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 8250U Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£260PassMark benchmark result:5801N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.4 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1356TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Core i5 8250U Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.3

Overall score

Score
4.3/ 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 83% of models
Score components

90%

4.3

Technical score

10%

?

User score

▼Worse than 83% of processors
4.3

Technical score

Technical score
4.3/ 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 78% of models
Score components

60%

3.4

Performance

18%

4.8

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.9

Integrated Graphics

▼Worse than 78% 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~ £260

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 8250U

Technical score
Technical score
4.3/ 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 78% of models
Score components:

60%

3.4

Performance

18%

4.8

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.9

Integrated Graphics

4.3
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 8250U 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
5.7/ 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:

60%

4.3

Overall score

40%

9.2

Price

5.7
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
N/A
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
4
N. of physical cores
4
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 50.7% of processors and equal to 28.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
CPU threads
8
▼ Worse than 46% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 35.2% of processors and equal to 19.1% 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
3.4 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.4 GHz
▼ Worse than 84% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.4 GHz which is lower than that of 83.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.6 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.6 GHz
▼ Worse than 81% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x1.6 GHz which is lower than that of 81.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% 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
6 MB
L3 cache
6 MB
▼ Worse than 60% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 6 MB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
L2 cache
1 MB
▼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 66.9% of processors and equal to that of 17.7% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
L1 cache
256 KB
▼ Worse than 59% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 59.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR3
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR3
▲ Better than 58% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR3, which is newer than that of 58% of processors and equal to that of 2.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
▼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 63% of processors and equal to 12.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
▼ Worse than 66% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 66.4% of processors and equal to 11.5% of processors.
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.
Intel UHD Graphics 620
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 620
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 620
▼ Worse than 56% of models
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 620 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 55.8% of processors and equal to that in 1.2% 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), VP8 (HW decode/encode), JPEG (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), JPEG (HW decode)
▲ Better than 80% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), JPEG (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 79.7% of processors and equal to 0.7% 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 8250U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 8.54x faster classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    2,852.02
    ▲ Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (2,852 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    2,852.02 vs 334.1
  • 99% faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    771.41
    ▲ Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (771.4 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    771.41 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
  • 30.5% smaller die size
    Die size
    123 mm²
    ▲ Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (123 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    123 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
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/LPDDR3
    ▲ Better than 58% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4
  • 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
  • 8.54x faster classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    2,852.02
    ▲ Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (2,852 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    2,852.02 vs 334.1
  • 99% faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    771.41
    ▲ Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (771.4 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    771.41 vs 387.66
  • 30.5% smaller die size
    Die size
    123 mm²
    ▲ Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (123 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    123 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/LPDDR3
    ▲ Better than 58% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4
  • 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
  • 20.9% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.4 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.4 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.4 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 25% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,875
    ▼ Worse than 76% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,875 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,875 vs 2,500
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    ▼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 45.1% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    5,801
    ▼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,801 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,801 vs 10,572.5
  • 28.6% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    349
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (349 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    349 vs 489
  • 45.9% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,509
    ▼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,509 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,509 vs 2,791
  • 20.1% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,175
    ▼ Worse than 66% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,175 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,175 vs 1,471
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 1.6 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1.6 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x1.6 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 14.6% worse value for money
    Intel Core i5 8250U has worse value for money than the average processor (5.73 vs 6.6).
    5.73 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
  • 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
  • 3 years older release date
    Release date
    2017
    ▼ Worse than 69% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
    August 2017
    2017 vs 2020
  • 20.9% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.4 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.4 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.4 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 25% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,875
    ▼ Worse than 76% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,875 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,875 vs 2,500
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    ▼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 45.1% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    5,801
    ▼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,801 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,801 vs 10,572.5
  • 45.9% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,509
    ▼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,509 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,509 vs 2,791
  • 28.6% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    349
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (349 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    349 vs 489
  • 20.1% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,175
    ▼ Worse than 66% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,175 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,175 vs 1,471
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 1.6 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1.6 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x1.6 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 27.5% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    3,500
    ▼ Worse than 59% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,500 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,500 vs 4,829
  • 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
  • 12 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    16
    ▼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (16 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    16 vs 28
  • 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
  • 60% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    1 MB
    ▼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    1 MB vs 2.5 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
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    256 KB
    ▼ Worse than 59% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    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
  • 25% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    6 MB
    ▼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    6 MB vs 8 MB
  • 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
  • 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
  • 18.1% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    37.5 GB/s
    ▼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (37.5 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    37.5 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 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
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR4-2400 MHz
    ▼ Worse than 66% of models
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 18.2% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    2,400 MHz
    ▼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2400 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 2,933 MHz

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

U
ultrabookreview.com
05/04/2021
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-8250U benchmarks and performance vs. i5-7200U, i7-7500U and i7-8550U
T
techspot.com
29/05/2018
Summary of the review
LG Gram 13 Review > System Performance
N
notebookcheck.net
03/09/2018
Summary of the review
HP 14 (i5-8250U, Intel Optane Memory, HD Display) Laptop Review
L
laptopmag.com
29/09/2017
Summary of the review
Tested: 8th Gen Core As Much as 76 Percent Faster Than 7th Gen
L
laptopmedia.com
27/09/2017
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-8250U vs Core i5-7200U - two generations collide
C
cpu.userbenchmark.com
Continuous
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-8250U - CPU UserBenchmarks
C
cpubenchmark.net
Updated Daily
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-8250U @ 1.60GHz - CPU Benchmarks
L
laptopmedia.com
30/09/2017
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-8250U vs Core i7-8550U - Core i5 vs i7, a never-ending dispute
C
computerbase.de
29/11/2018
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-8265U & i3-8145U Review (Including Benchmarks vs. i5-8250U)
(Translated)Show original
H
hardwareluxx.de
27/09/2017
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-8250U and i7-8550U Review: Sometimes a Small, Sometimes a Giant Leap
(Translated)Show original
C
computerbase.de
27/09/2017
Summary of the review
Core i7-8550U & i5-8250U Review: Four CPU Cores at 15W TDP Really Bring the Heat
(Translated)Show original
N
notebooks-und-mobiles.de
26/04/2019
Summary of the review
Microsoft Surface Laptop 2 (i5-8250U) Review
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.com
10/01/2019
Summary of the review
HP Pavilion 15 (i5-8250U, MX130) Laptop Review
(Translated)Show original
N
notebooks-und-mobiles.de
21/08/2017
Summary of the review
Kaby Lake Refresh - Intel Core i5-8250U Review
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
04/01/2018
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-8250U vs. Intel Core i7-7500U: 8th Gen i5 vs. 7th Gen i7
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
N/D
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-8250U | LaptopMedia Italy - LaptopMedia
(Translated)Show original
T
test-aankoop.be
22/10/2026
Summary of the review
DELL INSPIRON 15 5000 (8th Gen) Test and Review
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
16/03/2018
Summary of the review
Acer Aspire 5 Review - Fast hardware for your money
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
15/05/2018
Summary of the review
Lenovo IdeaPad 520 Review - Fast, affordable laptop with a small battery
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i5 8250U

  • Significant multitasking improvement over 7th Gen dual-core chips due to 4 cores and 8 threads
  • Excellent power efficiency (15W TDP) that balances performance with longer battery life in laptops
  • Strong value for money, often outperforming older i7 'HQ' series chips in burst tasks
  • Smooth performance for everyday office work, 4K video playback, and light creative tasks like Photoshop
  • Capable of decent single-core speeds thanks to a 3.4GHz turbo boost

What we don't like about Intel Core i5 8250U

  • Prone to thermal throttling, often dropping clock speeds significantly during sustained heavy workloads
  • Low base frequency (1.6GHz) can lead to slow performance in apps that don't effectively use turbo boost
  • Integrated UHD 620 graphics are insufficient for modern AAA gaming or heavy 3D rendering
  • Performance in highly multithreaded professional tasks is lackluster compared to modern high-wattage CPUs
  • Limited long-term future-proofing for intensive next-gen applications

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-8250U is an 8th-generation Kaby Lake Refresh quad-core processor launched in late 2017, specifically designed for ultra-low-power notebooks and 2-in-1 laptops. It features 4 cores and 8 threads with a base clock speed of 1.60 GHz, reaching a maximum turbo frequency of 3.40 GHz, and includes 6 MB of Intel Smart Cache. Integrated with Intel UHD Graphics 620, the chip supports up to 32 GB of DDR4-2400 or LPDDR3-2133 memory while maintaining a low thermal design power (TDP) of 15W. Main advantages include a significant 40% multi-core performance jump over its dual-core predecessors and excellent energy efficiency for extended battery life in thin-and-light devices. However, its primary drawbacks are a relatively low base clock speed and a tendency to throttle performance under sustained heavy workloads due to its conservative 15W power limit and thermal constraints.

Compare Intel Core i5 8250U 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 8250U and other processors

No results found