AMD FX-9830P vs Intel Core i7-2635QM Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between these two mobile processors is unusually clean. The Intel Core i7-2635QM takes five of the seven recorded head-to-head victories, while the AMD FX-9830P claims two. The wins are not scattered randomly; they cluster by benchmark suite, which points to fundamentally different workload behaviors.

The Intel part dominates every Cinebench test in the database. Across Cinebench R15 multicore, R20 multicore, R20 singlecore, R23 multicore, and R23 singlecore, the Intel Core i7-2635QM wins each matchup. The deltas are remarkably consistent, with the Intel part leading by 6.2% to 6.3% in every single Cinebench test. This uniformity suggests a stable architectural advantage in rendering workloads rather than a test-specific quirk.

The AMD FX-9830P, in contrast, sweeps the Geekbench tests. It leads the Intel part by 17.1% in Geekbench multicore and by 36.9% in Geekbench singlecore. That singlecore margin is the largest delta in the entire head-to-head table. The AMD processor's singlecore score of 605 versus the Intel's 442 is a decisive gap, indicating that the AMD design has a substantial advantage in lightly threaded integer and floating-point workloads as measured by Geekbench's synthetic suite.

This split is a classic example of benchmark-suite specialization. Cinebench leans heavily on multi-threaded rendering with high memory bandwidth demands, while Geekbench includes a broader mix of cryptography, compression, and simulation workloads. The data shows the Intel part as the stronger choice for rendering and threaded compute, while the AMD part wins in the Geekbench metric. The overall average benchmark scores are close: the AMD FX-9830P sits at 1006, the Intel Core i7-2635QM at 995, a difference of roughly 1%. Both processors land in the 27th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips is wide, both in time and in design philosophy. The AMD FX-9830P uses the Excavator architecture on the Bristol Ridge codename, built on a 28 nm process by GlobalFoundries. It integrates 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. The Intel Core i7-2635QM uses the Sandy Bridge architecture, built on a 32 nm process by Intel, with 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die. The AMD part packs nearly three times the transistor count, but on a larger and older process node.

Core and thread counts differ significantly. The AMD FX-9830P has 4 cores and 4 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. The Intel Core i7-2635QM has 4 cores and 8 threads, doubling the thread count via Hyper-Threading. This explains the Intel part's consistent lead in Cinebench multicore tests, where additional threads directly improve throughput.

Cache layouts are fundamentally different. The AMD processor has 320 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache per module, with no L3 cache at all. The Intel processor has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and a shared 6 MB L3 cache. The Intel part's shared L3 cache provides a pool of fast memory for all cores, which helps in workloads with shared data. The AMD part's lack of L3 cache forces reliance on the L2 and main memory, a structural disadvantage in cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory support diverges sharply. The AMD FX-9830P supports DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus with a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Intel Core i7-2635QM's memory support field is null in the database, though it uses a dual-channel memory bus. The AMD part's PCIe implementation is Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part's PCIe field is null. Both processors have integrated graphics: the AMD FX-9830P carries a Radeon R7 8CU, the Intel part an Intel HD 3000.

Clock speeds, power, and sockets also differ. The AMD FX-9830P has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, with a 35 W TDP on the AMD Socket FP4. The Intel Core i7-2635QM has a base clock of 2000.00 MHz (2.00 GHz) and a boost clock of 2.90 GHz, with a 45 W TDP on the Intel BGA 1224 socket. The AMD part runs at higher clocks and lower power, while the Intel part uses more power and more threads. The AMD processor was released in 2016-05-30, the Intel part in 2011-01-02, a gap of over five years. Both are end-of-life mobile parts with locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multicore test opens the comparison. The Intel Core i7-2635QM scores 301, the AMD FX-9830P scores 282, a 6.3% deficit for the AMD part. This pattern repeats exactly in Cinebench R20 multicore: Intel at 1257, AMD at 1178, again a 6.3% gap. Cinebench R23 multicore shows Intel at 2995 and AMD at 2806, maintaining the same 6.3% delta. The consistency across three generations of Cinebench is striking. The Intel part's extra four threads deliver a stable advantage in this rendering workload, regardless of the test version.

Single-core Cinebench results are similar but slightly smaller. In Cinebench R20 singlecore, the Intel part scores 177 versus AMD's 166, a 6.2% lead. Cinebench R23 singlecore has Intel at 422 and AMD at 396, also a 6.2% gap. Even without multi-threading, the Intel Sandy Bridge core edges out the AMD Excavator core in Cinebench's single-threaded rendering test. This is notable because the AMD part runs at a higher base clock (3.00 GHz versus 2.00 GHz) and a higher boost clock (3.70 GHz versus 2.90 GHz). The Intel core achieves better single-threaded Cinebench performance despite lower clocks, indicating superior instructions-per-clock in this workload.

The Geekbench results flip the script. In Geekbench multicore, the AMD FX-9830P scores 1606 against Intel's 1371, a 17.1% lead for AMD. This is a large swing from the Cinebench results. Despite having half the threads, the AMD part wins multicore Geekbench by a wide margin. The Geekbench singlecore test shows an even larger AMD advantage: 605 versus 442, a 36.9% lead. This is the single biggest delta in the entire head-to-head table. The AMD FX-9830P's singlecore Geekbench score is nearly 37% higher than the Intel part's, a massive gap that highlights how differently these two architectures perform across benchmark suites.

The weighted average benchmark scores confirm the overall parity. The AMD FX-9830P has an average benchmark score of 1006, the Intel Core i7-2635QM has 995. The AMD part's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-880 and Intel Core i5-10210Y, both at 1006 with 0% delta, and the Intel Core i7-2630QM at 1005 with a 0.1% delta. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-2920XM and AMD Opteron 4226, both at 995 with 0% delta, and the Intel Core i3-8130U at 994 with a 0.1% delta. These rival lists place both processors in the same performance tier, despite their divergent benchmark profiles.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every specification field in the database. The following table summarizes the key differences:

| Field | AMD FX-9830P | Intel Core i7-2635QM |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 4 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base clock | 3.00 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.70 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 45 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP4 | Intel BGA 1224 |

| Architecture | Excavator | Sandy Bridge |

| Codename | Bristol Ridge | Sandy Bridge |

| Process node | 28 nm | 32 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 1,160 million |

| Die size | 250 mm² | 216 mm² |

| L1 cache | 320 KB | 64 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 1 MB per module | 256 KB per core |

| L3 cache | None | 6 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR4 | Null |

| Memory bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | Null |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 8 lanes (CPU only) | Null |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon R7 8CU | Intel HD 3000 |

| Release date | 2016-05-30 | 2011-01-02 |

| Part number | FM983PAEY44AB | SR030 |

Both processors share a dual-channel memory bus, no ECC support, the mobile market segment, end-of-life production status, and locked multipliers. The AMD part's launch MSRP is not recorded in the database, and neither is the Intel part's.

The clock speed difference is noteworthy. The AMD part runs 1.00 GHz higher at base and 0.80 GHz higher at boost, yet consumes 10 W less power (35 W versus 45 W). The Intel part compensates with twice the thread count and a shared L3 cache. The transistor count difference is also dramatic: the AMD part has 1,940 million more transistors, likely due to the integrated Radeon R7 GPU and the larger Excavator core design.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The Intel Core i7-2635QM has 8 threads, while the AMD FX-9830P has 4 threads. Both have 4 physical cores.

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core i7-2635QM scores 2995 in Cinebench R23 multicore, which is 6.3% ahead of the AMD FX-9830P's score of 2806.

Q: Which processor is faster in Geekbench singlecore?

A: The AMD FX-9830P scores 605 in Geekbench singlecore, which is 36.9% ahead of the Intel Core i7-2635QM's score of 442.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The AMD FX-9830P has a 35 W TDP, while the Intel Core i7-2635QM has a 45 W TDP. The AMD part draws 10 W less power.

Q: Do these processors have the same cache configuration?

A: No. 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 i7-2635QM has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD FX-9830P has a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, compared to the Intel Core i7-2635QM's boost clock of 2.90 GHz.