Intel Core i5 4200U vs 3230M |
Intel Core i5 4200U
- 1.6 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel Core i5 4200U
 | Significantly lower typical power consumption 12.19W | | Better performance per watt 27.84 pt/W |
| | Significantly lower annual home energy cost 3.61 $/year | | Marginally newer Jul, 2013 |
Intel Core i5 3230M
- 2.6 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the 3230M
| | Significantly higher clock speed 2.6 GHz | | Higher turbo clock speed 3.2 GHz |
| | More l2 cache 1 MB | | Much higher GPU clock speed 650 MHz |
The Intel Core i5 4200U versus the Intel Core i5 3230M asks the question, “Is the 4th generation of Core processors worth the upgrade?” Let’s take a closer look at these dual core processors and see which comes out on top.
Here we have two laptop processors which are geared towards different purposes. The newer 4200U is designed for Ultraportables, and because of this flexibility, it comes in at an underclocked 1.6 GHz. Thankfully, it packs a higher model HD 4400 GPU while still managing to keep power consumption low at 35W.
In stark contrast is the 3230M, geared for more performance in laptops. It clocks in at 2.6 GHz, an HD 4000 GPU, and a standard 35W TDP. It should be noted that these two CPUs are hyperthreaded, which results to better core efficiency.
Onto the results: it’s surprising that these CPUs are neck and neck in terms of single core performance, with merely a hundred points separating them in the PassMark benchmark. As for other benchmarks, the bulkier 3230M is consistently faster at around 500 points.
Overall, the Intel Core i5 3230M comes out on top when comparing from a purely performance standpoint. However, if you're looking towards a power efficient and portable laptop, don't look further than the Intel Core i5 4200U.
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4200U vs 3230M
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| 3DMark06 (CPU) and Passmark | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| Passmark (Single Core) | |
Power Consumption | |
How much power does the processor require? | |
| TDP | |
Features | |
How does CPUBoss rank the features of each product? | |
| Features and specifications that differ between products | |
No winner declared
Too close to call
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Significantly lower typical power consumption | 12.19W | vs | 28.44W | 2.3x lower typical power consumption | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Better performance per watt | 27.84 pt/W | vs | 16.18 pt/W | More than 70% better performance per watt | |||
| Significantly lower annual home energy cost | 3.61 $/year | vs | 8.43 $/year | 2.3x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Marginally newer | Jul, 2013 | vs | Jan, 2013 | Release date 5 months later | |||
| |||||||
| Significantly higher clock speed | 2.6 GHz | vs | 1.6 GHz | Around 65% higher clock speed | |||
| Higher turbo clock speed | 3.2 GHz | vs | 2.6 GHz | Around 25% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| More l2 cache | 1 MB | vs | 0.5 MB | 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
| Much higher GPU clock speed | 650 MHz | vs | 200 MHz | 3.2x higher GPU clock speed | |||
| Supports more RAM | 32,768 MB | vs | 16,384 MB | Supports 2x more RAM | |||
| Significantly better performance per dollar | 2.52 pt/$ | vs | 1.49 pt/$ | Around 70% better performance per dollar | |||
| Better turbo clock speed | 1,100 MHz | vs | 1,000 MHz | 10% better turbo clock speed | |||
| More l2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 2x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Better 3DMark06 CPU score | 3,760 | vs | 2,450 | Around 55% better 3DMark06 CPU score | |||
| Higher Maximum Operating Temperature | 105 °C | vs | 100 °C | 5% higher Maximum Operating Temperature | |||
| Better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,583 | vs | 1,401 | Around 15% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Slightly better PassMark score | 3,989 | vs | 3,322 | More than 20% better PassMark score | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 4200U vs 3230M
3D Mark 06 (CPU)
Passmark
Passmark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core i5 4200U | vs | 3230M |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 2.6 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 3.2 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
| Is unlocked | No | No | |
| Is hyperthreaded | Yes | Yes | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | No | |
| Has vitualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction-set-extensions | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| AVX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| AVX 2.0 | |||
| AES | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 15W | 35W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 3.61 $/year | 8.43 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 27.84 pt/W | 16.18 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 12.19W | 28.44W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | DMI | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
| Transfer rate | 5,000 MT/s | 5,000 MT/s | |
details | Core i5 4200U | vs | 3230M |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 4 | 4 | |
| L2 cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.25 MB/core | 0.5 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 3 MB | 3 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 1.5 MB/core | 1.5 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 22 nms | 22 nms | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 100°C | Unknown - 105°C | |
gpu | |||
| GPU | GPU | GPU | |
| Label | Intel® HD Graphics 4400 | Intel® HD Graphics 4000 | |
| Number of displays supported | 3 | 3 | |
| GPU clock speed | 200 MHz | 650 MHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 1,000 MHz | 1,100 MHz | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3-1600 | |||
| DDR3-1333 | |||
| DDR3L-1600 | |||
| DDR3L-1333 | |||
| LPDDR3-1600 | |||
| LPDDR3-1333 | |||
| Channels | Dual Channel | Dual Channel | |
| Supports ECC | No | No | |
| Maximum bandwidth | 12,800 MB/s | 25,600 MB/s | |
| Maximum memory size | 16,384 MB | 32,768 MB | |
 Intel Core i5 4200U  Report a correction |  Intel Core i5 3230M Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $281 | $393 | |
| 4200U vs 4500U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $281 | $225 | |
| 4200U vs 4200M | ||
| | VS |  |
| $281 | $225 | |
| 4200U vs 3337U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $281 | $281 | |
| 4200U vs 4010U | ||
 | VS | |
| $225 | $225 | |
| 3230M vs 4200M | ||
| | VS |  |
| $225 | $180 | |
| 3230M vs N3520 | ||
| | VS | |
| $225 | $225 | |
| 3230M vs 3337U | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $340 | ||
| 4770K vs 9590 | ||
 | VS | |
| $240 | $340 | |
| 4670K vs 4770K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $340 | $332 | |
| 4770K vs 4820k | ||
 | VS | |
| $200 | $240 | |
| 8350 vs 4670K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $378 | $378 | |
| 4700HQ vs 4700MQ | ||
| | VS | |
| $281 | $393 | |
| 4200U vs 4500U | ||
