Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) vs i5-3210M
Aggregate performance score
Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) outperforms Core i5-3210M by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i5-3210M and Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2114 | 2088 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Core i5 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.19 | 1.21 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Deneb (2009−2011) |
| Release date | 1 June 2012 (12 years ago) | 7 November 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $225 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Core i5-3210M and Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 3 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 118 mm2 | 258 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 758 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Core i5-3210M and Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FCPGA988 | AM3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-3210M and Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W). You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| My WiFi | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FDI | + | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
Security technologies
Core i5-3210M and Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
| Anti-Theft | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-3210M and Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-3210M and Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W). Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics 4000 | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.1 GHz | no data |
| InTru 3D | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i5-3210M and Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
| eDP | + | no data |
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| SDVO | + | no data |
| CRT | + | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-3210M and Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W).
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.55 | 1.60 |
| Recency | 1 June 2012 | 7 November 2009 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 125 Watt |
i5-3210M has an age advantage of 2 years, a 104.5% more advanced lithography process, and 257.1% lower power consumption.
Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W), on the other hand, has a 3.2% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core i5-3210M and Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W).
Be aware that Core i5-3210M is a notebook processor while Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-3210M and Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W), ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
