Intel Core i5-10210Y vs Intel Core i7-2675QM Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i5-10210Y wins the Cinebench R23 multi-core test with a score of 3479, while the Intel Core i7-2675QM scores 3118. This gives the i5-10210Y a 10.4% advantage in that workload.

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

A: The i5-10210Y leads in all single-core benchmarks. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 491 versus 440 for the i7-2675QM, a 10.4% delta. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i5-10210Y scores 206 against 184, a 10.7% advantage.

Q: What is the difference in thermal design power between the two?

A: The i7-2675QM has a TDP of 45 watts, while the i5-10210Y has a TDP of 9 watts. The i5-10210Y draws substantially less power, which is a key differentiator for thin-and-light mobile designs.

Q: Which processor is older and which is still in production?

A: The i7-2675QM is end-of-life and was released on 2011-10-11. The i5-10210Y is active and was released on 2019-08-20. The i5-10210Y is the newer part by nearly eight years.

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread configuration?

A: Yes, both have 4 cores and 8 threads. They also share the same L1 cache of 64 KB per core, L2 cache of 256 KB per core, and L3 cache of 6 MB shared.

Q: What are the integrated graphics solutions on each chip?

A: The i7-2675QM features Intel HD 3000 graphics, while the i5-10210Y comes with UHD Graphics. The i5-10210Y benefits from a more modern graphics architecture.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core i5-10210Y across every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. It wins all five tested workloads, with deltas ranging from 10.3% to 10.7% over the older i7-2675QM. The i5-10210Y takes the Cinebench R15 multi-core test at 350 versus 314, the R20 multi-core at 1461 versus 1309, and the R20 single-core at 206 versus 184. It also leads in R23 multi-core (3479 vs 3118) and R23 single-core (491 vs 440).

The i7-2675QM, despite being the older Sandy Bridge part, is not without its merits. It carries a 45-watt TDP, which in a mobile context typically allows for sustained all-core operation, whereas the 9-watt i5-10210Y may be constrained by thermal limits in thinner chassis. However, the benchmark scores do not reflect any such limitation; the i5-10210Y simply outperforms the i7-2675QM in every measured metric.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput in short bursts, the i5-10210Y is the clear winner. The data indicates that newer architecture and higher boost clocks—4.00 GHz versus 3.10 GHz—more than compensate for the i5-10210Y's dramatically lower base clock of 1000 MHz. In single-threaded workloads, the i5-10210Y's lead is consistent, making it the better choice for responsive everyday tasks. The i7-2675QM, by contrast, remains competitive only in scenarios where its higher TDP allows for prolonged multi-core loads, but even there, it trails the i5-10210Y in every available benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from vastly different eras of Intel's mobile lineup. The i7-2675QM is built on Sandy Bridge architecture using a 32 nm process node, while the i5-10210Y uses Comet Lake architecture on a 14 nm node. The process shrink is significant, though the i5-10210Y's chip also benefits from nearly eight years of microarchitectural improvements.

The i7-2675QM has a die size of 216 mm² and contains 1,160 million transistors. The i5-10210Y's die size and transistor count are not listed, but its 14 nm process allows for a smaller, more efficient implementation. The i7-2675QM uses the Intel BGA 1224 socket, whereas the i5-10210Y uses Intel BGA 1440.

Both chips share the same cache hierarchy: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3. This parity means that architecture differences manifest primarily in execution efficiency, branch prediction, and instruction-level parallelism rather than raw cache capacity.

The integrated graphics differ considerably. The i7-2675QM pairs with Intel HD 3000, a Sandy Bridge-era GPU, while the i5-10210Y includes UHD Graphics, which is part of the Comet Lake generation. The newer UHD Graphics solution supports more modern media codecs and display outputs, though the benchmark data does not include graphics-specific tests.

Memory support also diverges. The i5-10210Y explicitly lists DDR3 memory support, while the i7-2675QM's memory support field is null in the data. Both use dual-channel memory (noted for the i7-2675QM), but the i5-10210Y's memory bus configuration is not specified.

The i5-10210Y's base clock of 1000 MHz is unusually low, but its boost clock of 4.00 GHz is nearly 1 GHz higher than the i7-2675QM's 3.10 GHz boost. This aggressive boost behavior, enabled by the 14 nm process and 9-watt TDP, explains how the i5-10210Y manages to outperform the older part despite a much lower base frequency.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The i7-2675QM has a base clock of 2.20 GHz, while the i5-10210Y has a base clock of 1000 MHz—a substantial difference of 1.20 GHz. However, the boost clocks invert this relationship: the i5-10210Y boosts to 4.00 GHz, compared to the i7-2675QM's 3.10 GHz.

TDP is the most dramatic differentiator. The i7-2675QM is rated at 45 watts, while the i5-10210Y is rated at just 9 watts. This 36-watt gap makes the i5-10210Y far more suitable for fanless or passively cooled designs, while the i7-2675QM requires active cooling.

The sockets are different: Intel BGA 1224 for the i7-2675QM and Intel BGA 1440 for the i5-10210Y. The process node also differs, with the i7-2675QM on 32 nm and the i5-10210Y on 14 nm.

The i7-2675QM has a listed die size of 216 mm² and transistor count of 1,160 million; neither is available for the i5-10210Y. The i7-2675QM also has a part number (SR02S), while the i5-10210Y does not have one listed.

Memory support is listed as DDR3 for the i5-10210Y, while the i7-2675QM has no memory support field populated. The i7-2675QM explicitly supports dual-channel memory; the i5-10210Y's memory bus is not specified.

The production status differs: the i7-2675QM is end-of-life, while the i5-10210Y is active. Neither chip has a launch MSRP in the data. Both processors have locked multipliers, and neither supports ECC memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably consistent: the i5-10210Y wins every test by roughly 10%. The largest margin is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the i5-10210Y scores 206 against the i7-2675QM's 184, a 10.7% delta. The smallest margin is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the i5-10210Y scores 350 versus 314, a 10.3% gap.

In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the i5-10210Y posts 1461 against 1309 for the i7-2675QM, a 10.4% advantage. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows the same 10.4% delta, with scores of 3479 and 3118 respectively. The Cinebench R23 single-core test also shows a 10.4% delta, with the i5-10210Y scoring 491 and the i7-2675QM scoring 440.

The overall average benchmark scores are nearly identical: the i7-2675QM has an average score of 1012, while the i5-10210Y has an average of 1006. The i7-2675QM sits at the 28th percentile of all CPUs, and the i5-10210Y is at the 27th percentile. This suggests that while the i5-10210Y wins the head-to-head tests, both chips are positioned similarly in the broader CPU landscape.

The i7-2675QM's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon W5580 at the same average score of 1012, the Intel Core i5-2300 at 1014 (a 0.2% gap), and the Intel Core i3-7100H at 1009 (0.3% ahead). The i5-10210Y's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-880 and AMD FX-9830P, both at 1006, and the Intel Core i7-2630QM at 1005 (0.1% behind).

The i5-10210Y's wins are not marginal in the head-to-head context—they are consistent and reproducible across all Cinebench vintages. The data indicates that the i5-10210Y is the better performer in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads, despite its much lower TDP and base clock. The i7-2675QM's only potential advantage lies in its higher base clock of 2.20 GHz, which might suggest better sustained performance under continuous load, but the benchmark data does not support that hypothesis; the i5-10210Y wins even the multi-core tests that stress sustained throughput.