Intel Core i5-10210Y vs Intel Core i7-2920XM Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-10210Y and the Intel Core i7-2920XM are both 4-core, 8-thread mobile processors, yet they represent opposite ends of the design spectrum. The i5-10210Y is a 9 W Comet Lake-Y part built for extreme efficiency, while the i7-2920XM is a 55 W Sandy Bridge Extreme Edition chip designed for maximum performance in its era. The benchmark data shows a remarkably close contest, with the older i7-2920XM winning all six recorded head-to-head comparisons, but by margins so slim that the real-world distinction is nearly negligible.

The i7-2920XM takes the win in every Cinebench test, both single-core and multi-core. Its largest advantage comes in the Cinebench R15 single-core test, where it scores 52 against the i5-10210Y's 51, a delta of 1.9%. That is the widest gap in the entire comparison. In multi-core workloads, the lead shrinks to less than 1% across all three Cinebench versions: R15 shows 353 versus 350 (0.8% ahead), R20 shows 1471 versus 1461 (0.7% ahead), and R23 shows 3504 versus 3479 (0.7% ahead). These are essentially statistical ties, given that both processors land in the 27th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

The i5-10210Y does not win a single recorded benchmark. However, its relevance lies elsewhere: it accomplishes nearly identical scores while consuming only 9 W, compared to the i7-2920XM's 55 W. The data does not include battery life or thermal measurements, but the power envelope difference is stark and suggests the i5-10210Y belongs in fanless or ultra-thin designs where the i7-2920XM would be impractical. The i7-2920XM, for its part, offers an unlocked multiplier, making it the only one of the two that can be overclocked, though the database does not record any overclocked results.

The Verdict

For users who prioritize raw performance in sustained workloads, the Intel Core i7-2920XM is the nominal winner based on the recorded data. It edges out the i5-10210Y in every single Cinebench test, from the older R15 to the current R23. The margins are small, never exceeding 1.9%, but they are consistent across all six comparisons. The i7-2920XM also brings an unlocked multiplier, a feature absent on the i5-10210Y, which may appeal to enthusiasts willing to push beyond stock clocks.

However, the i5-10210Y is the more sensible choice for modern ultra-portable systems. Its 9 W TDP is a fraction of the i7-2920XM's 55 W, and it still delivers within 0.7% to 1.9% of the older chip's performance in the recorded benchmarks. The i5-10210Y is built on a 14 nm process versus the i7-2920XM's 32 nm node, uses a BGA 1440 socket that fits thin-and-light designs, and remains in active production. The i7-2920XM is end-of-life, uses the older Socket G2 (988B), and launched at an MSRP of $1096, which positioned it as a premium part in 2011.

The data suggests a clear split: the i7-2920XM wins on paper and offers overclocking headroom, but the i5-10210Y delivers essentially the same benchmark results in a fraction of the power envelope. For a modern laptop, the i5-10210Y is the practical pick. For a desktop-replacement or a system where the user plans to overclock, the i7-2920XM holds a slight edge.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are dominated by the i7-2920XM, but the margins are consistently tight. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i7-2920XM scores 353 against the i5-10210Y's 350, a 0.8% lead. The single-core R15 test shows the i7-2920XM at 52 versus 51, which translates to a 1.9% advantage, the largest delta in the entire comparison.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The multi-core test records 1471 for the i7-2920XM and 1461 for the i5-10210Y, a 0.7% difference. Single-core R20 shows 207 versus 206, a 0.5% gap. In Cinebench R23, the newest test in the database, the i7-2920XM posts 3504 multi-core against 3479 for the i5-10210Y, another 0.7% lead, and 494 single-core versus 491, a 0.6% advantage.

The database also includes Geekbench results for the i7-2920XM, with a multi-core score of 1452 and a single-core score of 430. The i5-10210Y has no recorded Geekbench entry, so no direct comparison is possible on that test. The average benchmark score for the i5-10210Y is 1006, while the i7-2920XM averages 995, meaning the newer chip actually sits slightly higher on aggregate across all benchmarks in the database, even though it loses every head-to-head Cinebench test.

The i5-10210Y's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-880 at an identical average score of 1006, the AMD FX-9830P also at 1006, and the Intel Core i7-2630QM at 1005 with a 0.1% delta. The i7-2920XM's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-2635QM at 995 with no delta, the AMD Opteron 4226 also at 995, and the Intel Core i3-8130U at 994 with a 0.1% delta. These figures place both chips in the same performance neighborhood as older quad-core parts and entry-level modern silicon.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core i7-2920XM scores 3504 against the Intel Core i5-10210Y's 3479, a 0.7% lead for the i7-2920XM.

Q: Does the i5-10210Y win any benchmark in the comparison?

A: No, the i5-10210Y loses all six recorded head-to-head Cinebench tests. However, its average benchmark score across the database is 1006, slightly higher than the i7-2920XM's 995.

Q: Can the i7-2920XM be overclocked?

A: Yes, the i7-2920XM has an unlocked multiplier. The i5-10210Y does not offer this feature.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The i5-10210Y has a TDP of 9 W, while the i7-2920XM has a TDP of 55 W.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The i7-2920XM has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i5-10210Y has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the production status of each chip?

A: The i5-10210Y is listed as active, while the i7-2920XM is marked as end-of-life.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are separated by nearly a decade of Intel architecture evolution. The i5-10210Y is a Comet Lake-Y part built on Intel's 14 nm process, released in August 2019. It uses the Intel BGA 1440 socket and integrates UHD Graphics. The i7-2920XM is a Sandy Bridge part built on the older 32 nm process, released in January 2011, with 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die. It uses the Intel Socket G2 (988B) and integrates Intel HD 3000 graphics.

Both chips have 4 cores and 8 threads, and both feature 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache differs: the i5-10210Y has 6 MB shared, while the i7-2920XM has 8 MB shared. The i5-10210Y has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, while the i7-2920XM starts at 2500 MHz and boosts to 3.50 GHz. Despite the i7-2920XM's higher base clock, the i5-10210Y's higher boost clock helps it nearly match the older chip's performance.

Memory support is DDR3 for both, but the i7-2920XM specifies dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s, while the i5-10210Y does not list a memory bus or bandwidth figure. The i7-2920XM also lists PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the i5-10210Y has no PCIe information in the database. Neither chip supports ECC memory.

The i7-2920XM is an Extreme Edition part with an unlocked multiplier, making it a notable enthusiast option in its time. The i5-10210Y is a standard mobile part with no unlock capability. The i7-2920XM's launch MSRP was $1096, reflecting its premium positioning, while the i5-10210Y has no recorded launch price. The i7-2920XM's part number is SR02E. The i5-10210Y belongs to Intel's Core 10th Gen series, while the i7-2920XM is listed without a series designation.

The process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 32 nm explains why the i5-10210Y can deliver comparable performance at 9 W while the i7-2920XM requires 55 W. The i5-10210Y is also still in production, while the i7-2920XM is end-of-life, meaning the newer chip is the only one available for new system designs. The architectural gap between Comet Lake and Sandy Bridge shows in instruction set and power efficiency, though the recorded Cinebench scores suggest the older chip's raw throughput remains competitive in these specific workloads.