Intel Core i5-2500 vs Intel Core i7-3615QM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a surprisingly lopsided contest, with the mobile i7-3615QM taking 6 of 7 head-to-head wins. The most striking pattern is the consistency of the multi-core and single-core Cinebench results. Across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, the i7-3615QM holds a virtually identical 26.3% advantage in multi-core workloads. In R15 multi-core, it scores 442 against the i5-2500's 350; in R20 multi-core, 1845 versus 1461; and in R23 multi-core, 4393 versus 3479. That uniformity suggests the gap is structural, not workload-specific.

Single-core Cinebench results tell a similar story. The i7-3615QM leads by 26.2% in R20 single-core (260 versus 206) and 26.3% in R23 single-core (620 versus 491). The fact that these deltas mirror the multi-core numbers almost exactly is noteworthy: it implies the i7's advantage is not about thread count alone, but about per-thread efficiency as well.

Geekbench complicates the narrative. In multi-core, the i7-3615QM edges out the i5-2500 by only 1.3% (1907 versus 1883), a far cry from the Cinebench margins. In single-core, the i5-2500 actually wins, and wins big: a 17.3% lead, scoring 670 against the i7's 554. This is the only benchmark where the desktop chip comes out ahead, and it is worth interrogating what that means.

Why would Geekbench single-core favor the i5-2500 so decisively when Cinebench single-core favors the i7-3615QM? The data does not provide a definitive answer, but the discrepancy suggests the two benchmarks stress different aspects of the architecture. Geekbench's single-core test may be more sensitive to raw clock speed, while Cinebench may reward the newer microarchitecture's efficiency. The i5-2500's base clock of 3.30 GHz and boost of 3.70 GHz are notably higher than the i7-3615QM's 2.30 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost. Yet the i7 still wins Cinebench single-core by 26.3%, which indicates that Ivy Bridge's architectural improvements outweigh the clock deficit in that specific workload.

The multi-core Geekbench result is the odd one out. A 1.3% gap between a 4-core/8-thread chip and a 4-core/4-thread chip is unusually narrow. For comparison, the Cinebench multi-core tests show a 26.3% gap. This divergence implies that Geekbench's multi-core workload is less thread-sensitive, or that the i5-2500's higher clocks let it keep pace despite having half the threads. The data shows the i7-3615QM wins, but the margin is thin enough that it could be considered a near-tie in this specific test.

Looking at the broader context, both CPUs sit at the 34th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The i7-3615QM has an average benchmark score of 1260, while the i5-2500 averages 1220. The nearest rivals for the i7 include the AMD Athlon 200GE (1261, 0% delta) and the Intel Core i3-7100T (1258, 0.2% delta). For the i5-2500, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core i7-3632QM (1219, 0.1% delta) and the Intel Pentium Silver N6005 (1218, 0.2% delta). These rival comparisons suggest that both chips are firmly in the same performance tier, despite the head-to-head deltas favoring the i7.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is a full generation. The i7-3615QM is built on Ivy Bridge, a 22 nm process, while the i5-2500 uses Sandy Bridge on 32 nm. This process shrink is significant: the i7 packs 1,400 million transistors into a 160 mm² die, whereas the i5-2500 has 1,160 million transistors on a larger 216 mm² die. The smaller, denser process node explains some of the i7's efficiency gains, particularly in single-core Cinebench where it wins despite lower clocks.

Both chips have 4 physical cores and share the same L1 (64 KB per core) and L2 (256 KB per core) cache configuration. They also both have 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The critical thread difference is that the i7-3615QM supports Hyper-Threading, giving it 8 threads, while the i5-2500 is limited to 4 threads. This is the most obvious explanation for the consistent 26.3% multi-core Cinebench advantage, though it does not fully explain why the single-core Cinebench results show the same margin.

The memory support differs slightly. The i5-2500 explicitly lists DDR3 support, while the i7-3615QM's memory support field is null in the data. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The i5-2500 also lists PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the i7-3615QM's PCIe information is not recorded.

The integrated graphics are different generations: the i7-3615QM has Intel HD 4000, while the i5-2500 has Intel HD 2000. This is a notable feature gap for users who rely on iGPU output, though the data does not include any graphics benchmarks.

Thermal design is another major differentiator. The i7-3615QM is a mobile chip with a 45 W TDP, while the i5-2500 is a desktop part rated at 95 W. The i7 manages to outperform the i5 in most tests while drawing less than half the thermal envelope. This reflects the 22 nm process efficiency, but it also means the i5-2500 has more thermal headroom for sustained workloads, assuming the cooling solution can handle it.

The sockets and market segments are completely different: the i7-3615QM uses Intel BGA 1224 and is a mobile part, while the i5-2500 uses Intel Socket 1155 and is a desktop part. The i5-2500 is marked as end-of-life in production status, while the i7-3615QM's production status is not specified. Release dates also differ: the i5-2500 launched on 2011-01-08, while the i7-3615QM came later on 2012-04-28.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: The Intel Core i7-3615QM wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23) with a consistent 26.3% margin over the Intel Core i5-2500. Specific scores: 442 versus 350 in R15, 1845 versus 1461 in R20, and 4393 versus 3479 in R23.

Q: Which CPU wins in single-core performance?

A: It depends on the benchmark. The i7-3615QM wins Cinebench R20 single-core (260 versus 206, 26.2% delta) and R23 single-core (620 versus 491, 26.3% delta). However, the i5-2500 wins Geekbench single-core with a 17.3% margin (670 versus 554).

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i7-3615QM has an average benchmark score of 1260, which is 40 points higher than the i5-2500's 1220. Both CPUs rank at the 34th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: What is the thread count difference?

A: The i7-3615QM has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i5-2500 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The i7's Hyper-Threading effectively doubles its thread count.

Q: Are these CPUs on the same manufacturing process?

A: No. The i7-3615QM uses a 22 nm process (Ivy Bridge) with 1,400 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. The i5-2500 uses a 32 nm process (Sandy Bridge) with 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die.

Q: What are the TDP differences?

A: The i7-3615QM has a TDP of 45 W and is a mobile part, while the i5-2500 has a TDP of 95 W and is a desktop part. The i7 achieves better performance in most benchmarks while using less than half the thermal envelope.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for most workloads: the Intel Core i7-3615QM is the superior processor. It wins 6 of 7 head-to-head benchmarks, and its victories in Cinebench are decisive and consistent at 26.3%. The i7's 8 threads, newer 22 nm architecture, and lower TDP make it the more capable chip for multi-threaded tasks and efficiency-sensitive applications.

The i5-2500's lone victory in Geekbench single-core (670 versus 554) is notable, but it is a single data point in a benchmark suite that otherwise favors the i7. The i5's higher clock speeds (3.30 GHz base, 3.70 GHz boost) give it an edge in that specific test, but the i7 counters with architectural superiority in Cinebench single-core tests.

For users choosing between these two, the decision should be guided by the workload. The i7-3615QM is the clear choice for Cinebench-style rendering, multi-threaded productivity, and any task that benefits from 8 threads. The i5-2500, being a desktop part with a 95 W TDP, may be more appropriate for systems that require the higher clock speeds seen in Geekbench single-core, or for legacy desktop platforms on Socket 1155.

The thermal and form factor differences are also decisive. The i7-3615QM is a mobile BGA 1224 chip, meaning it is soldered and not upgradeable in a traditional sense. The i5-2500 is a desktop Socket 1155 part, which offers more flexibility for builders with existing compatible motherboards. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking headroom is limited in both cases.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core i7-3615QM | Intel Core i5-2500 |

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

| Threads | 8 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.30 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.30 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 95 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1224 | Intel Socket 1155 |

| Architecture | Ivy Bridge | Sandy Bridge |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 32 nm |

| Transistors | 1,400 million | 1,160 million |

| Die Size | 160 mm² | 216 mm² |

| Memory Support | Not specified | DDR3 |

| PCIe | Not specified | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4000 | Intel HD 2000 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Production Status | Not specified | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2012-04-28 | 2011-01-08 |

| Part Number | SR0MP | SR00T |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-3615QM wins in every Cinebench test, both multi-core and single-core, with a consistent 26.3% margin. It also wins Geekbench multi-core, though by a narrow 1.3%. This makes it the preferred choice for rendering workloads, video encoding, compilation, and any software that scales with thread count. The 8 threads and 22 nm architecture give it a clear efficiency advantage, as evidenced by its 45 W TDP versus the i5-2500's 95 W.

The i5-2500 wins only in Geekbench single-core, where its higher clock speeds (3.30 GHz base, 3.70 GHz boost) translate to a 17.3% advantage over the i7-3615QM. This makes it the better option for lightly threaded applications that are sensitive to raw clock frequency, such as certain legacy games or single-threaded productivity tools. Its desktop form factor and Socket 1155 compatibility also make it a more practical choice for upgrading existing desktop systems, provided the 95 W TDP is acceptable.

In practical terms, the i7-3615QM is the more future-proof chip, despite being a mobile part. Its lower TDP makes it suitable for compact or thermally constrained systems, and its 8 threads provide headroom for increasingly parallel software. The i5-2500, while end-of-life and older, still holds its own in single-threaded tasks and offers a viable path for budget desktop builds that prioritize clock speed over thread count. The choice ultimately hinges on whether the workload favors the i7's thread count and efficiency or the i5's raw clock speed and desktop platform.