OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Core i5 7200U Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£130PassMark benchmark result:3370N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:3.1 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1356TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Core i5 7200U Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

3.7

Overall score

Score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components

90%

3.7

Technical score

10%

?

User score

▼Worse than 95% of processors
3.7

Technical score

Technical score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components

60%

2.5

Performance

18%

4.6

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.1

Platform

1%

6.7

Integrated Graphics

▼Worse than 94% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £130

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 7200U

Technical score
Technical score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components:

60%

2.5

Performance

18%

4.6

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.1

Platform

1%

6.7

Integrated Graphics

3.7
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core i5 7200U has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
5.5/ 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 92% of models
Score components:

60%

3.7

Overall score

40%

9.8

Price

5.5
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
▼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1356
CPU socket
FCBGA1356
▼ Worse than 88% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1356 CPU socket, which is older than that of 88.4% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
Chipset
Intel 100 Series
Chipset
Intel 100 Series
▼ Worse than 51% of models
This processor supports Intel 100 Series chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 51% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
▲ Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
N. of physical cores
2
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 79.3% of processors and equal to 20.6% of processors.
CPU threads
4
CPU threads
4
▼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 67.4% of processors and equal to 26.5% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
▲ Better than 30% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 2 threads per core, which is more than 30.3% of processors and equal to 69.7% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.1 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.1 GHz
▼ Worse than 92% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.1 GHz which is lower than that of 91.6% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 2.5 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 2.5 GHz
▼ Worse than 88% of models
This processor has a base clock of 2x2.5 GHz which is lower than that of 88% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Semiconductor size
14 nm
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 50.6% of processors and equal to that of 33.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
▼ Worse than 55% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.2% of processors and equal to that of 29.3% of processors.
L3 cache
3 MB
L3 cache
3 MB
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 3 MB which is smaller than that of 84.8% of processors and equal to that of 5.6% of processors.
L2 cache
0.5 MB
L2 cache
0.5 MB
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 0.5 MB which is smaller than that of 84.7% of processors and equal to that of 15.3% of processors.
L1 cache
128 KB
L1 cache
128 KB
▼ Worse than 83% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 128 KB which is smaller than that of 83.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.8% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3L/DDR4
DDR memory version
DDR3L/DDR4
▼ Worse than 78% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR3L/DDR4, which is older than that of 77.7% of processors and equal to that of 5.4% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,133 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,133 MHz
▼ Worse than 75% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,133 MHz, which is lower than that of 75.5% of processors and equal to 8.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
?
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
▼ Worse than 72% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 71.9% of processors and equal to 19.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
▲ Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 620
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 620
▼ Worse than 77% of models
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 620 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 76.8% of processors and equal to that in 0.4% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Integrated GPU execution units
24
▲ Better than 49% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.3% of processors and equal to 21.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
▼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 58.1% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), JPEG (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), JPEG (HW decode)
▲ Better than 81% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), JPEG (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 80.7% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
▲ Better than 78% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 78% of processors and equal to that of 16% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Base power (PL1)
15 W
▲ Better than 77% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 77.2% of processors and equal to that of 16.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
25 W
Boost power (PL2)
25 W
▲ Better than 83% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 25 W which is lower than that of 83% of processors and equal to that of 8% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
▼ Worse than 10% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 3.4% of processors and equal to that of 86.1% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
▲ Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Core i5 7200U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 3.29x faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,276.39
    ▲ Better than 89% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,276.4 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,276.39 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
  • 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
  • 37.3% smaller die size
    Die size
    111 mm²
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (111 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    111 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
    ▼ Worse than 56% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
    ▼ Worse than 56% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 3.29x faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,276.39
    ▲ Better than 89% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,276.4 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,276.39 vs 387.66
  • 37.3% smaller die size
    Die size
    111 mm²
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (111 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    111 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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
  • 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
  • 68.1% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    3,370
    ▼ Worse than 82% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,370 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,370 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
  • 71.7% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    791
    ▼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (791 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    791 vs 2,791
  • 64.8% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1,700
    ▼ Worse than 72% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,700 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,700 vs 4,829
  • 30.8% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,729
    ▼ Worse than 82% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,729 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,729 vs 2,500
  • 33.9% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    973
    ▼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (973 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    973 vs 1,471
  • 37% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    308
    ▼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (308 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    308 vs 489
  • 18.7% worse value for money
    Intel Core i5 7200U has worse value for money than the average processor (5.53 vs 6.6).
    5.53 vs 6.56
  • 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, AVX, AVX2, 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, AVX, AVX2, 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, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 4 years older release date
    Release date
    2016
    ▼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2016 vs 2020).
    August 2016
    2016 vs 2020
  • 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
  • 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
  • 68.1% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    3,370
    ▼ Worse than 82% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,370 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,370 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
  • 71.7% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    791
    ▼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (791 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    791 vs 2,791
  • 64.8% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1,700
    ▼ Worse than 72% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,700 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,700 vs 4,829
  • 30.8% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,729
    ▼ Worse than 82% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,729 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,729 vs 2,500
  • 33.9% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    973
    ▼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (973 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    973 vs 1,471
  • 37% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    308
    ▼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (308 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    308 vs 489
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 2.5 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 88% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.5 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x2.5 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
  • 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
  • 62.5% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    3 MB
    ▼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (3 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    3 MB vs 8 MB
  • 12.5% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.5 MB/core
    ▼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 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
  • Older DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR3L/DDR4
    ▼ Worse than 78% of models
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4
  • 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
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Intel HD Graphics 620
    ▼ Worse than 77% of models
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 620 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel HD Graphics 620 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

T
techradar.com
24/04/2019
Summary of the review
Azulle Inspire fanless mini PC review Would you like to see a comparison of benchmark scores (like Cinebench or Geekbench) from these specific reviews...
L
laptopmag.com
11/10/2017
Summary of the review
Acer Swift 3 Review: Full Review and Benchmarks
T
techradar.com
03/10/2018
Summary of the review
Microsoft Surface Laptop review - Page 2
L
laptopmag.com
10/04/2017
Summary of the review
LG Gram - Full Review and Benchmarks
T
techradar.com
14/05/2017
Summary of the review
Hands on: Asus AsusPro B9440UA review
L
laptopmag.com
02/03/2017
Summary of the review
Dell Inspiron 13 5000 (7th Gen Core) Review
T
techradar.com
26/08/2019
Summary of the review
Asus Zenbook UX310UA review - Laptops
N
notebookcheck.net
03/11/2017
Summary of the review
HP 14-bs007ng (i5-7200U, FHD) Laptop Review
N
notebookcheck.net
25/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-7200U Notebook Processor Are you looking for these reviews to compare its performance against a newer chip, or are you troubleshooting a...
L
laptopmag.com
29/09/2017
Summary of the review
Tested: 8th Gen Core As Much as 76 Percent Faster Than 7th Gen
T
techspot.com
17/07/2017
Summary of the review
What Games Can Ultrabooks Really Play?
T
techspot.com
03/07/2017
Summary of the review
Gigabyte Aorus GTX 1070 Gaming Box Review
L
laptopmag.com
24/05/2017
Summary of the review
Dell Latitude 5289 2-in-1 - Review and Benchmarks
T
techspot.com
18/04/2017
Summary of the review
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon Review > A Superb Ultraportable
L
laptopmag.com
24/03/2017
Summary of the review
Dell Inspiron 13 7000 (Early 2017) Review
T
techspot.com
19/12/2016
Summary of the review
Asrock Beebox-S 7200U: Kaby Lake vs. Skylake
N
notebooks-und-mobiles.de
13/10/2016
Summary of the review
Kaby Lake - Intel Core i5-7200U vs. Intel Core i5-6200U
(Translated)Show original
N
nextpit.fr
18/08/2017
Summary of the review
Huawei Matebook X Review: A Fast and Nearly Perfect Notebook
(Translated)Show original
V
valid.x86.fr
20/01/2017
Summary of the review
CPU-Z Benchmark for Intel Core i5-7200U (Single-Thread)
(Translated)Show original
C
cpubenchmark.net
30/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-7200U @ 2.50GHz - CPU Benchmarks
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
29/06/2017
Summary of the review
Microsoft Surface Laptop Review
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
30/08/2016
Summary of the review
Intel's New Kaby Lake Processors - Background
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i5 7200U

  • Efficient power management suitable for long battery life in mobile devices
  • Capably handles everyday tasks like web browsing, office work, and media consumption
  • Sufficient performance for basic coding and software development tasks
  • Noticeable improvement in clock speeds and overall performance compared to previous i5-6200U
  • Runs quietly in many configurations, making it good for noise-sensitive environments

What we don't like about Intel Core i5 7200U

  • Dual-core architecture significantly limits multitasking compared to newer quad-core 8th Gen processors
  • Prone to thermal throttling under heavy or sustained loads, impacting gaming and rendering
  • Poor performance for modern high-end gaming and heavy video editing/rendering
  • Not officially supported by Windows 11, which typically requires 8th Gen Intel CPUs or newer
  • Increasingly considered 'obsolete' for intensive modern software in 2024–2026

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-7200U is a 7th Generation Kaby Lake dual-core processor designed for thin and light notebooks, featuring 2 cores and 4 threads with Hyper-Threading technology. It operates at a base frequency of 2.50 GHz, reaching a maximum turbo frequency of 3.10 GHz, and includes 3 MB of Intel Smart Cache. Its main advantages include a low 15W TDP (Thermal Design Power) that promotes long battery life and quiet operation, along with integrated Intel HD Graphics 620 capable of supporting 4K resolution at 60Hz. However, it is limited by its dual-core architecture which can bottleneck modern intensive multitasking or gaming, and it is officially unsupported for Windows 11 due to its age.

Compare Intel Core i5 7200U 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 7200U and other processors

No results found