Intel Core i3-4330 vs Intel Core i7-2630QM Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core i7-2630QM across all five head-to-head tests, but the margins are consistently narrow. The i7-2630QM wins every Cinebench iteration, from R15 to R23, in both single-core and multi-core workloads. However, none of these victories exceed a 2% delta, which places the two processors in a statistical tie for most practical purposes.

The i7-2630QM's strongest showing comes in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where it scores 304 against the i3-4330's 298, a 2% advantage. The smallest edge appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the i7-2630QM leads by 1.8% with scores of 1268 versus 1245. Single-core results follow the same pattern, with the i7-2630QM ahead by 1.7% in R20 (178 versus 175) and 1.9% in R23 (426 versus 418).

Looking at the broader database percentiles, both processors sit near the lower-middle range of all CPUs tested. The i7-2630QM ranks at the 27th percentile, while the i3-4330 sits just one point higher at the 28th percentile. Their average benchmark scores are similarly close, with the i3-4330 averaging 1020 and the i7-2630QM averaging 1005.

The i3-4330's nearest rivals list includes the Intel Pentium Gold G5600, which scores 1022 and trails by 0.2%, and the Intel Core i3-4160, which scores 1017 and leads by 0.3%. The i7-2630QM's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-5600U at a perfect 0% delta, the AMD FX-9830P at -0.1%, and the Intel Core i7-880 also at -0.1%. These figures indicate that neither chip is an outlier in its performance class; both sit firmly within a cluster of comparable processors.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two parts spans two Intel generations. The i7-2630QM uses Sandy Bridge, built on Intel's 32 nm process with 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die. The i3-4330 uses Haswell, fabricated on a 22 nm node with 1,400 million transistors packed into a smaller 177 mm² die. The newer process gives the i3-4330 a denser, more efficient design despite its lower transistor count per area.

Core and thread counts differ substantially. The i7-2630QM is a quad-core processor with Hyper-Threading, yielding 8 threads. The i3-4330 is a dual-core with Hyper-Threading, yielding 4 threads. This gives the i7-2630QM a structural advantage in heavily threaded workloads, though the benchmark data shows that advantage is modest in practice.

Clock speeds tell a complementary story. The i7-2630QM runs at a 2000 MHz base clock with a 2.90 GHz boost clock. The i3-4330 runs at a 3500 MHz base clock with no boost capability. The i3-4330's much higher fixed clock partially compensates for its fewer cores, which explains why the multi-core gaps remain so small.

Cache configurations differ as well. Both chips share the same per-core L1 and L2 allocation, with 64 KB and 256 KB per core respectively. The L3 cache, however, favors the i7-2630QM, which has 6 MB shared, while the i3-4330 has 4 MB shared. The i7-2630QM also carries more total logical cores to feed that L3.

Platform features split along market segments. The i7-2630QM is a mobile part on Intel Socket G2 (988B) with a 45 W TDP and integrated Intel HD 3000 graphics. The i3-4330 is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1150 with a 54 W TDP, Intel HD 4600 graphics, DDR3 memory support, and PCIe Gen 3. The i3-4330 also benefits from a later release date, arriving in 2013 compared to the i7-2630QM's 2011 launch. Both processors lack unlocked multipliers and neither supports ECC memory.

The Verdict

The data paints a picture of two processors that trade architectural philosophies but land at nearly the same performance point. The i7-2630QM wins all five recorded benchmarks, yet the largest margin is 2%, which falls within typical run-to-run variance for Cinebench workloads. A buyer choosing between these two should base the decision on platform and workload characteristics rather than raw benchmark scores.

The i7-2630QM makes sense for users who need a mobile processor with more threads for parallel rendering tasks. Its 8 threads, larger 6 MB L3 cache, and lower 45 W TDP suit laptops where power draw matters and where the ability to handle multi-threaded content creation is a priority. The database shows it edges ahead in every Cinebench test, including the multi-core R23 result of 3020 versus 2966, so it holds a consistent, if small, performance lead.

The i3-4330 suits desktop builders who value a higher fixed clock speed of 3500 MHz and newer platform features like PCIe Gen 3 and DDR3 support. Its 22 nm Haswell architecture offers a more modern foundation, and its 54 W TDP is reasonable for a desktop part. The 28th percentile ranking, one point above the i7-2630QM's 27th, suggests it sits marginally better relative to the broader CPU landscape.

Neither processor is a decisive winner. The i7-2630QM's benchmark sweep is real but narrow, and the i3-4330 counters with a newer architecture, higher base clock, and more modern platform connectivity. For multi-threaded mobile workloads, the i7-2630QM is the pick. For desktop users who want a newer socket and don't need eight threads, the i3-4330 holds its own.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i7-2630QM has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core i3-4330 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the largest performance margin between these two CPUs in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The largest margin is 2%, found in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the i7-2630QM scores 304 against the i3-4330's 298.

Q: How do these processors compare in single-core performance?

A: The i7-2630QM leads in both single-core tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 178 versus 175, a 1.7% edge. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 426 versus 418, a 1.9% edge.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each processor?

A: The i7-2630QM has a 45 W TDP, while the i3-4330 has a 54 W TDP.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The i7-2630QM has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The i3-4330 has 4 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Neither the i7-2630QM nor the i3-4330 supports ECC memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test opens the comparison with the i7-2630QM scoring 304 against the i3-4330's 298. The 2% delta is the widest gap in the entire head-to-head set, and it reflects the i7-2630QM's thread advantage showing up most clearly in this older rendering workload.

Cinebench R20 multi-core narrows the gap slightly. The i7-2630QM posts 1268, while the i3-4330 finishes at 1245, a 1.8% difference. This pattern persists into Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the i7-2630QM scores 3020 and the i3-4330 scores 2966, again a 1.8% margin. Across three generations of the Cinebench multi-core test, the i7-2630QM's advantage remains remarkably stable, hovering between 1.8% and 2%.

Single-core results follow the same trajectory with even tighter margins. Cinebench R20 single-core shows the i7-2630QM at 178 and the i3-4330 at 175, a 1.7% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the i7-2630QM at 426 and the i3-4330 at 418, a 1.9% delta. Despite the i3-4330's 3500 MHz base clock versus the i7-2630QM's 2000 MHz base clock and 2.90 GHz boost, the newer Haswell architecture cannot overcome the Sandy Bridge part in these single-threaded tests.

The i7-2630QM also holds a Geekbench advantage, though no head-to-head Geekbench comparison is recorded. Its standalone scores are 1393 multi-core and 445 single-core, which feed into its 1005 average benchmark score. The i3-4330 lacks Geekbench entries in the database but achieves a 1020 average benchmark score from its Cinebench results alone.

The nearest rival data contextualizes both chips. The i7-2630QM sits exactly level with the Intel Core i7-5600U at a 0% delta, and it trails the AMD FX-9830P and Intel Core i7-880 by just 0.1%. The i3-4330 trails the Pentium Gold G5600 by 0.2%, leads the Core i3-4160 by 0.3%, and trails the Core i7-975 and Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U by 0.3%. These tight clusters confirm that both processors perform within a narrow band, and the head-to-head results reflect that reality: the i7-2630QM wins every test, but never by enough to fundamentally separate the two in real-world use.