, , , , , ,
search relation.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 

Intel Core i5-480M vs Intel Core i5-450M

Intel Core i5-480M

► remove from comparison Intel 480M

The Intel Core i5-480M is a mid-range dual core CPU for laptops and clocks (due to the Turbo Mode) from 2.66 to 2.9 GHz. Each core is based on the Nehalem (Westmere) micro-architecture. Hyperthreading enables the Dual Core CPU to handle 4 threads at once (for a better usage of the pipeline). Compared to the Core i5-540M, the 480M does most likely not support AES, VT-d and Trusted Execution functions and features a slower Turbo Boost (2.9 versus 3.06 GHz). However, the base clock rate is slightly higher.

A feature of the new Core i5-480M is the integrated graphics card called GMA HD and memory controller. Both are on a separate die that is still manufactured in 45nm whereas the CPU die is already manufactured in the new 32nm process.

The performance of the Core i5-480M is on average faster than a 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo T9800 and in some benchmarks even faster than the fastest Core 2 Duo T9900 (e.g. 3DMark 06 CPU Score). Therefore, the Core i5-480M is a high end dual core cpu which should handle all daily work and gaming tasks. Only the quad core i7 CPUs can be noticeably faster at tasks that require four or more threads (e.g. rendering).

The integrated Intel Graphics Media Accelerator HD (GMA HD) graphics card is known to be clocked up to 500-766 MHz and should be clearly faster than the old GMA 4500MHD. A GeForce 9400M (ION) should still be a faster (especially as Nvidia and ATI cards have a better driver support than Intel up to now). According to rumors, the GMA core will also use the Turbo Mode regulate the clock speed.

The power consumption of 35 Watt TDP (max.) counts for the whole package and therefore it is clearly better than the 35 Watt TDP of the Core 2 Duo T-series (CPU alone). Due to the Turbo Boost, the Core i5 is likely to use the whole TDP of 35 Watt under load and therefore can use more power than a similar specified Core 2 Duo. In Idle mode, the i5 uses clearly less power than the Core 2 Duo CPUs.

Intel Core i5-450M

► remove from comparison

The Intel Core i5-450M is a dual-core laptop CPU and clocks (due to Turbo Boost) with max. 2.4 - 2.66 GHz. Both cores are based on the Nehalem (Westmere) micro-architecture and due to Hyperthreading the processor is able to work with 4 threads simultaneously. The performance of the i5 is in the mid-range. The i5-450M is similar to the Core i5-520M, but the 450M does not offer AES functions.

A feature of the new Core i5-450M is the integrated graphics card called GMA HD and memory controller. Both are on a separate die that is still manufactured in 45nm whereas the CPU die is already manufactured in the new 32nm process.

The performance of the i5 450M is on average faster than a Core 2 Duo T9500 and due to the Turbo Boost, single threaded applications run even better. Therefore, the Core i5-520M is as fast as high clocked Core 2 Duo CPUs and should handle most gaming and multimedia tasks well.

The integrated Intel Graphics Media Accelerator HD (GMA HD) graphics card is known to be clocked up to 500-766 MHz and should be clearly faster than the old GMA 4500MHD. A GeForce 9400M (ION) should still be a faster (especially as Nvidia and ATI cards have a better driver support than Intel up to now). According to rumors, the GMA core will also use the Turbo Mode regulate the clock speed.

The power consumption of 35 Watt TDP (max.) counts for the whole package and therefore it is clearly better than the 35 Watt TDP of the Core 2 Duo T-series (CPU alone). Due to the Turbo Boost, the Core i5 more likely uses the TDP under load than the older Core 2 Duo CPUs. Without any load, the i5 uses noticable less power.

Intel Core i5-480MIntel Core i5-450M
Intel Core i5Intel Core i5
ArrandaleArrandale
Series: Core i5 Arrandale
Intel Core i5-580M compare2.67 - 3.33 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-560M compare2.67 - 3.2 GHz2 / 43 MB
» Intel Core i5-480M2.67 - 2.93 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-540M compare2.53 - 3.07 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-460M compare2.53 - 2.8 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-520M compare2.4 - 2.93 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-450M2.4 - 2.66 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-430M compare2.26 - 2.53 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-560UM compare1.33 - 2.13 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-470UM compare1.33 - 1.87 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-540UM compare1.2 - 2 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-520UM compare1.06 - 1.87 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-430UM compare1.2 - 1.73 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-580M compare2.67 - 3.33 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-560M compare2.67 - 3.2 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-480M2.67 - 2.93 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-540M compare2.53 - 3.07 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-460M compare2.53 - 2.8 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-520M compare2.4 - 2.93 GHz2 / 43 MB
» Intel Core i5-450M2.4 - 2.66 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-430M compare2.26 - 2.53 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-560UM compare1.33 - 2.13 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-470UM compare1.33 - 1.87 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-540UM compare1.2 - 2 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-520UM compare1.06 - 1.87 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-430UM compare1.2 - 1.73 GHz2 / 43 MB
2666 - 2933 MHz2400 - 2660 MHz
24002500
128 KB128 KB
512 KB512 KB
3 MB3 MB
2 / 42 / 4
35 35
382+177 382+177
32 32
81+114 mm281+114 mm2
105 °C105 °C
BGA1288, PGA988PGA988
integrated DDR3 memory controller, GMA HD Graphics (500-766MHz), MMX, SSE (1,2,3,3S, 4.1, 3.2), EM64T, VT-xHD Graphics (500-766MHz), DDR3-800/1066 Memory Controller (max. 8 GB), Turbo Boost, Hyper-Threading, Virtualization VT-x, Intel 64, Idle States, Enhanced Speedstep, Execute Disable Bit, MMX, SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2)
Architecturex86x86
Intel Core i5 480MIntel Core i5 450M

Benchmarks

Cinebench R11.5 - Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64 Bit
100%
480M +
min: 2.18     avg: 2.3     median: 2.3 (4%)     max: 2.37 Points
min: 1.71     avg: 2.1     median: 2.2 (4%)     max: 2.19 Points
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Single (32bit)
100%
480M +
min: 3130     avg: 3192     median: 3191 (28%)     max: 3248
min: 2512     avg: 2882     median: 2922.5 (26%)     max: 3020
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Multi (32bit)
100%
480M +
min: 6939     avg: 7187     median: 7080 (11%)     max: 7553
min: 5580     avg: 6650     median: 6778.5 (11%)     max: 6945
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Multi (64bit)
100%
480M +
min: 8159     avg: 8558     median: 8556 (8%)     max: 8969 Points
min: 7440     avg: 8070     median: 8094 (8%)     max: 8329 Points
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Single (64bit)
100%
480M +
min: 3831     avg: 3928     median: 3912 (28%)     max: 4030 Points
min: 3012     avg: 3549     median: 3628 (26%)     max: 3690 Points
wPrime 2.10 - wPrime 2.0 1024m *
100%
480M +
min: 539     avg: 564     median: 556.6 (7%)     max: 600.245 s
min: 589     avg: 901     median: 634.3 (7%)     max: 1933.02 s
wPrime 2.10 - wPrime 2.0 32m *
100%
480M +
min: 17     avg: 18     median: 18 (4%)     max: 19.19 s
100%
450M +
min: 18.85     avg: 28.5     median: 20 (4%)     max: 59.233 s
3DMark 06 - CPU - 3DMark 06 - CPU
100%
480M +
min: 2579     avg: 2880     median: 2954 (16%)     max: 3093 Points
min: 2571     avg: 2769     median: 2795 (15%)     max: 2840 Points
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M *
100%
480M +
min: 15     avg: 15     median: 15 (3%)     max: 15.2 s
100%
450M +
min: 16     avg: 16.5     median: 16.4 (4%)     max: 18 s
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 2M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 2M *
100%
480M +
min: 35     avg: 36.1     median: 36 (2%)     max: 37 s
100%
450M +
min: 38     avg: 39.6     median: 39.4 (2%)     max: 41.3 s
Super Pi Mod 1.5 XS 32M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 32M *
100%
480M +
min: 842     avg: 852     median: 851 (4%)     max: 866 s
100%
450M +
min: 877     avg: 917     median: 913.5 (4%)     max: 984 s
SiSoft Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS) - SiSoft Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS)
100%
480M +
min: 33210     avg: 38100     median: 38100 (18%)     max: 42990 MIPS
min: 30620     avg: 32730     median: 31630 (15%)     max: 37850 MIPS
SiSoft Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS) - SiSoft Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS)
100%
480M +
min: 29000     avg: 29750     median: 29750 (23%)     max: 30500 MFLOPS
min: 27000     avg: 29144     median: 27680 (21%)     max: 35580 MFLOPS
PCMark 05 - PCMark 05 - Standard
100%
480M +
7718 Points (48%)
6346 Points (40%)
Windows 7 Experience Index - Win7 CPU
100%
480M +
min: 6.8     avg: 6.9     median: 6.9 (88%)     max: 6.9 Points
min: 6.5     avg: 6.8     median: 6.8 (87%)     max: 6.8 Points
3DMark Vantage - 3DM Vant. Perf. CPU no Physx
100%
480M +
min: 7113     avg: 7765     median: 7845 (9%)     max: 8255 Points
min: 7076     avg: 7489     median: 7585 (9%)     max: 7637 Points
3DMark 11 - 3DM11 Performance Physics
100%
480M +
min: 2640     avg: 2744     median: 2741 (10%)     max: 2854 Points
2222 Points (8%)

Average Benchmarks Intel Core i5-480M → 100% n=17

Average Benchmarks Intel Core i5-450M → 94% n=17

- Range of benchmark values for this graphics card
- Average benchmark values for this graphics card
* Smaller numbers mean a higher performance
1 This benchmark is not used for the average calculation

Add one or more devices and compare

In the following list you can select (and also search for) devices that should be added to the comparison. You can select more than one device.

restrict list:

show all (including archived), 2021, 2020
v1.16
log 20. 03:20:12

#0 checking url part for id 1519 +0s ... 0s

#1 checking url part for id 964 +0s ... 0s

#2 not redirecting to Ajax server +0s ... 0s

#3 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old! Created at Wed, 15 Sep 2021 13:09:12 +0200 +0s ... 0s

#4 composed specs +0.009s ... 0.01s

#5 did output specs +0s ... 0.01s

#6 getting avg benchmarks for device 1519 +0s ... 0.01s

#7 got single benchmarks 1519 +0.031s ... 0.041s

#8 getting avg benchmarks for device 964 +0s ... 0.041s

#9 got single benchmarks 964 +0.041s ... 0.082s

#10 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s ... 0.082s

#11 min, max, avg, median took s +0.015s ... 0.097s

#12 return log +0.003s ... 0.1s

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Benchmarks / Tech > Processor Comparison - Head 2 Head
Redaktion, 2017-09- 8 (Update: 2017-09-11)