Intel Core i3-7100H vs Intel Core i7-2920XM Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two mobile processors cleanly, and the record favors the older, larger chip in nearly every measurable way. The Intel Core i7-2920XM wins all five head-to-head comparisons in the database, covering Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both multi-core and single-core tests. There is no recorded benchmark in which the Intel Core i3-7100H comes out ahead.

The i7-2920XM’s advantage is consistent across both lightly threaded and heavily threaded workloads. In single-core tests, it holds a lead of roughly 16% over the i3-7100H. In multi-core tests, the same margin appears: 16.4% in Cinebench R15, 16.3% in R20, and 16.3% in R23. The i7-2920XM is the processor to choose when the workload is any flavor of Cinebench rendering, whether that is a short preview or a long final render.

The i3-7100H, for its part, does not win a single recorded benchmark. Its best showing is relative, not absolute: in the average benchmark score, it sits at 1009, which is only 1.4% above the i7-2920XM’s 995 average. That average, however, is skewed by the fact that the i7-2920XM has more benchmark entries, including Geekbench scores that are not recorded for the i3-7100H. In the direct head-to-head comparisons that both processors share, the i3-7100H consistently trails.

For use cases outside Cinebench, the i3-7100H has no recorded wins to point to. The i7-2920XM also holds the overall percentile ranking edge, though barely: 27th percentile versus 28th for the i3. That one-percentile difference is within noise, but the win count is not. The i7-2920XM is the clear choice for any rendering or multi-threaded productivity task that appears in this database.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from different eras and different design philosophies. The i3-7100H is a Kaby Lake-H part, built on Intel’s 14 nm process with a die size of 126 mm². It has 2 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 2.80 GHz and no boost clock listed. The i7-2920XM is a Sandy Bridge Extreme part, built on 32 nm with a much larger die at 216 mm² and 1,160 million transistors. It has 4 cores and 8 threads, a base clock of 2.50 GHz, and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz.

Cache layout differs significantly. The i3-7100H has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 3 MB of shared L3. The i7-2920XM has the same per-core L1 and L2 sizes, but its shared L3 is 8 MB, more than double the i3’s. That larger cache likely contributes to the i7’s consistent lead in single-core and multi-core tests, as more working data can stay on-die.

Memory support also separates them. The i3-7100H supports DDR3 and DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with no memory bandwidth figure recorded. The i7-2920XM supports only DDR3, also dual-channel, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. PCIe generations differ as well: the i3-7100H uses Gen 3 with 16 lanes, while the i7-2920XM uses Gen 2 with 16 lanes.

Integrated graphics differ: the i3-7100H has Intel HD Graphics 630, while the i7-2920XM has Intel HD 3000. The i7-2920XM is multiplier-unlocked, meaning it can be overclocked, while the i3-7100H is not. The i7-2920XM was released in early 2011, the i3-7100H in early 2017. Both are end-of-life mobile parts. Thermal design power is notably different: 35 watts for the i3-7100H versus 55 watts for the i7-2920XM. That higher TDP aligns with the i7’s extra cores, higher boost clock, and larger cache.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head table is one-sided. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i7-2920XM scores 353 against 295 for the i3-7100H, a delta of 16.4% in favor of the older chip. Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the pattern: 1471 versus 1231, a 16.3% lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 3504 versus 2932, again 16.3% ahead.

Single-core margins are similar. Cinebench R20 single-core: 207 for the i7-2920XM versus 173 for the i3-7100H, a 16.4% gap. Cinebench R23 single-core: 494 versus 414, a 16.2% difference. The consistency of the delta across different Cinebench generations suggests a structural advantage, not a workload-specific quirk.

The i7-2920XM also has additional benchmarks that the i3-7100H does not have recorded. In Geekbench multi-core, it scores 1452. In Geekbench single-core, it scores 430. Those numbers cannot be compared head-to-head because the i3-7100H has no Geekbench entries, but they do contribute to the i7’s average benchmark score of 995 versus the i3’s 1009.

Cinebench R15 single-core is present only for the i7-2920XM, which scores 52. The i3-7100H has no R15 single-core entry, so no direct comparison is possible there. The five head-to-head tests that do exist all agree: the i7-2920XM is faster by a consistent 16% margin, and the i3-7100H has no wins.

The Verdict

For any workload that shows up in the Cinebench suite, the Intel Core i7-2920XM is the stronger processor. It is 16% ahead of the i3-7100H in both single-core and multi-core tests, and it does so across three separate Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23). The i7-2920XM also brings 4 cores and 8 threads versus the i3-7100H’s 2 cores and 4 threads, and it has 8 MB of shared L3 cache versus 3 MB.

The i3-7100H does have advantages in the database, but they are not performance advantages. It uses a smaller 14nm process, which typically means better power efficiency, and its TDP is 35 watts versus 55 watts for the i7-2920XM. It also supports DDR4 memory and PCIe Gen 3, which are newer standards. For a constrained thermal envelope or a system limited to 35 watts, the i3-7100H is the only feasible choice. But from a pure benchmark score standpoint, the i7-2920XM is 16% faster everywhere.

The i7-2920XM also has a higher launch MSRP of $1096, while the i3-7100H has a launch MSRP of $225. That price gap reflects the original positioning: the Extreme Edition part was Intel’s top mobile chip in 2011, while the i3-7100H was a mid-range mobile part in 2017.

Buyers should pick the i7-2920XM if they need maximum Cinebench performance, especially in multi-threaded tasks, and if they can tolerate a 55-watt TDP and DDR3-only memory. Buyers should pick the i3-7100H if they need a 35-watt part, support for DDR4, or PCIe Gen 3, and if they can accept a 16% performance deficit. The data shows no scenario where the i3-7100H wins a benchmark, so the choice comes down to system constraints, not performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i7-2920XM scores 3504 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Core i3-7100H scores 2932, giving the i7-2920XM a 16.3% lead.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i7-2920XM has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core i3-7100H has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-7100H have any benchmark wins in the database?

A: No. In the direct head-to-head comparisons, the Intel Core i7-2920XM wins all 5 tests, and the i3-7100H has 0 wins.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings?

A: The Intel Core i3-7100H has a TDP of 35 watts. The Intel Core i7-2920XM has a TDP of 55 watts.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: The Intel Core i3-7100H supports both DDR3 and DDR4. The Intel Core i7-2920XM supports only DDR3.

Q: Is the Intel Core i7-2920XM unlocked for overclocking?

A: Yes, the i7-2920XM has an unlocked multiplier. The i3-7100H does not.