Intel Core i3-N300 vs Intel Core i7-2860QM Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two mobile processors into distinct roles. The Intel Core i3-N300 wins four of the six recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core i7-2860QM takes two. That split is not just a matter of raw score counts; the margin and the specific test tell a clear story about workload suitability.

For short-duration, lightly threaded tasks, the Core i3-N300 is decisively ahead. Its single-core advantage in Cinebench R15 is massive: a 57.4% lead over the i7-2860QM. That gap shrinks in R20 (75.1% ahead) and nearly disappears in R23, where the older chip actually pulls ahead by 6%. The pattern suggests the i3-N300 excels in bursty, latency-sensitive workloads like web browsing, office productivity, or light application launches. The i7-2860QM, by contrast, shows its strength in sustained multi-core rendering, specifically in the Cinebench R23 multicore test, where it beats the i3-N300 by 34.3%.

The multi-core picture is more complicated. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i3-N300 wins by a slim 6.7%. In R20 multicore, it wins by a commanding 75.2%. But in R23 multicore, the i7-2860QM reverses the result entirely, winning by 34.3%. This inconsistency across the same vendor's test suite indicates that the i3-N300's advantage is tied to the specific rendering engine version and how it scales with the CPU's architecture. For users running older software or shorter render passes, the i3-N300 is the better tool. For longer, more modern render workloads, the i7-2860QM holds the edge.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from different eras and design philosophies. The Core i3-N300 is built on a 10 nm process using Gracemont architecture, which is Intel's efficiency-focused core design. It has 8 cores and 8 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. Its base clock is listed as 100.00 (likely a placeholder for a variable low-power base), with a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The TDP is just 7 watts, making it an ultra-low-power part for thin-and-light laptops. It uses the Intel BGA 1264 socket, supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a single-channel configuration, and offers 38.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 770, and it has 9 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU.

The Core i7-2860QM is a Sandy Bridge part from 2011, built on a 32 nm process. It has 4 cores and 8 threads, using hyperthreading to reach the same thread count as the i3-N300. Its base clock is 2.50 GHz with a boost of 3.60 GHz, and it draws 45 watts. That is more than six times the TDP of the i3-N300. It uses the Intel Socket G2 (988B) and has dual-channel memory support, though the database does not list a specific bandwidth figure. The integrated graphics are the older Intel HD 3000. The i7-2860QM has a larger L3 cache at 8 MB shared, compared to the i3-N300's 6 MB shared. The L2 cache differs too: the i7 has 256 KB per core, while the i3-N300 has 2 MB per module. L1 is 64 KB per core on the i7 versus 96 KB per core on the i3.

The production status also tells a story. The i3-N300 is listed as Active, while the i7-2860QM is End-of-life. The i3-N300 also has a launch MSRP of $309. The i7-2860QM has no recorded launch price. Both chips are mobile parts, but the i3-N300 is a modern low-power design, while the i7-2860QM is a legacy high-power design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single-core tests heavily favor the Core i3-N300 in the older Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the i3-N300 scores 85 against the i7's 54, a 57.4% advantage. In R20 single-core, the i3-N300 scores 401 against 229, a 75.1% lead. However, in R23 single-core, the i7-2860QM strikes back: it scores 546 against the i3's 513, a 6% win. This suggests that the i3-N300's single-core advantage is real but not uniform across software versions. The newer R23 engine appears to favor the older Sandy Bridge core's efficiency at lower clocks.

Multi-core results are even more lopsided in both directions. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i3-N300 wins narrowly: 416 versus 390, a 6.7% margin. In R20 multicore, the i3-N300 dominates: 2849 versus 1626, a 75.2% lead. That is the largest gap in the entire comparison. But in R23 multicore, the i7-2860QM wins big: 3873 versus 2546, a 34.3% margin. That is the largest win for the i7.

What explains this flip? The i7-2860QM also has a Geekbench score in the database: 1681 multicore and 558 single-core. The i3-N300 does not have Geekbench scores listed, so no direct comparison is possible there. But the Cinebench pattern alone shows that the i3-N300 is not universally faster in multi-core. Its 8 Gracemont cores are efficient but may throttle or scale poorly in longer, heavier R23 workloads. The i7's 4 hyperthreaded Sandy Bridge cores, despite being older and more power-hungry, hold up better in that specific test.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores?

A: The Intel Core i3-N300 has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core i7-2860QM has 4 cores and 8 threads, using hyperthreading to match the thread count.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Core i3-N300 has a TDP of 7 watts. The Core i7-2860QM has a TDP of 45 watts. That is a significant difference in power draw and cooling requirements.

Q: Which CPU wins in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core i7-2860QM wins with a score of 3873, compared to the Core i3-N300's 2546. That is a 34.3% advantage for the i7.

Q: Which CPU wins in Cinebench R20 multicore?

A: The Intel Core i3-N300 wins decisively with a score of 2849, compared to the i7-2860QM's 1626. That is a 75.2% lead.

Q: Are these CPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes. Both are listed at the 32nd percentile against all CPUs in the database. Their average benchmark scores are also close: 1135 for the i3-N300 and 1120 for the i7-2860QM.

Q: What memory types do they support?

A: The Core i3-N300 supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a single-channel configuration. The Core i7-2860QM has dual-channel memory support, but the database does not list specific memory types or bandwidth.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core i3-N300 has a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The Core i7-2860QM has a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The difference is small, 0.10 GHz.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but nuanced recommendation. For modern, short-duration workloads and energy-sensitive designs, the Intel Core i3-N300 is the stronger choice. It wins four of the six head-to-head tests, including the two most lopsided victories in the entire comparison (Cinebench R20 single-core and multicore). Its 7-watt TDP is a fraction of the i7-2860QM's 45-watt draw. It is also an active production part with modern memory support, while the i7 is end-of-life.

However, the Intel Core i7-2860QM is not without merit. It wins the two most demanding sustained tests in the database: Cinebench R23 single-core and multicore. In R23 multicore, it beats the i3-N300 by 34.3%, a massive margin. That indicates that for longer, heavier rendering tasks, the older Sandy Bridge architecture is still competitive. The i7 also has a larger L3 cache (8 MB versus 6 MB) and dual-channel memory, which may help in memory-sensitive applications.

The average benchmark scores are nearly identical: 1135 for the i3-N300 versus 1120 for the i7-2860QM. Both sit at the 32nd percentile. This means that for a general mix of tasks, users would see little difference in overall performance. The choice comes down to specific workloads and power constraints.

If you need a low-power processor for a thin laptop, frequent light tasks, and modern efficiency, pick the Core i3-N300. If you are running long multi-threaded renders or heavily threaded sustained workloads, the Core i7-2860QM is the better performer, despite its age and power draw. The recorded data does not support a universal winner; it supports a workload-specific split.