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 i5-5675R review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£210PassMark multi-core score:5560N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.6 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1364TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

Intel Core i5-5675R Review: Compare 168 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.9/10

Overall score

Score
5.9/ 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 45%, Reviews score 25%, List score 20%, 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 72% of models
Score components

45%

4.3

Technical score

25%

?

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

20%

?

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 72% of processors
7.0

Value for money

Value for money
7.0/ 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 66% of models
Score components

70%

5.9

Overall score

30%

9.4

Price

â–¼Worse than 66%
4.3

Technical score

Technical score
4.3/ 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 45% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
Score components

60%

3.8

Performance

18%

4.3

Architecture

10%

4.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.0

Power & Thermal

4%

7.1

Platform

1%

7.5

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 78%
?

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
â–¼
<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 20% 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
Best prices
    N/A~ £210
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 i5-5675R

Technical score
Technical score
4.3/ 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 45% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
Score components:

60%

3.8

Performance

18%

4.3

Architecture

10%

4.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.0

Power & Thermal

4%

7.1

Platform

1%

7.5

Integrated graphics

4.3
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.0/ 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 66% of models
Score components:

70%

5.9

Overall score

30%

9.4

Price

7.0
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
FCBGA1364
This processor uses the FCBGA1364 CPU socket, which is older than that of 87.8% of processors and equal to that of 1% 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
5,560
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 5,560 in PassMark, which is lower than 70.4% 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
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
256 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.1% 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
1,866 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,866 MHz, which is lower than that of 84.9% of processors and equal to 2.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1866 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-1866 MHz, which is lower than that of 86.9% of processors and equal to 0.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
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.
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6,200
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), VP8 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 73% 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 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 81 W which is higher than that of 56% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core i5-5675R vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 32% better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (3,703 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    3,703 vs 2,804.5
  • 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
  • 32% better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (3,703 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    3,703 vs 2,804.5
  • 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
  • 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
  • 51.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,560 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,560 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
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 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
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 3.2% worse value for money
    Intel Core i5-5675R has worse value for money than the average processor (6.97 vs 7.2).
    6.97 vs 7.2
  • 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).
    May 2015
    2015 vs 2020
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1364 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1364 vs FP5
  • 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
  • 51.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,560 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,560 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
  • 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
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 20.1% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,227 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,227 vs 1,535
  • 28.9% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,703 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,703 vs 5,209
  • 11.5% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,265 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,265 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 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
  • 41.7% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1866 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    1,866 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • 36.2% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (29.9 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    29.9 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-1866 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3-1,866 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), VP8 (HW decode), 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), H.265 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode), 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.
  • 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
  • 26.6% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (81 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    81 W vs 64 W

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i5-5675R

  • Integrated Iris Pro Graphics 6200 offers excellent performance for an iGPU, often outperforming low-end dedicated cards.
  • Includes 128MB of eDRAM (L4 cache) which significantly boosts bandwidth-sensitive tasks and gaming performance.
  • Highly efficient 14nm Broadwell architecture provides good performance-per-watt for its era.
  • Low thermal footprint (65W TDP) makes it suitable for smaller form factor builds or silent systems.
  • Strong single-core performance compared to previous-generation Haswell chips at similar clock speeds.

What we don't like about Intel Core i5-5675R

  • The BGA1364 package means it is soldered to the motherboard, making it impossible to upgrade or replace individually.
  • Locked multiplier prevents traditional overclocking, limiting its appeal to enthusiasts compared to the 'C' variant (i5-5675C).
  • Lacks Hyper-Threading, leaving it with only 4 threads, which can struggle with modern multi-threaded productivity or gaming.
  • Relatively low base and boost clock speeds (3.1 GHz to 3.6 GHz) compared to flagship desktop counterparts.
  • Limited availability and high initial cost made it a niche product that was quickly superseded by the Skylake generation.

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-5675R is a 5th Generation Broadwell desktop processor featuring 4 cores and 4 threads, a 3.1 GHz base clock with a 3.6 GHz turbo boost, and a 65W TDP. Its standout feature is the integrated Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 with 128MB of eDRAM, which provided class-leading integrated graphics performance for its time. Pros include efficient 14nm lithography, support for up to 32GB of DDR3L-1866 memory, and strong single-core efficiency. However, cons include a locked multiplier that prevents overclocking, a small 4MB L3 cache, and its current status as a discontinued product that is significantly outperformed by modern multi-threaded architectures.

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

No results found