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 i5-8259U review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£260PassMark multi-core score:7814N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.8 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1528TDP (Thermal design power):28 W

Intel Core i5-8259U Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 1 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.4/10

Overall score

Score
5.4/ 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 91% of models
Score components

40%

4.4

Technical score

25%

4.4

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 91% of processors
6.5

Value for money

Value for money
6.5/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components

70%

5.4

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

â–¼Worse than 88%
4.4

Technical score

Technical score
4.4/ 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 75% of models
Score components

60%

3.6

Performance

18%

4.9

Architecture

10%

4.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

7.8

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 75%
4.4

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.4/ 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 83% of models

4.4

Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.6

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 83%
?

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~ £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 i5-8259U

Technical score
Technical score
4.4/ 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 75% of models
Score components:

60%

3.6

Performance

18%

4.9

Architecture

10%

4.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

7.8

Integrated graphics

4.4
Reviews score
4.4
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.5/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components:

70%

5.4

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

6.5
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
Intel 300 Series
This processor supports Intel 300 Series chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 55% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 60.1% of processors and equal to that of 3.8% 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
3.8 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.8 GHz which is lower than that of 70.3% of processors and equal to that of 3.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.3 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.3 GHz which is lower than that of 70.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
7,814
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 7,814 in PassMark, which is lower than 59.6% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
?
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
2,133 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,133 MHz, which is lower than that of 76.4% of processors and equal to 8.4% 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 655
Integrated GPU model
Intel Iris Plus Graphics 655
This processor uses the Intel Iris Plus Graphics 655 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 66.5% of processors and equal to that in 0.2% 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), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
28 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.9% of processors and equal to that of 7.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
28 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.7% of processors and equal to that of 7% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
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
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 3-9,300 W
Show more

Intel Core i5-8259U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4.59x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,562.3 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,562.29 vs 340.075
  • 37.8% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (126 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    126 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4
  • 37.8% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • 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
  • 4.59x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,562.3 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,562.29 vs 340.075
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (126 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    126 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
  • 37.8% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • 37.8% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • 76.2% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,241 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,241 vs 5,209
  • 34.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.4/ 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 83% of models

    4.4

    Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.4 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
  • 13.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 22.9% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (378 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    378 vs 490
  • 42% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,628 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,628 vs 2,804.5
  • 31.9% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,814 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,814 vs 11,469
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 34.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.4/ 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 83% of models

    4.4

    Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.4 vs 6.7
  • 11.4% worse value for money
    Intel Core i5-8259U has worse value for money than the average processor (6.54 vs 7.3).
    6.54 vs 7.29
  • Narrower instruction support
    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, AMD-V).
    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, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot 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 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2018 vs 2020).
    April 2018
    2018 vs 2020
  • 76.2% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,241 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,241 vs 5,209
  • 13.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 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
  • 42% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,628 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,628 vs 2,804.5
  • 22.9% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (378 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    378 vs 490
  • 31.9% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,814 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,814 vs 11,469
  • 14.9% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,178 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,178 vs 2,558
  • 19% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,244 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,244 vs 1,535
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 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
  • 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 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 33.3% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,133 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,133 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
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)

Video reviews

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

7.0
Benson Chik
≈ estimated
22/02/2021
Hands-on review · gaming and performance tests
Verdict
Intel Core i5-8259U surprisingly runs games at low settings, but it is not really a gaming machine.
Brand video
Brand video

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i5-8259U

  • Strong multi-threaded performance for its class, outperforming some 15W i7 models like the i7-8550U due to its higher 28W TDP
  • Equipped with Iris Plus 655 integrated graphics, which features 128MB eDRAM for significantly better graphical performance than standard UHD graphics
  • Excellent for office productivity, light video editing, and multitasking with 4 cores and 8 threads
  • Efficient hardware acceleration for 4K video playback (H.265/HEVC and VP9 support)
  • Can leverage eDRAM as an L4 cache when the integrated GPU is not in heavy use, boosting overall system snappiness

What customers don't like about Intel Core i5-8259U

  • Higher power consumption (28W TDP) compared to the standard 15W 'U' series can lead to shorter battery life in thin-and-light laptops
  • Prone to thermal throttling during sustained heavy workloads if the device's cooling system is inadequate
  • Dated 14nm architecture limits its efficiency and performance when compared to newer 10nm or 7nm processors
  • Integrated graphics are still insufficient for modern AAA gaming, typically only handling light or older titles at low settings
  • Limited future-proofing as an 8th-generation chip in an increasingly demanding software environment

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-8259U is a quad-core, eight-thread mobile processor based on the Coffee Lake architecture, featuring a 2.3 GHz base frequency and a 3.8 GHz turbo boost. It includes a 6 MB Smart Cache, supports up to 32 GB of DDR4-2400 or LPDDR3-2133 memory, and operates at a 28 W TDP. Key advantages include its integrated Intel Iris Plus Graphics 655 with 128 MB of eDRAM, which significantly enhances graphical performance and can act as an L4 cache for sustained workloads. However, its higher TDP compared to standard 15 W ultrabook chips can lead to increased power consumption and potential thermal throttling in compact cooling solutions.

Compare Intel Core i5-8259U 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 i5-8259U and other processors

No results found