Intel Core i5-2500S vs Intel Core i7-2630QM Comparison

Both the Intel Core i7-2630QM and the Intel Core i5-2500S are Sandy Bridge parts from 2011, but they were built for entirely different machines. The i7-2630QM is a 45 W mobile processor for laptops, while the i5-2500S is a 65 W desktop chip. Despite their different market segments, their average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the i7-2630QM scoring 1005 and the i5-2500S scoring 1004. This makes the choice between them less about raw overall performance and more about what kind of workloads you prioritize.

The Verdict

If you are building a desktop system and need the fastest possible single-threaded performance, the data clearly points to the Intel Core i5-2500S. Its Geekbench single-core score of 582 is 23.5% higher than the i7-2630QM’s 445, and its Geekbench multi-core score of 1511 is 7.8% higher than the i7’s 1393. The i5-2500S also has a significant clock speed advantage, with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, compared to the i7’s 2.00 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost. For legacy desktop applications that rely on high clock speeds and don't scale well with many threads, the i5-2500S is the stronger option.

However, the Intel Core i7-2630QM wins every single Cinebench test in the head-to-head comparison. It leads by 5.6% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (304 vs 288), by 5.3% in R20 multi-core (1268 vs 1204), and by 5.3% in R23 multi-core (3020 vs 2867). This advantage comes from its 8 threads versus the i5’s 4 threads. If your workload is heavily threaded, such as video rendering or 3D modeling, the i7-2630QM will finish tasks faster. Even in single-core Cinebench tests, the i7 manages to edge out the i5, with a 5.3% lead in R20 single-core (178 vs 169) and a 5.4% lead in R23 single-core (426 vs 404). This is counterintuitive given the clock speed difference, but the benchmark data is clear.

The verdict comes down to your platform. If you already have an Intel Socket 1155 motherboard, the i5-2500S is the only one of the two that fits. If you are working with an Intel Socket G2 (988B) laptop, the i7-2630QM is your only choice. From a pure performance standpoint, the i7-2630QM has a slight edge in multi-threaded rendering, while the i5-2500S is substantially faster in Geekbench tests. The i7-2630QM is the better pick for threaded productivity on the go, while the i5-2500S is better for general desktop use where its higher clocks matter more.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same Sandy Bridge architecture, using a 32 nm process node and manufactured by Intel. They share the same transistor count of 1,160 million and the same die size of 216 mm². The cache hierarchy is identical as well, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. Both support dual-channel memory and do not support ECC memory. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not officially supported.

The core difference lies in the thread count. The i7-2630QM has 4 cores and 8 threads thanks to Hyper-Threading, while the i5-2500S has 4 cores and 4 threads. This is the primary reason the i7 wins in multi-threaded Cinebench tests. The i5-2500S, however, has much higher clock speeds, with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost of 3.70 GHz, compared to the i7’s 2.00 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost. The i5 also has a different integrated GPU: Intel HD 2000, whereas the i7 has Intel HD 3000.

The memory support field also differs. The i5-2500S explicitly lists DDR3 memory support, while the i7-2630QM’s memory support is listed as null in the data. The i5-2500S also supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the i7-2630QM’s PCIe information is not provided. The sockets are completely different: the i7 uses Intel Socket G2 (988B) for mobile systems, and the i5 uses Intel Socket 1155 for desktop motherboards. The i5-2500S is a desktop part with a 65 W TDP, while the i7-2630QM is a mobile part with a 45 W TDP. Interestingly, the mobile chip has a lower TDP despite having more threads, which highlights the different power management strategies for laptops versus desktops.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-2630QM has an average benchmark score of 1005, while the Intel Core i5-2500S has an average benchmark score of 1004. The difference is negligible, and the i7-2630QM’s nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-5600U, also scores 1005 with a 0% delta, placing them in the same performance tier.

Q: Does the i7-2630QM beat the i5-2500S in all Cinebench tests?

A: Yes. In the head-to-head data, the i7-2630QM wins all five Cinebench tests. It leads by 5.6% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 5.3% in R20 multi-core, 5.3% in R20 single-core, 5.3% in R23 multi-core, and 5.4% in R23 single-core.

Q: Is the i5-2500S faster in Geekbench?

A: Yes, significantly. The i5-2500S scores 1511 in Geekbench multi-core versus 1393 for the i7-2630QM, a 7.8% advantage. In single-core, the i5-2500S scores 582 versus 445, a massive 23.5% advantage.

Q: What is the TDP difference between these two CPUs?

A: The Intel Core i7-2630QM has a TDP of 45 W, while the Intel Core i5-2500S has a TDP of 65 W. Despite having more threads, the mobile i7 uses less power, reflecting its design for laptop cooling solutions.

Q: Are these processors compatible with the same motherboard?

A: No. The Intel Core i7-2630QM uses the Intel Socket G2 (988B) for mobile laptops, while the Intel Core i5-2500S uses the Intel Socket 1155 for desktop motherboards. They are not interchangeable.

Q: Which CPU has a better integrated graphics unit?

A: The Intel Core i7-2630QM has Intel HD 3000, while the Intel Core i5-2500S has Intel HD 2000. The data does not provide benchmark scores for these iGPUs, but the model numbers indicate a difference in the integrated graphics tier.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in several key specification fields. The most obvious is the socket: the i7-2630QM uses Intel Socket G2 (988B), while the i5-2500S uses Intel Socket 1155. The market segment also differs, with the i7 being a Mobile part and the i5 being a Desktop part.

• Threads: The i7-2630QM has 8 threads, while the i5-2500S has 4 threads.
• Base Clock: The i7-2630QM runs at 2.00 GHz; the i5-2500S runs at 2.70 GHz.
• Boost Clock: The i7-2630QM boosts to 2.90 GHz; the i5-2500S boosts to 3.70 GHz.
• TDP: The i7-2630QM is rated at 45 W; the i5-2500S is rated at 65 W.
• Integrated Graphics: The i7-2630QM has Intel HD 3000; the i5-2500S has Intel HD 2000.
• Memory Support: The i5-2500S lists DDR3 support; the i7-2630QM’s memory support is not specified in the data.
• PCIe: The i5-2500S lists PCIe Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only); the i7-2630QM’s PCIe is not specified.
• Part Number: The i7-2630QM has part number SR02Y; the i5-2500S has part number SR009.
• Generation Label: The i7 is labeled "Core i7 (Sandy Bridge)", while the i5 is labeled "Core i5 (Sandy Bridge)".

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clear split between Cinebench and Geekbench results. The i7-2630QM wins 5 out of 7 benchmarks, but the i5-2500S wins the two Geekbench tests by a large margin.

Starting with Cinebench, the i7-2630QM’s lead is consistent. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 304 versus the i5’s 288, a delta of 5.6%. This advantage persists in R20 multi-core, where the i7 scores 1268 versus 1204, a 5.3% lead. The R23 multi-core test shows similar results: 3020 for the i7 versus 2867 for the i5, again a 5.3% difference. Interestingly, the i7 also wins the single-core Cinebench tests, despite its lower clock speed. In R20 single-core, the i7 scores 178 versus 169, a 5.3% lead. In R23 single-core, it scores 426 versus 404, a 5.4% lead. This suggests that the i7’s architecture or boost behavior handles Cinebench’s single-threaded workload better, even though the i5 has a 0.80 GHz higher boost clock.

The Geekbench tests tell a different story. The i5-2500S wins Geekbench multi-core with a score of 1511 versus 1393, a 7.8% advantage. The single-core gap is even more dramatic: the i5 scores 582 versus 445, a 23.5% lead. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison. The i5’s higher base and boost clocks likely drive this result, as Geekbench may be more sensitive to raw clock speed than Cinebench’s rendering workload. The i7-2630QM’s average benchmark score is 1005, while the i5-2500S’s is 1004, which confirms that the two chips are evenly matched overall, but their strengths lie in different areas.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-2630QM is the winner for multi-threaded rendering workloads. Its 8 threads give it a decisive edge in all Cinebench tests, with a 5.3% to 5.6% lead over the i5-2500S. This makes it the better choice for tasks like video encoding, 3D rendering, or any application that can utilize more than 4 threads. The data shows it wins 5 out of 7 head-to-head benchmarks, making it the overall benchmark champion. It also has a lower TDP of 45 W, which is advantageous for mobile systems where power draw and heat are critical constraints. The i7 also has a more capable integrated GPU, Intel HD 3000, which could be useful for basic graphics tasks on a laptop without a discrete GPU.

The Intel Core i5-2500S is the clear winner for single-threaded performance and general desktop responsiveness. Its Geekbench single-core score of 582 is 23.5% higher than the i7’s, and its multi-core Geekbench score of 1511 is 7.8% higher. This makes it the better choice for older or less-threaded applications, such as legacy games, everyday productivity software, or other tasks that rely on high clock speeds. The i5’s boost clock of 3.70 GHz is significantly higher than the i7’s 2.90 GHz, which explains its dominance in these tests. For a desktop system where you can afford the 65 W TDP, the i5-2500S offers better raw speed in most common tasks.

In summary, pick the i7-2630QM if you are on a mobile platform and need maximum multi-threaded throughput for rendering. Pick the i5-2500S if you are on a desktop platform and prioritize fast single-threaded response and higher Geekbench scores. The two chips are essentially tied in average performance, so your platform and workload should dictate the choice.