graphics 5500 is a notable improvement over previous generations (HD 4400).
  • Capable of handling light or older games (e.g., League of Legends, Roblox, CS:GO) at low settings.
  • Efficient enough to be repurposed for low-power tasks like a home NAS or server.

What customers don't like about Intel Core i5-5200U

  • Limited to 2 physical cores and 4 threads, which struggles with modern heavy multitasking.
  • Often paired with non-upgradeable (soldered) 4GB RAM in many consumer laptops.
  • Performance is significantly weaker than modern integrated or budget discrete GPUs.
  • Prone to high CPU usage and potential stuttering when handling heavy web browsers like Chrome.
  • Older 14nm architecture lacks support for modern features like HDMI 2.0 or AVX-512.

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-5200U is a 5th-generation 'Broadwell' dual-core mobile processor featuring 4 threads, a base frequency of 2.20 GHz, and a Max Turbo frequency of 2.70 GHz. Built on a 14nm process with a 15W TDP, it integrates Intel HD Graphics 5500 (300–900 MHz) and includes a 3MB L3 cache. Its main advantages include high energy efficiency for ultrabooks, decent performance for daily office tasks, and a low thermal footprint that enables thin laptop designs. However, it is limited by having only two physical cores which hinders modern multitasking, lacks support for HDMI 2.0 or 4K/60Hz output via HDMI, and its integrated graphics struggle with contemporary gaming and intensive video editing.

Compare Intel Core i5-5200U 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 i5-5200U and other processors

No results found