Intel Core i5-10210Y vs Intel Core i7-2635QM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a consistent, decisive victory for the Intel Core i5-10210Y across every recorded Cinebench test. The i5-10210Y wins all five head-to-head comparisons, with no test going to the i7-2635QM. The margin is remarkably uniform, hovering around 16% in every workload.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i5-10210Y scores 3479 against the i7-2635QM's 2995, a 16.2% advantage. This is the largest absolute point gap in the dataset. Single-core performance tells the same story: the i5-10210Y posts 491 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 422 for the older chip, a 16.4% lead. The fact that the single-core and multi-core deltas are nearly identical suggests the advantage comes from architectural efficiency rather than raw core count, since both processors feature 4 cores and 8 threads.

Looking at Cinebench R20, the i5-10210Y scores 1461 in multi-core and 206 in single-core. The i7-2635QM manages 1257 and 177 respectively. The deltas are 16.2% and 16.4%, mirroring the R23 results almost exactly. This consistency across generations of the Cinebench suite indicates the performance gap is stable regardless of workload scaling.

The oldest test in the comparison, Cinebench R15 multi-core, shows the i5-10210Y at 350 points versus 301 for the i7-2635QM, a 16.3% margin. Even in this legacy benchmark, the newer processor maintains its edge. Across all five tests, the i5-10210Y's advantage never dips below 16.2%, which points to a fundamental per-clock efficiency improvement rather than any single workload anomaly.

The average benchmark scores in the database tell a similar story. The i5-10210Y has an average benchmark score of 1006, placing it in the 27th percentile of all CPUs. The i7-2635QM averages 995, also in the 27th percentile. Despite the Cinebench wins, both chips land in the same performance percentile overall, meaning their broader benchmark profiles are closer than the Cinebench suite alone suggests. The i7-2635QM's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-2920XM and AMD Opteron 4226 at a 0% delta, while the i5-10210Y sits alongside the Intel Core i7-880 and AMD FX-9830P at 0% delta.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different eras of Intel's mobile lineup. The i5-10210Y uses the Comet Lake architecture, specifically Comet Lake-Y, built on Intel's 14 nm process. The i7-2635QM is a Sandy Bridge part, fabricated on a 32 nm process. This process gap, roughly two generations of refinement, explains much of the efficiency difference. The 14 nm node allows higher clock speeds at far lower power, which becomes critical when examining the thermal envelopes.

The i5-10210Y has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. The i7-2635QM starts at 2000 MHz base but boosts to only 2.90 GHz. While the older chip has a higher floor, the newer chip's ceiling is substantially higher. This explains the Cinebench single-core results: the i5-10210Y can sustain much higher frequencies under load, delivering that 16.4% single-core advantage.

Power consumption tells a stark story. The i5-10210Y has a TDP of 9 watts. The i7-2635QM draws 45 watts, exactly five times as much. This is the most dramatic specification difference between the two. The newer chip delivers superior performance while consuming a fraction of the power, a direct consequence of the 14 nm versus 32 nm process node improvement.

The i7-2635QM has documented transistor and die details: 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die. The database does not list equivalent figures for the i5-10210Y, but the architectural differences are clear. The Sandy Bridge chip uses a dual-channel memory bus, while the i5-10210Y lists DDR3 memory support without a specific bus configuration. Both processors have identical cache hierarchies: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The i5-10210Y carries UHD Graphics, while the i7-2635QM uses Intel HD 3000. Both are integrated solutions, but the newer UHD architecture benefits from years of driver and hardware improvements. The i5-10210Y uses the Intel BGA 1440 socket; the i7-2635QM uses Intel BGA 1224. Neither socket is compatible with the other, so there is no upgrade path between them on the same motherboard.

The production status also separates them. The i7-2635QM is marked as end-of-life, while the i5-10210Y remains active in production. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not an option for either processor.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core i5-10210Y wins every multi-core Cinebench test. It scores 350 in R15 multicore, 1461 in R20 multicore, and 3479 in R23 multicore. The i7-2635QM trails at 301, 1257, and 2995 respectively, with deltas of 16.3%, 16.2%, and 16.2% in each test.**

Q: Is the single-core performance gap the same as multi-core?

A: Yes, remarkably so. The i5-10210Y leads by 16.4% in R20 single-core and 16.4% in R23 single-core. The i7-2635QM scores 177 and 422 in those tests, versus 206 and 491 for the i5-10210Y.**

Q: Why does the i7-2635QM have a higher base clock, yet still lose?

A: The i7-2635QM has a 2000 MHz base clock, double the i5-10210Y's 1000 MHz. However, the i5-10210Y boosts to 4.00 GHz, well above the i7-2635QM's 2.90 GHz ceiling. Higher boost headroom outweighs the base clock deficit, allowing the i5-10210Y to win single-core tests consistently.

Q: How do their overall percentile rankings compare?

A: Both processors sit in the 27th percentile of all CPUs. The i5-10210Y has an average benchmark score of 1006, and the i7-2635QM averages 995. Their nearest rivals reflect this closeness, with the i7-2635QM sitting at a 0.1% delta from the Intel Core i7-2920XM, and the i5-10210Y at a 0.1% delta from the Intel Core i7-2630QM.

Q: Which chip draws more power?

A: The i7-2635QM has a 45 watt TDP, five times higher than the i5-10210Y's 9 watt TDP. The newer 14 nm Comet Lake chip delivers superior benchmark scores while consuming far less power than the 32 nm Sandy Bridge part.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-10210Y | Intel Core i7-2635QM |

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

| Architecture | Comet Lake | Sandy Bridge |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 32 nm |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.00 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| TDP | 9 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1440 | Intel BGA 1224 |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics | Intel HD 3000 |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | Dual-channel |

| Transistors | Not listed | 1,160 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 216 mm² |

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

| Release Date | 2019-08-20 | 2011-01-02 |

| Part Number | Not listed | SR030 |

| Cinebench R15 Multi | 350 | 301 |

| Cinebench R20 Multi | 1461 | 1257 |

| Cinebench R20 Single | 206 | 177 |

| Cinebench R23 Multi | 3479 | 2995 |

| Cinebench R23 Single | 491 | 422 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 1006 | 995 |

| Percentile | 27 | 27 |

Identical specifications include 4 cores, 8 threads, 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3. Both are mobile parts with ECC disabled and locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-10210Y wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, making the case for it straightforward. It dominates in all Cinebench tests, both single-core and multi-core, with consistent 16% margins. Its 14 nm process and 9 watt TDP make it the clear choice for power-sensitive mobile designs, including fanless or ultra-thin laptops where thermal headroom is minimal. The boost clock of 4.00 GHz gives it a significant frequency advantage in bursty workloads like web browsing, document editing, and light productivity. Its active production status also means it remains available for current system designs.

The Intel Core i7-2635QM has no benchmark wins in this comparison, but the data still defines where it holds relative strengths. Its higher 2000 MHz base clock provides a more consistent frequency floor, which can help in sustained workloads where boosting is limited by thermal constraints. The dual-channel memory bus is a genuine advantage for memory-bandwidth-sensitive applications, even though the database does not record a bandwidth figure. Its 45 watt TDP, while inefficient by modern standards, was designed for larger laptops with active cooling. The documented transistor count of 1,160 million and die size of 216 mm² suggest a more complex on-die feature set, including the HD 3000 integrated graphics. For legacy software or older operating systems, a Sandy Bridge part may have better driver compatibility, though the database does not quantify this.

The practical takeaway from the recorded data is that the i5-10210Y is the better processor in every measured dimension. The only scenario where the i7-2635QM might be preferable is in a system that requires its specific BGA 1224 socket or dual-channel memory configuration, since the two are physically incompatible. The i5-10210Y's 16.3% Cinebench R15 multi-core win over a chip from eight years earlier demonstrates how far mobile processors have advanced. Both chips sit in the same 27th percentile overall, but the i5-10210Y achieves that standing with one-fifth the power draw.