Intel Core i3-N300 vs Intel Core i7-2720QM Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a striking generational split. The Intel Core i3-N300 wins 4 of 5 head-to-head comparisons, but the single loss is a heavy one. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the older Core i7-2720QM scores 3417 against the i3-N300’s 2546, a 25.5% deficit for the newer chip. This is the only test where the 2011 processor wins, yet it is arguably the most representative of sustained all-core workloads. The i3-N300 counters with a 98.5% lead in both Cinebench R20 multi-core (2849 vs 1435) and single-core (401 vs 202), plus a 20.9% advantage in Cinebench R15 multi-core (416 vs 344) and a 6.4% edge in Cinebench R23 single-core (513 vs 482).

For users running modern renderers or compilers that scale past four cores, the i7-2720QM’s R23 multi-core win is decisive, but it is an outlier against the overall benchmark trend. The i3-N300’s average benchmark score of 1135 marginally exceeds the i7-2720QM’s 1128, and both sit at the 32nd percentile of all CPUs. The data suggests the i3-N300 is the better all-rounder for single-threaded responsiveness and short multi-core bursts, while the i7-2720QM retains a specific niche in long, heavily threaded workloads where its higher sustained throughput in R23 matters more than its deficits elsewhere. Given the i3-N300’s active production status and the i7-2720QM’s end-of-life designation, the newer part is the safer recommendation for general mobile use, provided the workload does not hinge on the R23 multi-core result.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design eras. The Intel Core i3-N300 uses a Gracemont architecture on a 10 nm process, while the Intel Core i7-2720QM is built on Sandy Bridge at 32 nm. The i3-N300 packs 8 cores and 8 threads, double the physical core count of the i7-2720QM’s 4 cores and 8 threads. Cache hierarchies diverge sharply: the i3-N300 offers 96 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per module, whereas the i7-2720QM provides 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core. Both share 6 MB of L3, but the i3-N300’s is shared across 8 cores while the i7-2720QM’s is shared across 4.

Clock speeds tell a complementary story. The i3-N300 has a 100 MHz base clock with a 3.70 GHz boost, while the i7-2720QM starts at 2.20 GHz and boosts to 3.30 GHz. The thermal envelope is dramatically different: the i3-N300 draws 7 W versus the i7-2720QM’s 45 W. This 38 W gap explains why the newer chip can sustain high boost clocks without the cooling requirements of the older part. The i3-N300 uses an Intel BGA 1264 socket and supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The i7-2720QM uses Intel BGA 1224 with dual-channel memory but lists no bandwidth figure. Integrated graphics differ as well: the i3-N300 carries UHD Graphics 770, while the i7-2720QM has Intel HD 3000. The i3-N300 also adds PCIe Gen 3 with 9 CPU lanes, a feature absent from the i7-2720QM’s specification block.

The process node advantage is substantial. The 10 nm Gracemont design integrates 8 low-power cores in a fraction of the thermal budget of the 32 nm Sandy Bridge part, which uses 1,160 million transistors across a 216 mm² die. The i3-N300 does not list transistor or die size figures, but its 7 W TDP versus 45 W suggests a far more power-efficient implementation. Memory support also differs, with the i3-N300 explicitly listing DDR4 and DDR5 while the i7-2720QM’s memory support field is null. Both parts lack ECC memory and unlocked multipliers, and neither supports overclocking. The i3-N300’s release date of January 2023 versus the i7-2720QM’s January 2011 places a full 12 years of architectural evolution between them.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core i3-N300 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i7-2720QM has 4 cores and 8 threads. The i3-N300 doubles the physical core count.

Q: Why does the i7-2720QM win Cinebench R23 multi-core despite having fewer cores?

A: The i7-2720QM scores 3417 in that test versus the i3-N300’s 2546, a 25.5% advantage. The older Sandy Bridge design sustains higher multi-core throughput in this specific workload, despite its 4-core layout, likely due to higher per-core sustained performance under long all-core loads.

Q: What is the thermal difference between the two?

A: The i3-N300 has a 7 W TDP, while the i7-2720QM draws 45 W. The i3-N300 uses 38 W less power, which is a massive efficiency gap favoring the newer chip.

Q: Are the single-core performances close?

A: The i3-N300 leads in every single-core test. In Cinebench R20 single-core it scores 401 versus 202, a 98.5% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core it scores 513 versus 482, a 6.4% edge. The gap narrows in the newer test but still favors the i3-N300.

Q: Which chip has better integrated graphics?

A: The i3-N300 includes UHD Graphics 770, while the i7-2720QM has Intel HD 3000. The i3-N300’s integrated graphics are from a much later generation, though no benchmark scores are provided for either.

Q: How do their overall benchmark averages compare?

A: The i3-N300 has an average benchmark score of 1135, and the i7-2720QM scores 1128. Both sit at the 32nd percentile of all CPUs, making them statistically equivalent in aggregate performance.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core i3-N300 | Intel Core i7-2720QM |

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

| Cores | 8 | 4 |

| Threads | 8 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 100 MHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.70 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| TDP | 7 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1264 | Intel BGA 1224 |

| Architecture | Gracemont | Sandy Bridge |

| Codename | Gracemont | Sandy Bridge |

| Generation | Core i3 (Alder Lake-N) | Core i7 (Sandy Bridge) |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 32 nm |

| Transistors | Not listed | 1,160 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 216 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 96 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per module) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | Not listed |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

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

| PCIe | Gen 3, 9 Lanes (CPU only) | Not listed |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Intel HD 3000 |

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

| Release Date | January 2023 | January 2011 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | Not listed |

| Part Number | SRMDS | SR00W |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R20 multi-core test delivers the most lopsided result. The i3-N300 scores 2849 against the i7-2720QM’s 1435, a 98.5% advantage. This is nearly double the performance, a decisive margin that reflects the 8-core Gracemont design’s ability to scale short multi-core workloads far beyond the older Sandy Bridge part. The single-core R20 result matches the same 98.5% delta, with the i3-N300 hitting 401 versus 202. This pairing suggests that the i3-N300’s architectural efficiency is not limited to multi-threaded scaling; its per-core performance is also vastly superior in this benchmark generation.

Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a smaller but still clear i3-N300 win at 416 versus 344, a 20.9% margin. This older benchmark may not fully exploit the newer chip’s capabilities, but the direction is consistent. The i3-N300 also takes Cinebench R23 single-core with 513 versus 482, a 6.4% edge. This is the closest single-core contest, indicating that while the newer architecture holds the lead, the i7-2720QM’s Sandy Bridge cores remain competitive in pure single-threaded throughput on the most recent test.

The sole i7-2720QM victory comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it posts 3417 versus 2546. The 25.5% margin is substantial and runs counter to the trend of the other multi-core tests. This anomaly suggests that R23’s longer workload duration favors the i7-2720QM’s ability to sustain higher clocks across all four cores over extended periods, while the i3-N300 may throttle or reduce boost under sustained load despite its lower TDP. The i7-2720QM’s 45 W TDP likely allows for more aggressive sustained power delivery, whereas the i3-N300’s 7 W envelope constrains long-duration performance.

Across all five head-to-head tests, the i3-N300 wins four and the i7-2720QM wins one. The aggregate average benchmark scores reinforce the near-parity: 1135 for the i3-N300 versus 1128 for the i7-2720QM, a difference of less than 1%. Both processors land at the 32nd percentile of all CPUs, and their nearest rivals cluster tightly around the same average scores. The i3-N300’s nearest competitor, the Intel Core i5-3570T, scores 1136 with a delta of -0.1%, while the i7-2720QM’s nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-3330S, scores 1128 with a delta of 0%. This tight clustering underscores that despite the generational gap, these two chips occupy the same overall performance tier, with workload-specific spikes in either direction.