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 i5-9300H review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£200PassMark multi-core score:7420N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.1 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1440TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

Intel Core i5-9300H Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and 4 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.6/10

Overall score

Score
6.6/ 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 45%, Reviews score 25%, List score 20%, 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 56% of models
Score components

45%

4.9

Technical score

25%

7.9

Reviews score

20%

?

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

▼Worse than 56% of processors
7.4

Value for money

Value for money
7.4/ 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
▲ Better than 51% of models
Score components

70%

6.6

Overall score

30%

9.5

Price

▲Better than 51%
4.9

Technical score

Technical score
4.9/ 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 45% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 63% of models
Score components

60%

4.3

Performance

18%

4.7

Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated graphics

▼Worse than 63%
7.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.9/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 67% of models

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

8.0

Popularity

Grades by review (4)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 3 video reviews, each 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.
▲Better than 67%
?

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 20% 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
Best prices
    N/A~ £200
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 i5-9300H

Technical score
Technical score
4.9/ 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 45% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 63% of models
Score components:

60%

4.3

Performance

18%

4.7

Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated graphics

4.9
Reviews score
7.9
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.4/ 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
▲ Better than 51% of models
Score components:

70%

6.6

Overall score

30%

9.5

Price

7.4
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
FCBGA1440
This processor uses the FCBGA1440 CPU socket, which is older than that of 82.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.5% of processors.
Chipset
QM370, HM370
This processor supports QM370, HM370 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 61.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% 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
4.1 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.1 GHz which is lower than that of 58.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.4 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.4 GHz which is lower than that of 69.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
7,420
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 7,420 in PassMark, which is lower than 61.1% 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
8 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 8 MB which is smaller than that of 50.7% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% 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
2,666 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,666 MHz, which is lower than that of 56.7% of processors and equal to 7.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2666 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2666 MHz, which is lower than that of 59.8% of processors and equal to 7.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 630
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 630 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 45.6% of processors and equal to that in 8% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.1% of processors and equal to 20.8% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 350 MHz which is higher than that of 42.7% of processors and equal to that of 25.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 54.3% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 45 W which is lower than that of 41.9% of processors and equal to that of 10.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
45 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 45 W which is lower than that of 41.9% of processors and equal to that of 11% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
56 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 56 W which is lower than that of 59.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% 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
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 35 W
Show more

Intel Core i5-9300H vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4.45x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,513.1 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,513.05 vs 340.075
  • 17.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 67% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 3 video reviews, each 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.
    7.9 vs 6.7
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4
  • 15.8% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (149 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    149 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
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 11 higher clock multiplier
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (39 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    39 vs 28
  • 17.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 67% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 3 video reviews, each 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.
    7.9 vs 6.7
  • 4.45x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,513.1 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,513.05 vs 340.075
  • 11 higher clock multiplier
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (39 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    39 vs 28
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 15.8% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (149 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    149 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
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4
  • 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
  • 35.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,420 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,420 vs 11,469
  • 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
  • 29.1% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,695 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,695 vs 5,209
  • 15.3% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (415 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    415 vs 490
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1440 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1440 vs FP5
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 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
  • 35.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,420 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,420 vs 11,469
  • 29.1% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,695 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,695 vs 5,209
  • 15.3% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (415 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    415 vs 490
  • 6.8% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 12% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,251 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,251 vs 2,558
  • 15.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,291 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,291 vs 1,535
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 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
  • 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
  • 61.6% fewer transistors
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.9 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    1.9 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 16.7% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2666 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    2,666 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2666 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,666 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), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) 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), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) 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

9.0
Marius Gradinaru
≈ estimated
04/01/2021
Unboxing and review · gaming and everyday use
Verdict
Intel Core i5-9300H powers a very good laptop that runs almost any game smoothly and is recommended for mid-range gaming buyers.
8.0
OWNorDisown
≈ estimated
08/11/2019
Comparison · benchmark tests against a 10th-gen i7
Verdict
Intel Core i5-9300H: clearly faster in multi-threaded work, with a small lead in short tests, so it suits long workloads best.
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
hwupgrade.it
≈ estimated
23/04/2020
Hands-on test · Gaming laptop
Verdict
The MSI GF65 Thin is a capable gaming laptop with a Intel Core i5-9300H and RTX 2060, but it has short battery life and needs a second memory stick.

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i5-9300H

  • Excellent value for money in the budget gaming laptop segment
  • Capable 4.1GHz turbo frequency providing strong single-core performance
  • Reliable for multitasking and everyday office applications without lag
  • Efficient enough to be cooled by standard laptop heatsinks in most designs
  • Supports up to 128GB of RAM, allowing for significant future upgrades
  • Solid performance for creative tasks like photo retouching and 4K video playback

What we don't like about Intel Core i5-9300H

  • Prone to high temperatures and thermal throttling under heavy loads, sometimes reaching 97-100°C
  • Limited by 4 physical cores compared to newer 6-core or 8-core competitors
  • Weak integrated graphics (UHD 630) that require a dedicated GPU for modern gaming
  • Can act as a bottleneck for high-end or very modern graphics cards
  • Lacks support for modern standards like PCIe 4.0 and Wi-Fi 6
  • Based on an aging 14nm process which is less efficient than newer 7nm architectures

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-9300H is a 9th generation high-performance laptop processor based on the Coffee Lake architecture, featuring 4 cores, 8 threads, and an 8MB Smart Cache. It operates at a base frequency of 2.4 GHz with a maximum turbo boost up to 4.1 GHz, supporting up to 128GB of DDR4-2666 memory and integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630. Main pros include its reliable quad-core multitasking capabilities for mid-range gaming and productivity, as well as a 45W TDP that provides a better thermal balance compared to higher-end i7 or i9 chips. However, cons include a tendency to run hot under heavy loads—often requiring robust cooling or undervolting to avoid thermal throttling—and it is increasingly outpaced in multi-threaded performance by newer processors with higher core counts.

Compare Intel Core i5-9300H 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 i5-9300H and other processors

No results found