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 i5-8257U review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£190PassMark multi-core score:7408N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.9 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1528TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Core i5-8257U Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 1 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.5/10

Overall score

Score
5.5/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components

40%

4.5

Technical score

25%

4.5

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 90% of processors
6.7

Value for money

Value for money
6.7/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components

70%

5.5

Overall score

30%

9.5

Price

â–¼Worse than 83%
4.5

Technical score

Technical score
4.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Score components

60%

3.8

Performance

18%

4.7

Architecture

10%

4.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

7.7

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 72%
4.5

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.5/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models

4.5

Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.9

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 review, with a printed score. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 82%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £190
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 i5-8257U

Technical score
Technical score
4.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Score components:

60%

3.8

Performance

18%

4.7

Architecture

10%

4.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

7.7

Integrated graphics

4.5
Reviews score
4.5
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.7/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components:

70%

5.5

Overall score

30%

9.5

Price

6.7
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1528
This processor uses the FCBGA1528 CPU socket, which is older than that of 78.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
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
8
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 33.4% of processors and equal to 18.8% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.9 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.9 GHz which is lower than that of 67% of processors and equal to that of 3.2% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.4 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x1.4 GHz which is lower than that of 86.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
7,408
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 7,408 in PassMark, which is lower than 61.3% 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
6 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 6 MB which is smaller than that of 62.3% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% 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
DDR4/LPDDR3
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR3, which is newer than that of 56.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 64.6% of processors and equal to 11.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 67.7% of processors and equal to 10.9% 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 Plus Graphics 645
Integrated GPU model
Intel Iris Plus Graphics 645
This processor uses the Intel Iris Plus Graphics 645 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 66.1% of processors and equal to that in 0.1% 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/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), JPEG (HW decode)
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 81.3% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 79.2% of processors and equal to that of 15.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 78.3% of processors and equal to that of 15.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
44 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 44 W which is lower than that of 73.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 4.4% of processors and equal to that of 85.3% of processors.
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core i5-8257U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 5.88x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,999.3 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,999.28 vs 340.075
  • 66.7% lower base power
    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
  • 31.1% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (122 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    122 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    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
  • 31.3% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (44 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    44 W vs 64 W
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 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
  • 5.88x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,999.3 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,999.28 vs 340.075
  • 31.1% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (122 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    122 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4
  • 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
  • 66.7% lower base power
    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
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    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
  • 31.3% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (44 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    44 W vs 64 W
  • 32.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.5/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 82% of models

    4.5

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 review, with a printed score. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.5 vs 6.7
  • 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.
  • 11.4% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 45.8% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,520 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,520 vs 2,804.5
  • 35.4% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,408 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,408 vs 11,469
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x1.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 19.8% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (393 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    393 vs 490
  • 32.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.5/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 82% of models

    4.5

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 review, with a printed score. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.5 vs 6.7
  • 8.6% worse value for money
    Intel Core i5-8257U has worse value for money than the average processor (6.71 vs 7.3).
    6.71 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, 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, SGX, MPX, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1528 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1528 vs FP5
  • 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
  • 11.4% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 45.8% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,520 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,520 vs 2,804.5
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x1.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 35.4% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,408 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,408 vs 11,469
  • 19.8% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (393 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    393 vs 490
  • 20.8% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,215 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,215 vs 1,535
  • 12.4% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,240 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,240 vs 2,558
  • 22.6% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (4,030 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    4,030 vs 5,209
  • 14 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (14 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    14 vs 28
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    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
  • 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
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 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
  • 33.3% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    6 MB vs 9 MB
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    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, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 25% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 20% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (37.5 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    37.5 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 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
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    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
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
notebooks-und-mobiles.de
✓ explicit
30/10/2019
Benchmark test · 13-inch MacBook Pro
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-8257U inside Apple's 13-inch MacBook Pro beats the Core i7-8565U in some tests and holds its speed well under long loads, but gaming is limited.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i5-8257U

  • Significantly improved multi-core performance compared to previous dual-core U-series processors
  • High Turbo Boost clock (up to 3.9 GHz) provides strong short-burst and single-threaded performance
  • Efficient 15W TDP is well-suited for thin-and-light laptops and ultrabooks
  • Integrated Iris Plus Graphics 645 offers decent performance for light gaming and casual video editing
  • Solid value for everyday productivity tasks, web browsing, and student use

What customers don't like about Intel Core i5-8257U

  • Performance is often limited by TDP and cooling solutions in sustained workloads
  • Considered an older architecture that is no longer competitive with modern 10nm or 7nm processors
  • Base clock speed is relatively low (1.4 GHz), making it less ideal for heavy, long-term CPU loads
  • Integrated graphics lack dedicated video memory, making performance highly dependent on fast system RAM
  • Struggles with demanding modern AAA gaming titles and high-resolution (4K) video editing

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-8257U is a quad-core, 8-thread mobile processor from the Coffee Lake-U Refresh generation, featuring a 14nm++ manufacturing process and a 15W TDP. It operates at a base clock of 1.4 GHz with a Max Turbo frequency of 3.9 GHz and includes 6 MB of Intel Smart Cache. Main pros include its relatively high turbo clock for strong single-core performance, the integration of Intel Iris Plus Graphics 645 with 128 MB of eDRAM for improved entry-level graphical tasks, and support for 4K video output at 60Hz. However, its low 1.4 GHz base frequency can lead to throttled sustained performance under heavy multi-core loads, and as an older 8th-generation chip, it lacks support for modern standards like PCIe 4.0 or the latest AV1 video codecs.

Compare Intel Core i5-8257U 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 i5-8257U and other processors

No results found