In Atomfall, the Core i5-3210M is slower than the Core Ultra 7 265. However, it's a much better value for money, as it's $293 cheaper!
Core i5-3210M
- Up to 84% cheaper – $54.02 vs $347.00
- Up to 84% cheaper
- Up to 80% better value in Atomfall – $0.28 vs $1.41/FPS
- Up to 80% better value in Atomfall
- Consumes up to 46% less energy – 35 vs 65 Watts
- Consumes up to 46% less energy
Core Ultra 7 265
- Up to 30% faster in Atomfall – 245 vs 188 FPS
- Up to 30% faster in Atomfall
- Is 12 years and 7 months newer – Jan 07, 2025 vs Jun 01, 2012
- Is 12 years and 7 months newer
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i5-3210M vs Core Ultra 7 265: Comparison of performance and price
Core i5-3210M
Jun 1st, 2012
Average FPS
188 FPS
77%
Min 1% FPS
141 FPS
77%
Price, $
$54.02
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.28/FPS
100%
Core Ultra 7 265
Jan 7th, 2025
Average FPS
245 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
184 FPS
100%
Price, $
$347
15%
Value, $/FPS
$1.41/FPS
20%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i5-3210M vs Core Ultra 7 265 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i5-3210M vs Core Ultra 7 265 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i5-3210M
Jun 1st, 2012
Cores
2-core
10%
L3 Cache
3 MB
10%
Base Frequency
2.5 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.1 GHz
58%
Max. unknown RAM Speed
MHz
Core Ultra 7 265
Jan 7th, 2025
Cores
20-core
100%
L3 Cache
30 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.4 GHz
96%
Turbo Frequency
5.3 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
6400 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i5-3210M Jun 1st, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core Ultra 7 265 Jan 7th, 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jun 1st, 2012 | Release Date | Jan 7th, 2025 |
| – | MSRP | $394.00 |
Laptop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGAG2 (988B) | Socket | LGA1851 |
35W | Power Consumption | 65W |
| Other Features | ||
| unknown | RAM | 6400 MHz (DDR5) |
| Intel HD 4000 | Integrated GPU | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
