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

Intel Core i5-480M vs Intel Core i5-520UM

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 i5-520UM

► remove from comparison Intel 520UM

The Intel Core i5-520UM is a Ultra Low Voltage dual-core processor for small and light laptops. It is clocked with 1.06 - 1.86 GHz (if Turbo Boost is enabled). 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 i7-620UM, the i5 offers only 3MB Level 3 cache (i7 4MB) and a lower maximum Turbo Boost frequency. Other Core i5 CPUs (withouth the U in the name) are faster due to the higher clock speed, but need more power.

A feature of the new Core i5-520UM is the integrated graphics card (called Intel HD Graphics) 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.

Due to the integrated memory controller, the HyperThreading and Turbo Boost, the  Core i5-520UM is faster than a similar clocked Core 2 Duo (1.2 GHz) in all (us known) applications and benchmarks. Still the Turbo Boost may not trigger very often (sometimes it is even not activated in the BIOS) and therefore the maximum of 1.86 GHz is not very important. 

The 32nm cpu cores of the Westmere generation can also process some new instructions to accelerate AES encryptions. Modern applications that support AES encoding can profit significantly using the new instructions (e.g. the Communications Suite test in the PCMark Vantage boosts up to 70% using AES in the faster Core i5-520M).

The integrated Intel Graphics Media Accelerator HD (GMA HD) graphics card is between 166-500 MHz (Turbo Boost) and therefore the base speed is clearly below the non low voltage versions. The performance should still be faster than the old GMA 4500MHD.

The power consumption of 18 Watt TDP (max.) counts for the whole package and therefore it is clearly better than the 17 Watt TDP of the Core 2 Duo SL-series (CPU alone).

Intel Core i5-480MIntel Core i5-520UM
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 i5-450M 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 i5-520UM1.06 - 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 i5-450M 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 i5-520UM1.06 - 1.87 GHz2 / 43 MB
Intel Core i5-430UM compare1.2 - 1.73 GHz2 / 43 MB
2666 - 2933 MHz1060 - 1866 MHz
24002500
128 KB
512 KB512 KB
3 MB3 MB
2 / 42 / 4
35 18
382+177 382+177
32 32
81+114 mm281+114 mm2
105 °C105 °C
BGA1288, PGA988BGA1288
integrated DDR3 memory controller, GMA HD Graphics (500-766MHz), MMX, SSE (1,2,3,3S, 4.1, 3.2), EM64T, VT-xTurbo Boost (1.86 GHz max), Hyper Threading, Enhanced Speedstep, integrated GMA HD 166-500MHz
Architecturex86x86
Intel Core i5 480MIntel Core i5 520UM
$241 U.S.

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: 1.02     avg: 1.2     median: 1.2 (2%)     max: 1.33 Points
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Single (32bit)
100%
480M +
min: 3130     avg: 3192     median: 3191 (28%)     max: 3248
min: 1471     avg: 1981     median: 1942.5 (17%)     max: 2569
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Multi (32bit)
100%
480M +
min: 6939     avg: 7187     median: 7080 (11%)     max: 7553
min: 2785     avg: 3670     median: 3778 (6%)     max: 4340
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Multi (64bit)
100%
480M +
min: 8159     avg: 8558     median: 8556 (8%)     max: 8969 Points
min: 3946     avg: 4600     median: 4632.5 (4%)     max: 5187 Points
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Single (64bit)
100%
480M +
min: 3831     avg: 3928     median: 3912 (28%)     max: 4030 Points
min: 2263     avg: 2561     median: 2423.5 (17%)     max: 3135 Points
wPrime 2.10 - wPrime 2.0 1024m *
100%
480M +
min: 539     avg: 564     median: 556.6 (7%)     max: 600.245 s
min: 995     avg: 1110     median: 1110 (13%)     max: 1224.9 s
wPrime 2.10 - wPrime 2.0 32m *
100%
480M +
min: 17     avg: 18     median: 18 (4%)     max: 19.19 s
min: 31.8     avg: 35.2     median: 35.2 (7%)     max: 38.5 s
3DMark 06 - CPU - 3DMark 06 - CPU
100%
480M +
min: 2579     avg: 2880     median: 2954 (16%)     max: 3093 Points
min: 982     avg: 1429     median: 1492 (8%)     max: 1718 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
min: 24     avg: 26.7     median: 25 (5%)     max: 31 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
min: 56     avg: 62.3     median: 58 (2%)     max: 73 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
min: 1303     avg: 1439     median: 1341 (6%)     max: 1674 s
SiSoft Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS) - SiSoft Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS)
100%
1 480M +
min: 33210     avg: 38100     median: 38100 (18%)     max: 42990 MIPS
SiSoft Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS) - SiSoft Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS)
100%
1 480M +
min: 29000     avg: 29750     median: 29750 (23%)     max: 30500 MFLOPS
PCMark 05 - PCMark 05 - Standard
100%
480M +
7718 Points (48%)
min: 2848     avg: 3571     median: 3925 (25%)     max: 3940 Points
Windows 7 Experience Index - Win7 CPU
100%
480M +
min: 6.8     avg: 6.9     median: 6.9 (88%)     max: 6.9 Points
min: 3.9     avg: 4.7     median: 4.8 (61%)     max: 5.4 Points
3DMark Vantage - 3DM Vant. Perf. CPU no Physx
100%
480M +
min: 7113     avg: 7765     median: 7845 (9%)     max: 8255 Points
min: 3751     avg: 4065     median: 4064.5 (5%)     max: 4378 Points
3DMark 11 - 3DM11 Performance Physics
100%
1 480M +
min: 2640     avg: 2744     median: 2741 (10%)     max: 2854 Points

Average Benchmarks Intel Core i5-480M → 100% n=14

Average Benchmarks Intel Core i5-520UM → 71% n=14

- 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. 04:51:40

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

#1 checking url part for id 563 +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 +0.007s ... 0.007s

#5 did output specs +0s ... 0.007s

#6 getting avg benchmarks for device 1519 +0s ... 0.007s

#7 got single benchmarks 1519 +0.024s ... 0.032s

#8 getting avg benchmarks for device 563 +0s ... 0.032s

#9 got single benchmarks 563 +0.011s ... 0.043s

#10 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s ... 0.043s

#11 min, max, avg, median took s +0.012s ... 0.055s

#12 return log +0.004s ... 0.059s

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)