AMD FX-9830P vs Intel Core i7-2630QM Comparison

The AMD FX-9830P and Intel Core i7-2630QM are two mobile processors from different eras, yet their average benchmark scores place them nearly dead even. The data shows a statistical tie in overall performance, with the AMD chip averaging 1006 points and the Intel chip averaging 1005 points. However, a closer look at individual workloads reveals a stark divergence in their architectural strengths, making the choice between them dependent entirely on the specific task at hand.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results paint a clear picture of two chips with opposing personalities. The Intel Core i7-2630QM dominates the Cinebench suite, taking all four multicore and singlecore tests. Its lead is consistent, hovering around the 7% mark across the board. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Intel chip scores 304 against the AMD’s 282, a 7.2% advantage. This pattern repeats in R20 multicore (1268 vs 1178, a 7.1% lead) and R23 multicore (3020 vs 2806, a 7.1% lead). The single-core Cinebench results tell the same story, with Intel winning by 6.7% in R20 (178 vs 166) and 7% in R23 (426 vs 396).

The AMD FX-9830P, however, delivers its counterpunch in the Geekbench tests, and it lands with significantly more force. In Geekbench multicore, the AMD scores 1606 against Intel’s 1393, a substantial 15.3% victory. The most dramatic difference appears in Geekbench singlecore, where the AMD FX-9830P posts a score of 605, crushing the Intel’s 445 by a margin of 36%. This is a massive swing, indicating that while Intel’s architecture excels in Cinebench’s rendering workloads, AMD’s design holds a distinct advantage in the Geekbench test suite. The overall win tally favors Intel at 5 wins to AMD’s 2, but the magnitude of AMD’s Geekbench wins shows that Intel’s dominance is not absolute.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips is a generational chasm. The AMD FX-9830P is built on GlobalFoundries’ 28 nm process node, packing 3,100 million transistors into a 250 mm² die. It uses the Excavator architecture, part of the Bristol Ridge family, and is designed for the AMD Socket FP4. In contrast, the Intel Core i7-2630QM is a Sandy Bridge part from Intel, fabricated on a 32 nm node with 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die. This makes the AMD chip denser, fitting nearly three times as many transistors into a slightly larger physical space.

The cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The AMD FX-9830P features 320 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache per module, with no L3 cache present. The Intel chip, however, uses a more conventional layout with 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but crucially adds 6 MB of shared L3 cache. This L3 cache is likely a key factor in Intel’s Cinebench performance, as it provides a larger pool of fast memory for the processor’s cores to share during complex rendering tasks.

Threading is another fundamental difference. While both chips have 4 physical cores, the Intel Core i7-2630QM supports Hyper-Threading, allowing it to process 8 threads simultaneously. The AMD FX-9830P is limited to 4 threads. This 8-thread capability gives Intel a theoretical advantage in heavily parallel workloads, which is reflected in its Cinebench multicore wins. The memory support also differs, with the AMD chip utilizing DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the Intel chip’s memory support is not specified in the data.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data suggests a clear use-case split. The Intel Core i7-2630QM is the stronger choice for productivity and content creation tasks that rely on sustained multi-threaded performance, particularly those that scale with cache size and thread count. Its consistent 7% lead across the Cinebench suite—which simulates 3D rendering workloads—indicates it is better suited for video editing, 3D modeling, and CPU-based rendering. The presence of 6 MB of L3 cache and 8 threads directly supports this performance profile, allowing it to handle complex, cache-hungry algorithms more efficiently than its rival.

The AMD FX-9830P, on the other hand, wins decisively in Geekbench, a test suite that often reflects more diverse, real-world application performance including tasks like image processing, file compression, and web browsing. The 15.3% lead in Geekbench multicore and the massive 36% lead in Geekbench singlecore show that for everyday computing tasks and applications that are not heavily optimized for multi-threading, the AMD chip is significantly faster. This makes it a better fit for users who prioritize snappy single-threaded response in general productivity, office applications, or light media consumption, where the Intel chip’s thread advantage is less impactful.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every key specification, reflecting their different design goals and release timelines. The AMD FX-9830P operates at a base clock of 3.00 GHz with a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, while the Intel Core i7-2630QM runs at a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 2.90 GHz. Despite Intel’s lower clock speeds, it still wins Cinebench, showcasing the efficiency of its architecture.

Thermal design power is a major differentiator. The AMD chip has a TDP of 35 watts, a full 10 watts lower than the Intel’s 45 watts. This suggests the AMD FX-9830P is more power-efficient under load, generating less heat and potentially enabling thinner laptop designs or longer battery life in lighter workloads. The manufacturing node also differs: AMD uses a 28 nm process, while Intel uses a 32 nm process. The transistor count and die size are also distinct, with AMD at 3,100 million and 250 mm², respectively, versus Intel’s 1,160 million and 216 mm².

The integrated graphics solutions are different as well. The AMD FX-9830P features a Radeon R7 with 8 compute units, while the Intel Core i7-2630QM includes Intel HD 3000. Although no benchmark data is provided for the iGPUs, the Radeon R7 8CU is generally considered a more capable graphics solution, which could be a deciding factor for users who plan to use the system without a discrete graphics card. The sockets are incompatible, with AMD using Socket FP4 and Intel using Socket G2 (988B), meaning they are not interchangeable in a motherboard.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FX-9830P has an average benchmark score of 1006, while the Intel Core i7-2630QM has an average score of 1005. The difference is negligible, making them statistically equivalent in overall performance.

Q: How much faster is the AMD FX-9830P in Geekbench singlecore?

A: The AMD FX-9830P scores 605 in Geekbench singlecore, which is 36% higher than the Intel Core i7-2630QM’s score of 445 in the same test.

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-2630QM have an advantage in multi-threaded workloads?

A: Yes. The Intel chip has 8 threads compared to the AMD’s 4 threads, and it wins all four Cinebench multicore tests by a margin of about 7.1% to 7.2%.

Q: What are the cache differences between the two chips?

A: The AMD FX-9830P has 320 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache per module, with no L3 cache. The Intel Core i7-2630QM has 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but includes 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has a lower thermal design power (TDP)?

A: The AMD FX-9830P has a TDP of 35 watts, which is lower than the Intel Core i7-2630QM’s TDP of 45 watts.

Q: What is the release date of each processor?

A: The AMD FX-9830P was released on 2016-05-30, while the Intel Core i7-2630QM was released earlier on 2011-01-02. Both are now classified as end-of-life products.