Intel Core i3-6320 vs Intel Core i7-2670QM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably consistent picture: the Intel Core i3-6320 wins every single head-to-head test recorded in the database, taking all five comparisons. The margins are strikingly uniform, hovering near 15.3% in each discipline. This consistency suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-dependent, rooted in architectural efficiency rather than a single strong suite.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3-6320 scores 378 against the i7-2670QM's 320, a 15.3% advantage. The R20 multi-core test shows the same pattern: 1576 versus 1334, again a 15.4% gap. Single-core results follow suit, with the i3-6320 posting 222 in R20 single-core versus 188 for the i7-2670QM, and 529 versus 448 in R23 single-core. Even the R23 multi-core test, which typically favors higher core counts, goes to the i3-6320 at 3753 versus 3177, a 15.3% lead.

What makes these numbers particularly notable is that the i7-2670QM has double the physical cores and double the threads. The i3-6320 compensates through a combination of higher clock speed and a much newer microarchitecture. The i7-2670QM's base clock of 2.20 GHz with a 3.10 GHz boost cannot match the i3-6320's fixed 3.90 GHz, and the Skylake architecture extracts more instructions per cycle than Sandy Bridge.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this narrow but consistent edge: the i7-2670QM averages 1096, while the i3-6320 averages 1085. Despite the i3-6320 winning every head-to-head, the average scores are within 1% of each other. This apparent contradiction is explained by the fact that the i7-2670QM's average includes Geekbench results (1646 multi-core, 556 single-core) that are not present in the i3-6320's benchmark list. The i3-6320 has no recorded Geekbench scores in the database, so its average is derived solely from Cinebench results, which happen to be lower in absolute terms than the i7's Geekbench numbers.

Percentile rankings reinforce the middle-of-the-road positioning for both parts. The i7-2670QM sits at the 31st percentile among all CPUs, while the i3-6320 sits at the 30th. Neither processor is a standout in the broader CPU landscape; they are both decidedly mainstream performers by modern standards, separated by a single percentile point.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is substantial, spanning nearly five years of Intel development. The i7-2670QM uses Sandy Bridge, built on a 32 nm process with 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die. The i3-6320 uses Skylake, fabricated on a 14 nm process with 1,400 million transistors on a smaller 150 mm² die. The transistor density improvement is dramatic: Skylake packs roughly 20% more transistors into a 30% smaller die, which explains its efficiency advantages.

Core configurations could not differ more starkly. The i7-2670QM offers 4 physical cores and 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, making it a true multi-threaded workhorse for its era. The i3-6320 offers only 2 cores and 4 threads. Yet the i3-6320 still wins multi-core benchmarks, meaning its per-thread performance is so far ahead that it overcomes a 2x core deficit. This reflects both the higher 3.90 GHz clock and the IPC gains from Skylake's wider execution resources.

Cache hierarchies follow the core count divide. The i7-2670QM carries 6 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i3-6320 carries 4 MB. Both have identical per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (256 KB) allocations. The larger L3 on the i7-2670QM reflects its need to serve four physical cores, whereas the i3-6320's smaller pool is sufficient for two.

Memory support differs in generation and bandwidth. The i3-6320 explicitly supports DDR4 memory with a rated bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s on a dual-channel bus. The i7-2670QM's memory support field is null in the database, though it also uses dual-channel memory. The i3-6320 additionally exposes PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the i7-2670QM's PCIe information is not recorded.

Integrated graphics also mark a generational step. The i7-2670QM pairs with Intel HD 3000, the i3-6320 with Intel HD 530. The latter belongs to a much newer graphics generation with improved media capabilities, though the database does not provide comparative graphics benchmark scores.

Socket and market positioning complete the picture. The i7-2670QM uses Intel Socket G2 (988B) and targets the mobile segment, while the i3-6320 uses Intel Socket 1151 for desktop builds. The i7-2670QM is end-of-life, released in October 2011; the i3-6320 remains active, released in August 2015. The i7-2670QM's TDP of 45 watts is lower than the i3-6320's 51 watts, a reversal of the usual mobile-versus-desktop expectation, though the i3's higher clock and newer process make the comparison less straightforward.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows the i3-6320 winning every benchmark category, which makes a use-case split challenging at first glance. However, the underlying architecture suggests distinct strengths that the head-to-head tests do not fully capture.

The i3-6320 wins wherever single-thread speed matters. Its Cinebench R20 and R23 single-core scores (222 and 529 respectively) exceed the i7-2670QM's (188 and 448) by the same 15.3% margin. Applications that rely on one or two threads, such as legacy software, many games, and lightweight productivity tasks, will favor the i3-6320. Its fixed 3.90 GHz clock means no boost variability; the performance is always available.

The i7-2670QM's theoretical advantage lies in heavily multi-threaded workloads that can use all 8 threads. The database does not include a test that isolates this scenario, and even the multi-core Cinebench tests show the i3-6320 ahead. Still, the i7-2670QM's 8 threads could outperform the i3-6320 in a hypothetical scenario with perfectly parallel, memory-light workloads that scale beyond 4 threads. The data cannot confirm this, but the thread count differential is the only area where the i7-2670QM holds a structural edge.

For mobile use, the i7-2670QM is the only option of the two, given its mobile socket and 45 watt TDP. The i3-6320 is a desktop part. Users building a desktop system with a Socket 1151 motherboard must choose the i3-6320. Users with an older laptop based on Socket G2 cannot use the i3-6320 at all. The market segments are effectively disjoint, despite the benchmark comparison.

The i3-6320 also wins on platform modernity. DDR4 memory support, PCIe Gen 3, and an active production status make it a viable choice for new builds. The i7-2670QM, being end-of-life, only makes sense for salvaged or legacy mobile systems.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification field. Core count: 4 versus 2. Thread count: 8 versus 4. Base clock: 2.20 GHz versus 3.90 GHz. Boost clock: the i7-2670QM has a 3.10 GHz boost, while the i3-6320 has no boost clock recorded, running at a fixed frequency. TDP: 45 watts versus 51 watts. Socket: Intel Socket G2 (988B) versus Intel Socket 1151. Architecture: Sandy Bridge versus Skylake. Process node: 32 nm versus 14 nm. Transistors: 1,160 million versus 1,400 million. Die size: 216 mm² versus 150 mm². L3 cache: 6 MB versus 4 MB. Memory support: the i7-2670QM has none recorded, the i3-6320 supports DDR4. Memory bandwidth: the i7's is not recorded, the i3's is 34.1 GB/s. PCIe: the i7's is not recorded, the i3's is Gen 3 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics: Intel HD 3000 versus Intel HD 530. Market segment: Mobile versus Desktop. Production status: End-of-life versus Active. Release date: October 2011 versus August 2015. Part numbers: SR02N versus SR2H9. Both are multiplier-unlocked? No, both have locked multipliers. Both lack ECC memory support.

The specifications that do not differ: both are Intel parts, both use dual-channel memory buses, both have identical L1 and L2 cache per core, both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, both lack ECC support, and both have locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core i3-6320 wins all 5 recorded head-to-head tests, including Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core variants. The Intel Core i7-2670QM wins none.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The i3-6320 scores 3753 versus the i7-2670QM's 3177, a 15.3% advantage for the i3-6320.

Q: Does the i7-2670QM's higher core count help it in any benchmark?

A: No. Despite having 4 cores and 8 threads versus the i3-6320's 2 cores and 4 threads, the i7-2670QM loses every recorded multi-core test by approximately 15.3%.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The i7-2670QM has an average benchmark score of 1096, while the i3-6320 averages 1085, a difference of 1.0% in favor of the i7-2670QM.

Q: Are these processors comparable in terms of overall market position?

A: Yes. The i7-2670QM sits at the 31st percentile of all CPUs, and the i3-6320 sits at the 30th percentile. They occupy essentially the same tier in the overall performance distribution.

Q: Can the i7-2670QM be used in a desktop Socket 1151 motherboard?

A: No. The i7-2670QM uses Intel Socket G2 (988B) and is a mobile processor. The i3-6320 uses Intel Socket 1151 for desktop platforms.

The Verdict

The data points decisively toward the Intel Core i3-6320 as the superior performer in every measured benchmark. A 15.3% lead across all five Cinebench tests, including both single-core and multi-core workloads, leaves no ambiguity about computational capability. The i3-6320's architectural advantages, built on the 14 nm Skylake process with a 3.90 GHz clock, overcome the i7-2670QM's 2x core and thread advantage.

Users building a new desktop system should choose the i3-6320 without hesitation, provided the workload aligns with the benchmarks recorded. Its active production status, DDR4 memory support, and PCIe Gen 3 connectivity make it a more future-ready platform component. The i7-2670QM remains relevant only for those maintaining or upgrading legacy mobile systems on Socket G2, where no alternative exists in this comparison.

The near-identical average benchmark scores (1096 versus 1085) and percentile rankings (31st versus 30th) indicate that neither processor is a standout in the broader CPU landscape. They are both mid-pack performers. The i3-6320 simply does the same job faster, in a smaller die with a newer process, while consuming 6 watts more power. For anyone constrained to one of these two options, the i3-6320 is the clear pick based on recorded performance.