Intel Core i3-7300 vs Intel Core i7-2860QM Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i7-2860QM has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i3-7300 has 2 cores and 4 threads. This gives the i7-2860QM a 2x advantage in both core count and thread count.

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

A: The i7-2860QM scores 3873 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the i3-7300 scores 3856. The i7-2860QM leads by 0.4% in this test, a margin that is within run-to-run variance but still consistently registered across all multi-core benchmarks.

Q: What are the clock speed differences between the two chips?

A: The i7-2860QM has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The i3-7300 has a higher base clock of 4.00 GHz but no boost clock capability. Despite the i3's higher base frequency, the i7-2860QM still edges ahead in every benchmark.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The i7-2860QM has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i3-7300 has 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The i7-2860QM offers twice the L3 cache capacity.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each processor?

A: The i7-2860QM has a TDP of 45 watts, while the i3-7300 has a TDP of 51 watts. Despite having more cores and threads, the older mobile chip consumes less power.

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

A: In single-core tests, the two are virtually identical. The i7-2860QM scores 546 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 544 for the i3-7300, a 0.4% lead. In Cinebench R15 single-core, both score exactly 54.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i7-2860QM and Intel Core i3-7300 represent two distinctly different eras of Intel processor design. The i7-2860QM is built on the Sandy Bridge architecture using a 32 nm process node, fabricated by Intel with 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die. The i3-7300 uses the newer Kaby Lake architecture on a 14 nm process node, a significantly more advanced manufacturing process that allows for higher clock speeds at lower power densities.

The core configuration could not be more different. The i7-2860QM is a quad-core processor with 8 threads, while the i3-7300 is a dual-core processor with 4 threads. This means the i7-2860QM has double the parallel processing capability. The cache hierarchy reflects this difference: both share the same per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (256 KB) allocations, but the i7-2860QM has 8 MB of shared L3 cache versus 4 MB on the i3-7300.

The clock speed strategy is opposite between the two. The i7-2860QM runs at a conservative 2.50 GHz base clock with the ability to boost up to 3.60 GHz when thermal headroom allows. The i3-7300 runs at a fixed 4.00 GHz with no boost capability, relying on its high base frequency to deliver performance. This is a fundamental architectural difference: Sandy Bridge mobile chips were designed for power efficiency in laptops, while Kaby Lake desktop chips prioritize raw clock speed.

Memory support also differs. The i3-7300 supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The i7-2860QM's memory support is not listed in the data, but it does use a dual-channel memory bus. The i3-7300 also features PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while PCIe support for the i7-2860QM is not specified.

The integrated graphics are different generations: the i7-2860QM uses Intel HD 3000, while the i3-7300 uses Intel HD 630. The i7-2860QM is a mobile processor on the Intel Socket G2 (988B) platform, while the i3-7300 is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1151. The i7-2860QM was released in 2011 and is end-of-life, while the i3-7300 was released in 2017 and remains active in production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably consistent picture: the Intel Core i7-2860QM wins every single head-to-head comparison, but by extraordinarily narrow margins. Across six benchmark tests, the i7-2860QM secures 6 wins with zero losses, yet the performance gap never exceeds 0.5%.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i7-2860QM scores 390 against 388 for the i3-7300, a 0.5% advantage. The single-core R15 result is a perfect tie at 54 points apiece, with the i7-2860QM declared the winner on a 0% delta. The Cinebench R20 results tell the same story: the i7-2860QM leads 1626 to 1619 in multi-core (0.4%) and 229 to 228 in single-core (0.4%).

Cinebench R23, the most demanding test in the suite, shows the i7-2860QM scoring 3873 versus 3856 for the i3-7300 in multi-core, again a 0.4% lead. The single-core R23 results are 546 against 544, another 0.4% margin. The i7-2860QM also holds a Geekbench advantage, scoring 1681 multi-core and 558 single-core, though the i3-7300 does not have corresponding Geekbench scores in the data.

The interpretation of these results is nuanced. The i7-2860QM has twice the cores and threads of the i3-7300, yet its multi-core lead is only 0.4-0.5%. This indicates that the i3-7300's 4.00 GHz base clock effectively compensates for its core deficit in these workloads. Conversely, the fact that the older, lower-clocked quad-core chip can outperform the newer dual-core at all speaks to the benefits of additional cores and threads in multi-threaded applications.

The single-core results are essentially a dead heat. With matching 54-point scores in R15 and margins of just 1 point in R20 and 2 points in R23, the raw single-thread performance of both processors is statistically indistinguishable. This is notable because the i3-7300 has a 60% higher base clock than the i7-2860QM (4.00 GHz versus 2.50 GHz), yet the older chip's boost clock of 3.60 GHz brings it close enough to neutralize that advantage.

Looking at the broader context, both processors sit near the same performance tier. The i7-2860QM has an average benchmark score of 1120 and sits at the 32nd percentile of all CPUs, while the i3-7300 averages 1115 and sits at the 31st percentile. The i7-2860QM's nearest rivals include the AMD Athlon 240GE (1121, 0% delta), Intel Xeon D-1518 (1121, -0.1%), and Intel Core i3-4150 (1119, 0.1%). The i3-7300's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 3 1200 (1116, 0% delta), Intel Core i5-3550S (1118, -0.3%), and Intel Core i3-4150 (1119, -0.3%).

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i7-2860QM | Intel Core i3-7300 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Threads | 8 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 4.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.60 GHz | None |

| TDP | 45 W | 51 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket G2 (988B) | Intel Socket 1151 |

| Architecture | Sandy Bridge | Kaby Lake |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 1,160 million | Not specified |

| Die Size | 216 mm² | Not specified |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | Not specified | DDR4 |

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

| PCIe Support | Not specified | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 3000 | Intel HD 630 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2011-09-03 | 2017-01-02 |

| Part Number | SR02X | SR359 |

The Verdict

The data presents an unusual case where the older, mobile-oriented processor holds a complete, if narrow, benchmark sweep over the newer desktop chip. The Intel Core i7-2860QM wins all 6 head-to-head comparisons, yet the maximum margin is 0.5%. For practical purposes, these two processors deliver essentially identical performance in the tested workloads.

The i7-2860QM is the choice for users who need multi-threaded capability. Its 4 cores and 8 threads provide double the parallel execution resources of the i3-7300's 2 cores and 4 threads. The larger 8 MB L3 cache also gives it an advantage in workloads that benefit from larger working sets. Its lower TDP of 45 watts versus 51 watts makes it the more power-efficient option, despite being built on a much older 32 nm process.

The i3-7300, meanwhile, offers the advantages of a modern platform. It supports DDR4 memory with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth, features PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, and comes with the newer Intel HD 630 integrated graphics. Its 4.00 GHz base clock means it delivers its performance without needing boost headroom, which can be an advantage in thermally constrained scenarios. It is also an active production part, whereas the i7-2860QM is end-of-life.

For users building a new system, the i3-7300's modern socket and active production status make it the more practical choice from a platform perspective. For users who already have a Socket G2 (988B) system or need maximum multi-threading, the i7-2860QM's benchmark edge — however small — makes it the data-backed pick. The Geekbench results reinforce this: the i7-2860QM scores 1681 multi-core and 558 single-core, though the i3-7300 lacks comparable Geekbench data for direct comparison.

In the end, the benchmark results show two processors that perform nearly identically despite radically different architectures, core counts, and release dates. The i7-2860QM's victory is mathematically consistent but practically negligible. Both processors sit near the 31st-32nd percentile of all CPUs, placing them in the same performance class according to the aggregate data.