Name: Intel Core i5 6360U
Brand: Intel

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i5 6360U

4.1

Hide

Platform

6.9

Hide

Brand name

Intel

Processor type

CPU socket

Chipset

N/A

CPU architecture

Performance

3.2

Hide

N. of physical cores

CPU threads

Threads per core

CPU boost clock speed

CPU base clock speed

Cache & Architecture

4.8

Hide

Semiconductor size

Foundry

L3 cache

L2 cache

L1 cache

Memory & PCIe

4.0

Hide

DDR memory version

Maximum memory speed

Max memory speed (JEDEC)

Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)

N/A

Maximum memory capacity

Integrated Graphics

7.0

Hide

Integrated graphics

Integrated GPU model

Integrated GPU execution units

Integrated GPU base frequency

Integrated media encoders/decoders

Power & Thermal

8.2

Hide

TDP (Thermal design power)

Base power (PL1)

Boost power (PL2)

Tau (power duration limit)

Configurable TDP

Intel Core i5 6360U vs the average processor

Why is Intel Core i5 6360U better than the average processor?

Hide

2.28x faster Blender rendering
Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
883.69
▲ Better than 83% of models
Market range: <97 – >1.3k
This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (883.7 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
883.69 vs 387.66
66.7% lower base power
Base power (PL1)
15 W
▲ 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
44.1% smaller die size
Die size
99 mm²
▲ Better than 89% of models
Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (99 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
99 mm² vs 177 mm²
58.3% lower boost power
Boost power (PL2)
25 W
▲ 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
▲ 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
Advanced security extensions
Security extensions
AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard
▼ Worse than 55% of models
This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
16.7% more L3 per core
L3 per core
2 MB/core
▲ Better than 52% of models
Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
2x more GPU execution units
Integrated GPU execution units
48
▲ Better than 83% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
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

Advanced security extensions
Security extensions
AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard
▼ Worse than 55% of models
This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor

2.28x faster Blender rendering
Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
883.69
▲ Better than 83% of models
Market range: <97 – >1.3k
This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (883.7 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
883.69 vs 387.66

44.1% smaller die size
Die size
99 mm²
▲ Better than 89% of models
Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (99 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
99 mm² vs 177 mm²
16.7% more L3 per core
L3 per core
2 MB/core
▲ Better than 52% of models
Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core

2x more GPU execution units
Integrated GPU execution units
48
▲ Better than 83% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
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

66.7% lower base power
Base power (PL1)
15 W
▲ 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
▲ 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
▲ 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

Why is Intel Core i5 6360U worse than the average processor?

Hide

82.5% lower multi-core score
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
843
▼ Worse than 88% of models
Market range: <763 – >14k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (843 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
843 vs 4,829
4 fewer CPU cores
N. of physical cores
2
▼ 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
70.5% lower PassMark score
PassMark benchmark result
3,120
▼ Worse than 84% of models
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,120 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
3,120 vs 10,572.5
27.9% lower boost clock
CPU boost clock speed
3.1 GHz
▼ Worse than 92% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
3.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
30.7% weaker single-core performance
PassMark single-core benchmark score
1,733
▼ Worse than 82% of models
Market range: <1.4k – >4k
This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,733 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
1,733 vs 2,500
42.7% lower single-core score
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
843
▼ Worse than 81% of models
Market range: <561 – >2.7k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (843 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
843 vs 1,471
Lower base clock
CPU base clock speed
2 x 2.0 GHz
▼ Worse than 93% of models
This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
2x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
4 fewer CPU threads
CPU threads
4
▼ 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

16.7% worse value for money
Intel Core i5 6360U has worse value for money than the average processor (5.62 vs 6.6).
5.62 vs 6.56

5 years older release date
Release date
2015
▼ Worse than 81% of models
Market range: <2k – >2k
This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2015 vs 2020).
September 2015
2015 vs 2020
Older CPU socket
CPU socket
FCBGA1356
▼ Worse than 88% of models
This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1356 vs FP4).
FCBGA1356 vs FP4
Narrower instruction support
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES
▼ Worse than 62% of models
This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
No crypto acceleration
Cryptographic acceleration
AES
▼ 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

82.5% lower multi-core score
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
843
▼ Worse than 88% of models
Market range: <763 – >14k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (843 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
843 vs 4,829
4 fewer CPU cores
N. of physical cores
2
▼ 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
70.5% lower PassMark score
PassMark benchmark result
3,120
▼ Worse than 84% of models
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,120 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
3,120 vs 10,572.5
27.9% lower boost clock
CPU boost clock speed
3.1 GHz
▼ Worse than 92% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
3.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
30.7% weaker single-core performance
PassMark single-core benchmark score
1,733
▼ Worse than 82% of models
Market range: <1.4k – >4k
This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,733 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
1,733 vs 2,500
42.7% lower single-core score
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
843
▼ Worse than 81% of models
Market range: <561 – >2.7k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (843 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
843 vs 1,471
Lower base clock
CPU base clock speed
2 x 2.0 GHz
▼ Worse than 93% of models
This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
2x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
4 fewer CPU threads
CPU threads
4
▼ 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
50% lower bus speed
Bus speed
4 GT/s
▼ Worse than 80% of models
Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
50% lower bus transfer rate
Bus transfer rate
4 GT/s
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
8 lower clock multiplier
Clock multiplier
20
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <16 – >38
This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (20 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
20 vs 28

80% smaller L2 cache
L2 cache
0.5 MB
▼ 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
16.7% larger process node
Semiconductor size
14 nm
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
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
L2 per core
0.25 MB/core
▼ 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
▼ 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
50% smaller L3 cache
L3 cache
4 MB
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
4 MB vs 8 MB
Less advanced microarchitecture
Microarchitecture codename
Skylake
▼ Worse than 62% of models
This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Skylake vs Kaby Lake).
Skylake vs Kaby Lake

25.5% lower memory bandwidth
Maximum memory bandwidth
34.1 GB/s
▼ Worse than 74% of models
Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (34.1 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
34.1 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
4 fewer PCIe lanes
PCIe lane count
12
▼ 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
27.3% lower memory speed
Maximum memory speed
2,133 MHz
▼ Worse than 75% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2133 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
2,133 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
Lower JEDEC memory speed
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2133 MHz
▼ Worse than 78% of models
This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2133 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
DDR4-2,133 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
Limited PCIe bifurcation
PCIe bifurcation modes
x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1
▼ Worse than 81% of models
This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
50% less memory capacity
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
▼ Worse than 72% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
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
Older DDR support
DDR memory version
DDR3L/DDR4/LPDDR3
▼ Worse than 74% of models
This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L/DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4).
DDR3L/DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4

Narrower media codec support
Integrated media encoders/decoders
VP9 (HW decode)
▼ Worse than 76% of models
This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

browser.geekbench.com

Ongoing

Summary of the review

Intel Core i5-6360U Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser

The Intel Core i5-6360U is a Skylake-based, dual-core ultra-low voltage (ULV) processor designed for thin laptops, featuring a 2.0 GHz base clock and up to 3.1 GHz Turbo Boost. A key feature is the integrated Intel Iris Graphics 540 with 64 MB of dedicated eDRAM, designed to improve graphics performance. While suitable for everyday office and light multimedia tasks with a 15W TDP, its age means it lacks the multi-core power of modern processors. Key limitations include restricted performance in modern applications, as highlighted in Geekbench 6 scores, and its status as a discontinued product. For the detailed benchmark data, visit Geekbench Browser.

cpubenchmark.net

Updated Daily

Summary of the review

Intel Core i5-6360U @ 2.00GHz - CPU Benchmarks

The Intel Core i5-6360U is a late-2015 6th-gen "Skylake" dual-core processor with hyper-threading and a 15W TDP, tailored for compact, portable laptops. A key advantage is the integrated Intel Iris Graphics 540 with 64MB of dedicated eDRAM, which provides superior graphical performance and 4K support over standard U-series chips. While efficient for its time, the processor suffers from limited multi-core performance against modern standards and lacks the efficiency and raw power of later, more advanced CPU architectures. For the detailed specifications and benchmark data, visit cpubenchmark.net.

techradar.com

19/11/2020

Summary of the review

Apple MacBook Pro (13-inch, Late 2016) review - TechRadar

The TechRadar review of the 13-inch Late 2016 MacBook Pro (non-Touch Bar) praises its extremely thin and light premium aluminum chassis and an improved, brighter Retina display with wider color support. Performance is propelled by fast PCIe SSD storage and punchy, redesigned speakers, although the entry-level 2GHz i5 processor is best suited for standard, rather than intensive, workloads. Significant drawbacks highlighted include a shallow "butterfly" keyboard that may feel uncomfortable for long typing sessions and a reliance on only two USB-C ports, creating a need for dongles.

pcmag.com

01/11/2016

Summary of the review

Apple MacBook Pro 13-Inch (2016) Review - PCMag

The 2016 13-inch Apple MacBook Pro features a redesigned, slim aluminum chassis with a significantly improved, brighter Retina display and a larger trackpad, serving as a powerful, high-end replacement for the MacBook Air. Powered by a 6th Generation Intel Core i5, it delivers solid performance and exceptional battery life lasting nearly 12 hours, although this base model lacks the Touch Bar found on higher-tier versions. Primary drawbacks include the shift to only two USB-C/Thunderbolt 3 ports, requiring adapters for legacy devices, and a shallow butterfly-switch keyboard that requires adaptation.

notebookcheck.com

01/07/2023

Summary of the review

Intel Core i5-6360U vs Intel Core i7-4700MQ: Benchmark Comparison

The Intel Core i7-4700MQ is a high-end, Haswell-based quad-core processor designed for performance laptops, offering significant raw multi-threaded power as a primary pro. However, its high 47W TDP acts as a con, resulting in high power consumption and thermal requirements that make it unsuitable for thin devices, while its integrated graphics are outdated. Conversely, the i5-6360U is a 15W Skylake dual-core chip designed for efficiency and thin, modern laptops, with a strong pro in its Iris Graphics 540 and 64MB eDRAM, which excel in multimedia tasks. A major con for the i5 is that its dual-core design is 25-30% slower than the i7 in heavy, multi-core workloads. Ultimately, the i7-4700MQ is superior for workstation tasks with over 70% better performance in certain multi-core scenarios, whereas the i5-6360U excels in portability, modern connectivity, and power efficiency. For the full comparison, visit Notebookcheck. Copy

notebookcheck.com

06/11/2016

Summary of the review

Apple MacBook Pro 13 Series – Overview and Reviews (i5-6360U)

The Apple MacBook Pro 13-inch series is recognized for its premium aluminum unibody, exceptional build quality, and high-resolution Retina display. Recent models featuring Apple Silicon (M1/M2) provide significant performance leaps and industry-leading battery life, further supported by active cooling for sustained workloads. However, the series is constrained by limited connectivity (two ports) and soldered components that prevent post-purchase upgrades. Other reported drawbacks include a design deemed outdated compared to newer 14-inch models and a high price-to-performance ratio that often competes with the lighter MacBook Air. For more details, visit Notebookcheck.

notebookcheck.com

01/07/2023

Summary of the review

Intel Core i5-6300U vs Intel Core i5-6360U – Benchmarks and Tests

The NotebookCheck comparison of the 2015-era Intel Core i5-6300U and i5-6360U highlights a battle between standard ULV efficiency and enhanced graphical performance, with the latter featuring 64 MB of dedicated eDRAM and a larger 4 MB L3 cache for superior throughput. The i5-6360U, equipped with Iris Graphics 540 (GT3e), is the clear winner for multimedia, offering performance roughly on par with an Nvidia GeForce 920M, whereas the i5-6300U relies on entry-level HD Graphics 520. While the i5-6360U wins on performance, the i5-6300U is often found in more affordable, widely available business laptops and holds a slight advantage in power efficiency for ultra-thin designs. Copy

valid.x86.fr

30/03/2026

Summary of the review

CPU-Z Benchmark for Intel Core i5-6360U: Would you like details on the integrated Iris 540 graphics performance for this specific model?

The CPU-Z benchmark validation for the Intel Core i5-6360U, a Skylake-generation, dual-core mobile processor, displays entry-level performance suitable for thin-and-light laptops, with a single-thread score of 277 and a multi-thread score of 545. Its pros include optimized power efficiency for portable devices, integrated Iris Graphics 540 for improved visual tasks, and decent single-core responsiveness for basic daily operations. However, its cons are significant, as the 2-core/4-thread design results in low multi-threaded performance by current standards, causing bottlenecks in modern applications, and it suffers from limited longevity due to its 2015-2016 vintage. View the detailed report at CPU-Z Validator.

saggiamente.com

08/11/2016

Summary of the review

Review: MacBook Pro 13" 2016 without Touch Bar

The late 2016 13-inch MacBook Pro without Touch Bar is positioned as a refined, high-end successor to the MacBook Air, featuring a 12% thinner aluminum chassis, a 500-nit P3 Retina display, and superior speakers. Performance remains solid for daily tasks, with the 2.0 GHz i5 model offering great battery life, but the butterfly keyboard has very shallow travel. Primary disadvantages include the limitation to only two Thunderbolt 3 ports, the loss of MagSafe, and a high entry price that excludes a Touch ID sensor.

iculture.nl

17/11/2016

Summary of the review

Review: MacBook Pro 2016 without Touch Bar (Entry-level model with i5-6360U)

The iCulture review of the 2016 MacBook Pro highlights a significant redesign featuring a thinner, lighter aluminum chassis, a brighter Retina display with wider color gamut, and a larger Force Touch trackpad. The introduction of the Touch Bar and Touch ID, along with improved speakers and faster SSD performance, are key hardware highlights. However, the machine is limited to USB-C ports, necessitating dongles, and lacks legacy connections like MagSafe, HDMI, and an SD card slot. While the second-generation butterfly keyboard offers stability, its shallow travel is a notable drawback, and battery life is characterized as inconsistent. Ultimately, the review defines the laptop as a "step forward and a step back" due to its premium price, high-performance display, and challenging I/O compromises. Copy

notebookcheck.nl

30/03/2016

Summary of the review

Dell XPS 13 9350 WQXGA Review (includes i5-6360U benchmarks)

The Dell XPS 13 9350 features a premium, compact design with a 13.3-inch "InfinityEdge" display in an 11-inch chassis, utilizing high-quality aluminum and carbon fiber. The WQXGA (3200x1800) model offers high sharpness and color accuracy, though it is prone to scaling issues with older applications. Powered by Intel Skylake processors and NVMe storage, it delivers a 10–20% performance boost over its predecessor. The ultrabook includes a versatile Thunderbolt 3/USB Type-C port and a comfortable keyboard, though it relies heavily on adapters for display connectivity. While build quality is robust and the cooling system generally quiet, the device can become audible under heavy workloads. The QHD+ panel provides excellent visuals but significantly impacts battery life compared to the FHD variant. Key advantages include the premium design and vibrant display, but notable drawbacks include low maximum screen brightness, pulse-width modulation (PWM) flickering, and the bottom-placed "nose cam" webcam. The 9350 remains a solid, portable choice for users seeking high performance in a compact form factor. For more details, visit Notebookcheck. Copy

Intel Core i5 6360U Review | 78 Data compared

Best prices

Best rankings

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i5 6360U

Intel Core i5 6360U vs the average processor

Why is Intel Core i5 6360U better than the average processor?

Why is Intel Core i5 6360U worse than the average processor?

Expert reviews

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i5 6360U

What we don't like about Intel Core i5 6360U

Verdict

Best alternatives

Compare Intel Core i5 6360U with other processors

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i5 6360U and other processors