Intel Core i5-2500S vs Intel Core i7-960 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data places the Intel Core i7-960 ahead of the Intel Core i5-2500S in every benchmark where both were measured. The i7-960 wins all five head-to-head tests, though the margins are consistently small, ranging from -0.6% to -0.7% in favor of the older chip. The i5-2500S, by contrast, posts zero wins in the direct comparison. That said, the average benchmark score tells a slightly different story: the i5-2500S averages 1004 across its full benchmark set, while the i7-960 averages 993. Both processors sit at the 27th percentile of all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy the same performance tier overall.

The i7-960 is the pick if you need the absolute highest multi-threaded scores in the listed Cinebench tests. It leads by 2 points in R15 multicore, 7 points in R20 multicore, and 18 points in R23 multicore. The i5-2500S is the better choice if you value a dramatically lower thermal envelope, 65 W versus 130 W, and a more modern memory and PCIe configuration. The i5-2500S also brings integrated graphics, which the i7-960 lacks entirely. For a builder prioritizing efficiency and platform features over a few percentage points of rendering performance, the i5-2500S is the rational pick. For someone who wants the last bit of Cinebench throughput and does not care about power draw or integrated graphics, the i7-960 wins.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core i7-960 wins every multi-core head-to-head test. It scores 290 versus 288 in R15 multicore, 1211 versus 1204 in R20 multicore, and 2885 versus 2867 in R23 multicore. The margins are small, between -0.6% and -0.7%, but consistent.

Q: Does the i5-2500S ever beat the i7-960 in any benchmark?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmark data, the i5-2500S records zero wins. The i7-960 wins all five tests. However, the i5-2500S does post a higher average benchmark score overall, 1004 versus 993, because the i5-2500S was also measured in Geekbench tests that the i7-960 lacks.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The i5-2500S has a TDP of 65 W, while the i7-960 has a TDP of 130 W. That is a 65 W difference, making the i5-2500S far less demanding on cooling and power delivery.

Q: Do these CPUs support different memory configurations?

A: Yes. The i5-2500S uses dual-channel DDR3 memory, while the i7-960 uses triple-channel DDR3 memory. Both support DDR3, but the memory bus width differs.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: Only the i5-2500S includes integrated graphics, specifically Intel HD 2000. The i7-960 has no integrated graphics at all.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database.

Architecture Differences

The i5-2500S is built on Sandy Bridge architecture using a 32 nm process node, while the i7-960 uses the older Nehalem architecture, codenamed Bloomfield, on a 45 nm process. This is a significant generational gap. The i5-2500S packs 1,160 million transistors into a 216 mm² die, whereas the i7-960 contains 731 million transistors on a larger 263 mm² die. The smaller process node gives the i5-2500S a substantial efficiency advantage, which shows in the TDP figures: 65 W for the i5-2500S versus 130 W for the i7-960.

Cache layouts differ as well. Both share 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the shared L3 cache is 6 MB on the i5-2500S and 8 MB on the i7-960. The i7-960's larger last-level cache is a direct consequence of its older, more power-hungry design, and it does not translate into a meaningful performance lead in the recorded benchmarks.

Platform support also diverges. The i5-2500S uses Intel Socket 1155 and supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The i7-960 uses Intel Socket 1366 and only supports PCIe Gen 2. The i5-2500S includes Intel HD 2000 integrated graphics; the i7-960 has no integrated graphics capability. Memory support is dual-channel on the i5-2500S versus triple-channel on the i7-960, both limited to DDR3. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification gap is core count versus thread count. Both chips have 4 physical cores, but the i7-960 supports Hyper-Threading, giving it 8 threads. The i5-2500S has only 4 threads. This explains why the i7-960 edges ahead in multi-threaded Cinebench tests despite its older architecture.

Clock speeds favor the i7-960 on paper. Its base clock is 3.20 GHz with a boost of 3.47 GHz. The i5-2500S starts at 2.70 GHz and boosts to 3.70 GHz. The i5-2500S has the higher ceiling, but the i7-960 has the higher floor. In practice, the recorded benchmarks show the i7-960 winning all Cinebench tests by slim margins, so the higher base clock appears to matter more than the higher boost clock in these workloads.

The TDP difference is stark: 65 W for the i5-2500S versus 130 W for the i7-960. This is directly tied to the process node difference, 32 nm versus 45 nm. The i5-2500S also has a newer socket (1155 versus 1366), newer PCIe generation (Gen 3 versus Gen 2), and integrated graphics (Intel HD 2000 versus none). The i7-960 counters with triple-channel memory support and a larger 8 MB L3 cache. Release dates differ by about 15 months, with the i5-2500S launching in January 2011 and the i7-960 in October 2009.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably consistent. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i7-960 scores 290 against the i5-2500S's 288, a -0.7% delta in favor of the i7-960. In R20 multicore, the i7-960 scores 1211 versus 1204, a -0.6% delta. The R23 multicore test shows the i7-960 at 2885 versus 2867, again -0.6%. Single-core results follow the same pattern: R20 single-core is 170 versus 169 (-0.6%), and R23 single-core is 407 versus 404 (-0.7%).

The largest absolute margin is in R23 multicore, where the i7-960 leads by 18 points. The smallest margin is in R15 multicore, where it leads by only 2 points. Across all five tests, the i7-960's advantage never exceeds 0.7%, which is within the range of run-to-run variation for many systems. The practical takeaway is that these two CPUs are effectively tied in the Cinebench suite, with the i7-960 holding a razor-thin but universal edge.

The i5-2500S has additional benchmark data that the i7-960 lacks. In Geekbench, the i5-2500S scores 1511 in multi-core and 582 in single-core. These results are not part of the direct head-to-head comparison, but they contribute to the i5-2500S's higher average benchmark score of 1004 versus the i7-960's 993. The i5-2500S's nearest rivals, all scoring between 1004 and 1006, include the Intel Core i5-4300M and the Intel Core i7-5600U, both within 0.2% of its average. The i7-960's nearest rivals cluster tightly around 993 to 994, including the Intel Core i7-965 and the AMD Phenom II X6 1065T.

Where Each One Wins

The i7-960 wins in every measured Cinebench test, both single-core and multi-core. If the workload is purely Cinebench rendering or similar threaded workloads, the data points to the i7-960. Its 8 threads give it a structural advantage in multi-threaded tasks, and its higher base clock of 3.20 GHz supports its single-core wins. The margins are small, but they are universal across all five tests.

The i5-2500S wins in efficiency and platform features. Its 65 W TDP is exactly half of the i7-960's 130 W, making it far easier to cool and power. It also has the newer socket, PCIe Gen 3 support, and integrated graphics, none of which the i7-960 can offer. For a system that does not need maximum Cinebench throughput, the i5-2500S is the more practical processor. Its higher average benchmark score of 1004 versus 993 also suggests that across a broader set of workloads, including the Geekbench tests where it was measured, it holds up well despite losing every direct head-to-head test.

The use-case split is clear. Choose the i7-960 for maximum rendering scores in the Cinebench family and for triple-channel memory bandwidth. Choose the i5-2500S for lower power draw, integrated graphics, PCIe Gen 3, and a more modern platform overall. The performance difference between them is under 1% in every shared benchmark, so the decision should rest on the secondary specifications rather than raw speed.