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

Intel Core i5-480M vs Intel Core i5-460M

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 i5-460M

► remove from comparison Intel 460M

The Intel Core i5-460M is a high end dual core CPU for laptops and clocks (due to the Turbo Mode) from 2.53 to 2.8 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 460M does not support AES, VT-d and Trusted Execution functions and features a slower Turbo Boost (2.8 versus 3.06 GHz).

A feature of the new Core i5-460M 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 i5-460M 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 i5-460M 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 i5-480MIntel Core i5-460M
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 i5-460M2.53 - 2.8 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-520M compare2.4 - 2.93 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-450M compare2.4 - 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 i5-460M2.53 - 2.8 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-520M compare2.4 - 2.93 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-450M compare2.4 - 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 MHz2530 - 2800 MHz
24002400
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, PGA988BGA1288, PGA988
integrated DDR3 memory controller, GMA HD Graphics (500-766MHz), MMX, SSE (1,2,3,3S, 4.1, 3.2), EM64T, VT-xintegrated DDR3 memory controller, GMA HD Graphics, MMX, SSE (1,2,3,3S, 4.1, 3.2), EM64T, VT-x
Architecturex86x86
Intel Core i5 480MIntel Core i5 460M

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: 1.7     avg: 2.2     median: 2.3 (4%)     max: 2.48 Points
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Single (32bit)
100%
480M +
min: 3130     avg: 3192     median: 3191 (28%)     max: 3248
min: 2971     avg: 3106     median: 3080 (28%)     max: 3491
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Multi (32bit)
100%
480M +
min: 6939     avg: 7187     median: 7080 (11%)     max: 7553
100%
460M +
min: 6634     avg: 7073     median: 7085 (11%)     max: 7898
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Multi (64bit)
100%
480M +
min: 8159     avg: 8558     median: 8556 (8%)     max: 8969 Points
min: 8060     avg: 8437     median: 8468 (8%)     max: 9160 Points
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Single (64bit)
100%
480M +
min: 3831     avg: 3928     median: 3912 (28%)     max: 4030 Points
min: 3569     avg: 3807     median: 3818.5 (27%)     max: 4034 Points
wPrime 2.10 - wPrime 2.0 1024m *
100%
480M +
min: 539     avg: 564     median: 556.6 (7%)     max: 600.245 s
100%
460M +
min: 515.201     avg: 596     median: 575 (7%)     max: 836.6 s
wPrime 2.10 - wPrime 2.0 32m *
100%
480M +
min: 17     avg: 18     median: 18 (4%)     max: 19.19 s
100%
460M +
min: 16.704     avg: 19.4     median: 18.6 (4%)     max: 27 s
3DMark 06 - CPU - 3DMark 06 - CPU
100%
480M +
min: 2579     avg: 2880     median: 2954 (16%)     max: 3093 Points
100%
460M +
min: 2770     avg: 2938     median: 2945 (16%)     max: 3142 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%
460M +
min: 14.087     avg: 16     median: 16 (3%)     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%
460M +
min: 33.025     avg: 37.3     median: 37 (2%)     max: 42.6 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%
460M +
min: 781.78     avg: 918     median: 880 (4%)     max: 1521 s
SiSoft Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS) - SiSoft Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS)
100%
480M +
min: 33210     avg: 38100     median: 38100 (18%)     max: 42990 MIPS
101%
460M +
38480 MIPS (18%)
SiSoft Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS) - SiSoft Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS)
100%
480M +
min: 29000     avg: 29750     median: 29750 (23%)     max: 30500 MFLOPS
28160 MFLOPS (22%)
PCMark 05 - PCMark 05 - Standard
100%
480M +
7718 Points (48%)
min: 5942     avg: 6910     median: 6880 (43%)     max: 7682 Points
Windows 7 Experience Index - Win7 CPU
100%
480M +
min: 6.8     avg: 6.9     median: 6.9 (88%)     max: 6.9 Points
100%
460M +
min: 6.8     avg: 6.9     median: 6.9 (88%)     max: 6.9 Points
3DMark Vantage - 3DM Vant. Perf. CPU no Physx
100%
480M +
min: 7113     avg: 7765     median: 7845 (9%)     max: 8255 Points
100%
460M +
min: 6382     avg: 7659     median: 7826 (9%)     max: 7985 Points
3DMark 11 - 3DM11 Performance Physics
100%
480M +
min: 2640     avg: 2744     median: 2741 (10%)     max: 2854 Points
min: 2402     avg: 2583     median: 2587 (9%)     max: 2756 Points

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

Average Benchmarks Intel Core i5-460M → 98% 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 17. 14:17:23

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

#1 checking url part for id 1214 +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 +0.001s ... 0.001s

#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 +0.026s ... 0.036s

#8 getting avg benchmarks for device 1214 +0s ... 0.036s

#9 got single benchmarks 1214 +0.05s ... 0.086s

#10 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s ... 0.086s

#11 min, max, avg, median took s +0.013s ... 0.099s

#12 return log +0.004s ... 0.103s

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)