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 i5-5675C review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£340PassMark multi-core score:5756N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.6 GHzCPU socket:LGA1150TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

Intel Core i5-5675C Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 6 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i5-5675C
5.6/10

Overall score

Score
5.6/ 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 89% of models
Score components

40%

4.7

Technical score

25%

4.7

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

▼Worse than 89% of processors
6.6

Value for money

Value for money
6.6/ 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 86% of models
Score components

70%

5.6

Overall score

30%

8.7

Price

▼Worse than 86%
4.7

Technical score

Technical score
4.7/ 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 67% of models
Score components

60%

4.2

Performance

18%

4.5

Architecture

10%

4.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.5

Platform

1%

7.4

Integrated graphics

▼Worse than 67%
4.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.7/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 79% of models

4.7

Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

6.9

Average grade

20%

8.3

Popularity

Grades by review (6)
3 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 79%
?

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-i5-5675c
intel-core-i5-5675c
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.

What reviewers say about the Intel Core i5-5675C

Based on 3 · 2

Reviewers like its low power consumption, but agree CPU performance falls short.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i5-5675C

Technical score
Technical score
4.7/ 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 67% of models
Score components:

60%

4.2

Performance

18%

4.5

Architecture

10%

4.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.5

Platform

1%

7.4

Integrated graphics

4.7
Reviews score
4.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.6/ 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 86% of models
Score components:

70%

5.6

Overall score

30%

8.7

Price

6.6
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1150
This processor uses the LGA1150 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 55.3% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
Chipset
H97, Z97
This processor supports H97, Z97 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 53.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% 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, BMI1, BMI2
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2 instruction sets, which is broader support than 58.8% of processors and equal to that of 7.6% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
CPU threads
4
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 69% of processors and equal to 25.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.6 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.6 GHz which is lower than that of 78% of processors and equal to that of 3.4% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.1 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.1 GHz which is lower than that of 59% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
5,756
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 5,756 in PassMark, which is lower than 68.7% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
4 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 71.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.8% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 68.3% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
L1 cache
?
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)
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 Iris Pro Graphics 6200
This processor uses the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 64.7% of processors and equal to that in 0.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
48
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 48 GPU execution units, which is more than 82.1% of processors and equal to 4.5% 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
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 55.8% of processors and equal to 0.2% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 17.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
81.25 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 81.25 W which is higher than that of 56.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 37 W
Show more
What reviewers say

Intel Core i5-5675C vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 2x more GPU execution units
    This processor has more GPU execution units than the average processor (48 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    48 vs 24
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 2x more GPU execution units
    This processor has more GPU execution units than the average processor (48 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    48 vs 24
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 29.9% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.7/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 79% of models

    4.7

    Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    6.9

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    3 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.7 vs 6.7
  • 18.2% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 49.8% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,756 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,756 vs 11,469
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 29.4% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (346 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    346 vs 490
  • 45.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 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
  • 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
  • 29.9% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.7/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 79% of models

    4.7

    Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    6.9

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    3 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.7 vs 6.7
  • 11.1% worse value for money
    Intel Core i5-5675C has worse value for money than the average processor (6.56 vs 7.3).
    6.56 vs 7.29
  • 36% more expensive
    Intel Core i5-5675C is more expensive than the average processor (£340 vs £250).
    £340 vs £250
  • 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
  • 5 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2015 vs 2020).
    June 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
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (TPM 1.2 vs PTT 2).
    TPM 1.2 vs PTT 2.0
  • 18.2% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 49.8% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,756 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,756 vs 11,469
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 29.4% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (346 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    346 vs 490
  • 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
  • 13.1% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,223 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,223 vs 2,558
  • 21.1% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (4,108 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    4,108 vs 5,209
  • 10.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,368 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,368 vs 1,535
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x3.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x3.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 45.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1 MB vs 3 MB
  • 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
  • 55.6% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    4 MB vs 9 MB
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Broadwell vs Kaby Lake).
    Broadwell vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.8% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (182 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    182 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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
  • 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
  • 50% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), 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), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), 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), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 4 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (96 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    96 °C vs 100 °C
  • 27% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (81.3 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    81.25 W vs 64 W

Video reviews

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

7.0
Maxi72m
≈ estimated
12/11/2021
Hands-on review · boot problems, temperatures and graphics tests
Verdict
Intel Core i5-5675C has small integrated graphics; fast memory helps, but a separate graphics card may be better value.
9.0
BeastPC
≈ estimated
16/07/2020
Hands-on build review · gaming and macOS tests
Verdict
Intel Core i5-5675C makes a near-perfect portable gaming and macOS build, though games run less well than hoped.
4.0
Sven Nilsson
≈ estimated
19/09/2015
Hands-on test · as a replacement for a discrete graphics card
Verdict
Intel Core i5-5675C is not good enough to replace a discrete graphics card, and not worth upgrading from Haswell.
Overview video
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

6.0
tomshardware.com
≈ estimated
02/06/2015
Lab test · Desktop graphics chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-5675C and Core i7-5775C are the first socketed desktop chips with Iris Pro graphics, but with Skylake only months away, most buyers should wait.
5.0
hardware.fr
≈ estimated
07/07/2015
Lab test · Gaming and overclocking
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-5675C is a strong gaming chip thanks to its large cache, but it overclocks poorly and Skylake arrives within a month.
6.0
tomshardware.fr
≈ estimated
02/06/2015
Lab test · Power and heat
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-5675C and i7-5775C draw very little power, but they arrive just months before Skylake, which makes them hard to justify.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i5-5675C

  • Exceptional integrated graphics performance featuring Iris Pro Graphics 6200 with 128MB eDRAM L4 cache
  • High energy efficiency with a conservative 65W TDP making it ideal for mini-ITX and low-noise builds
  • Unlocked multiplier allows for significant overclocking potential despite conservative stock speeds
  • Strong IPC (Instructions Per Cycle) improvements over previous Haswell architecture
  • Compatible with existing LGA 1150 socket motherboards (Z97/H97 series)

What customers don't like about Intel Core i5-5675C

  • Lower base (3.1GHz) and turbo (3.6GHz) clock speeds compared to previous-generation high-end Haswell chips
  • Lacks Hyper-Threading support, limiting performance in heavily multithreaded workloads
  • Requires a 9-series chipset motherboard and often a mandatory BIOS update for compatibility
  • Released very close to the Skylake architecture, making it a short-lived 'stop-gap' option
  • High initial retail price compared to other mid-range processors of its time

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-5675C is a 5th Generation Broadwell quad-core desktop processor built on a 14nm process, featuring 4 threads, a 3.10 GHz base frequency, and a 3.60 GHz Max Turbo frequency. A standout characteristic is its integrated Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 with 128MB of dedicated eDRAM, which significantly boosts graphical performance compared to its predecessors. Main pros include its relatively low 65W TDP, an unlocked multiplier for easier overclocking, and exceptional integrated graphics performance for its era. However, notable cons include its limited 4MB L3 cache, lack of Hyper-Threading support, and lower raw clock speeds compared to some high-end Haswell-based predecessors.

Compare Intel Core i5-5675C 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 i5-5675C and other processors

No results found