AMD FX-9830P vs Intel Core i7-2675QM Comparison

# Intel Core i7-2675QM vs AMD FX-9830P

The Intel Core i7-2675QM and AMD FX-9830P are both end-of-life mobile processors, but they represent fundamentally different design philosophies and eras. The Intel part, a Sandy Bridge quad-core with Hyper-Threading from 2011, faces off against AMD's Bristol Ridge Excavator quad-core from 2016. Benchmark data reveals a fascinating split: Intel dominates every Cinebench test, while AMD counters with decisive wins in Geekbench. With 5 benchmark wins for Intel and 2 for AMD, the overall averages nearly tie — Intel at 1012 avg score and AMD at 1006 — yet the character of their performance differs sharply across workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-2675QM edges out the AMD FX-9830P with an average benchmark score of 1012 compared to AMD's 1006. This represents a negligible 0.6% difference, placing both in nearly identical overall performance territory.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: Intel wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with a score of 3118 versus AMD's 2806, a margin of 11.1%. This pattern repeats across all Cinebench versions, where Intel consistently leads by approximately 11%.

Q: Does the AMD FX-9830P win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the AMD FX-9830P wins both Geekbench tests. It scores 1606 in multi-core versus Intel's 1301 (a 19% advantage) and 605 in single-core versus Intel's 415 (a 31.4% advantage).

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: Both processors have 4 physical cores, but the Intel Core i7-2675QM supports 8 threads through Hyper-Threading, while the AMD FX-9830P has only 4 threads total with no equivalent feature.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The AMD FX-9830P boosts to 3.70 GHz, significantly higher than the Intel Core i7-2675QM's 3.10 GHz boost clock. AMD's base clock of 3.00 GHz also exceeds Intel's 2.20 GHz base.

Q: How does the AMD FX-9830P's percentile ranking compare to Intel's?

A: The Intel Core i7-2675QM sits at the 28th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD FX-9830P ranks at the 27th percentile. This 1-percentage-point difference aligns with their nearly identical average scores.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i7-2675QM is built on Intel's 32 nm Sandy Bridge architecture, manufactured by Intel with 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die. It features a traditional 4-core/8-thread design with Hyper-Threading, enabling two threads per core. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and a 6 MB shared L3 cache. The integrated graphics are Intel HD 3000, and the chip uses the Intel BGA 1224 socket.

The AMD FX-9830P employs a completely different approach. Built on GlobalFoundries' 28 nm process with the Excavator architecture (codename Bristol Ridge), it packs 3,100 million transistors into a 250 mm² die — nearly triple the transistor count of Intel's chip despite the larger process node. The FX-9830P has 4 cores and 4 threads, with no SMT equivalent. Its cache layout is distinct: 320 KB total L1, 1 MB L2 per module, and notably no L3 cache at all. This lack of L3 is a significant architectural divergence that may explain some benchmark behavior.

Memory support also differs. The AMD FX-9830P supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part's memory support field is not specified in the data. The AMD chip also features PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes, whereas Intel's PCIe configuration is unspecified. The integrated graphics differ as well — AMD uses a Radeon R7 8CU while Intel relies on HD 3000.

The process node gap (32 nm versus 28 nm) and transistor count difference (1,160 million versus 3,100 million) highlight how AMD crammed far more transistors into its Excavator design, yet the TDP tells an interesting story: AMD's chip draws only 35 watts versus Intel's 45 watts, despite the higher transistor count and clock speeds.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results reveal a clear split between Cinebench and Geekbench workloads. Across all five Cinebench tests, Intel wins decisively with consistent margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, Intel scores 314 versus AMD's 282, an 11.3% advantage. This pattern repeats in R20 multi-core (1309 vs 1178, +11.1%), R20 single-core (184 vs 166, +10.8%), R23 multi-core (3118 vs 2806, +11.1%), and R23 single-core (440 vs 396, +11.1%). The uniformity of these margins — all hovering around 11% — suggests a systematic advantage for Intel in Cinebench's rendering workloads, likely stemming from its 8 threads versus AMD's 4.

The Geekbench results, however, flip the script dramatically. In Geekbench multi-core, the AMD FX-9830P scores 1606 against Intel's 1301, a 19% swing in AMD's favor. The single-core gap is even more pronounced: AMD's 605 obliterates Intel's 415, a 31.4% margin. These are substantial differences that suggest AMD's higher clock speeds (3.00 GHz base, 3.70 GHz boost) and newer architecture deliver superior performance in Geekbench's mixed integer/float workloads, despite lacking Hyper-Threading and L3 cache.

This divergent benchmark behavior is striking. The same processors that are virtually tied in average score (1012 vs 1006) show a 31.4% single-core gap in one suite and an 11.3% multi-core gap in another. The data implies that benchmark methodology heavily influences perceived performance, and no single score tells the full story.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. The Intel Core i7-2675QM wins 5 of 7 head-to-head benchmarks, all in Cinebench, with margins around 11%. The AMD FX-9830P wins 2 benchmarks, both in Geekbench, with much larger margins of 19% and 31.4%. In terms of overall percentile ranking, Intel sits at the 28th percentile versus AMD's 27th — statistically equivalent.

For users prioritizing rendering and CPU-intensive compute workloads that resemble Cinebench, the Intel Core i7-2675QM's additional threads (8 vs 4) and larger L3 cache (6 MB vs none) deliver consistent advantages. The Intel chip also matches AMD's nearest rival performance: Intel's closest competitor is the Intel Xeon W5580 at 1012 avg score (0% delta), while AMD's closest is the Intel Core i7-880 at 1006 (0% delta). Both are essentially tied.

For tasks resembling Geekbench's broader workload mix, the AMD FX-9830P's higher clock speeds and newer Excavator architecture win decisively. The 31.4% single-core advantage suggests that applications relying on single-threaded performance would favor AMD substantially.

The choice hinges on workload type. Rendering bias points to Intel; general computing and single-threaded tasks favor AMD. Neither chip dominates across the board, and the near-identical average scores confirm this is a trade-off rather than a clear victory.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i7-2675QM | AMD FX-9830P |

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

| Threads | 8 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.20 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.10 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 35 W |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

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

| Die Size | 216 mm² | 250 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 320 KB |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per module) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | None |

| Memory Support | Not specified | DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not specified | 38.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Not specified | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

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

| Socket | Intel BGA 1224 | AMD Socket FP4 |

| Release Date | 2011-10-11 | 2016-05-30 |

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core i7-2675QM wins in Cinebench rendering workloads. All five Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23, both single and multi-core) show Intel leading by roughly 11%. This consistent margin across every Cinebench version indicates that the 8-thread configuration and 6 MB L3 cache provide sustained advantages in threaded rendering tasks.

AMD FX-9830P wins in Geekbench workloads. The 19% multi-core and 31.4% single-core advantages suggest that AMD's higher base and boost clocks (3.00/3.70 GHz vs 2.20/3.10 GHz) and newer Excavator architecture excel in the broader mix of integer, floating-point, and memory operations that Geekbench evaluates.

For multi-threaded rendering tasks — think video encoding, 3D rendering, or batch image processing — the Intel Core i7-2675QM's 8 threads provide a clear edge. The data shows this advantage holds across Cinebench generations, making it a reliable indicator.

For single-threaded and general-purpose tasks — web browsing, office productivity, light content creation — the AMD FX-9830P's higher clock speeds and newer architecture deliver substantially better responsiveness. The 31.4% single-core lead is the largest margin in any benchmark, suggesting a significant real-world advantage in latency-sensitive applications.

The tie-breaker is the near-identical average score. At 1012 vs 1006, and percentiles of 28 vs 27, neither processor can claim overall superiority. The Intel chip's 5 wins versus AMD's 2 wins in head-to-head tests is offset by the magnitude of AMD's wins. A user who values rendering performance should choose Intel; a user who values general-purpose speed and efficiency (35 W TDP vs 45 W) should choose AMD.