CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i7-920 and Intel Core i5-3360M represent two fundamentally different design philosophies from Intel, separated by nearly four years of architectural evolution. The i7-920 is a 45nm desktop flagship from the Nehalem era, built for maximum multi-threaded throughput with four physical cores and eight threads, while the i5-3360M is a 22nm mobile part from the Ivy Bridge generation, designed for efficiency with two cores and four threads. Despite these stark differences in core count, process node, and market segment, the benchmark data reveals a surprisingly tight contest: the i7-920 edges out a single win in the head-to-head comparison, while the i5-3360M claims four victories. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the i7-920 at 840 and the i5-3360M at 835, placing both at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs. This near-parity in overall performance, achieved through completely different means, raises compelling questions about what matters more: raw core count or architectural efficiency.

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall average benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core i7-920 has an average benchmark score of 840, while the Intel Core i5-3360M scores 835, a difference of just 5 points (0.6%). Both CPUs sit at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs, indicating they occupy the same performance tier despite their architectural differences.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The i7-920 features 4 cores and 8 threads, twice the thread count of the i5-3360M, which has 2 cores and 4 threads. Interestingly, this 2x core advantage does not translate into a dominant performance lead in the benchmark results.

Q: What is the clock speed difference between the two?

A: The i7-920 has a base clock of 2.67 GHz and a boost clock of 2.93 GHz, while the i5-3360M operates at a higher base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. The mobile chip runs faster in both metrics, with a 0.57 GHz advantage in boost frequency.

Q: How do the TDP ratings differ?

A: The i7-920 has a TDP of 130 watts, while the i5-3360M is rated at just 35 watts. This represents a 73% reduction in power consumption for the mobile chip, which achieves comparable benchmark scores at a fraction of the thermal envelope.

Q: Which CPU has a larger L3 cache?

A: The i7-920 has an 8 MB shared L3 cache, while the i5-3360M has a 3 MB shared L3 cache. The desktop chip offers nearly three times the L3 capacity, yet this advantage does not produce a clear performance win.

Q: What are the release dates and process nodes?

A: The i7-920 was released on 2008-11-16 and uses a 45 nm process, while the i5-3360M was released on 2012-05-31 and uses a 22 nm process. The newer mobile chip benefits from a more advanced manufacturing node.

Where Each One Wins

The i7-920 claims victory in only one of the five head-to-head benchmark comparisons: the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, where it scores 246 against the i5-3360M's identical 246. The "win" is declared for the i7-920 with a deltaPct of 0, meaning the scores are exactly equal, so this is not a meaningful advantage but rather a tie broken in favor of the desktop part. The i5-3360M wins the other four tests, including both single-core and multi-core workloads in newer Cinebench versions.

The i5-3360M's wins are consistent across Cinebench R20 and R23, covering both single-core and multi-core scenarios. In R20 multi-core, it scores 1029 versus 1025 (a 0.4% advantage); in R20 single-core, it scores 145 versus 144 (0.7% ahead); in R23 multi-core, it scores 2451 versus 2442 (0.4% ahead); and in R23 single-core, it scores 346 versus 344 (0.6% ahead). These are narrow margins, but they demonstrate that the mobile chip's higher clock speeds and newer architecture compensate for having half the cores and threads.

The use-case split is clear: the i7-920's advantage, if any, is purely theoretical in older workloads where its 8 threads could shine. However, the data shows the i5-3360M is the better performer in modern rendering benchmarks, even in multi-threaded tests. For users running Cinebench R23 or R20, the mobile chip wins across the board. The i7-920 only ties in the older R15 test, and even then, it does not outperform. There is no workload category where the i7-920 demonstrates a decisive lead based on the provided benchmarks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The i7-920 uses the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Bloomfield, which was Intel's first-generation Core i7 design. It is fabricated on a 45 nm process node with 731 million transistors and a die size of 263 mm². In contrast, the i5-3360M uses the Ivy Bridge architecture, also codenamed Ivy Bridge, fabricated on a 22 nm process node with a die size of 118 mm². The process shrink from 45 nm to 22 nm allows the mobile chip to pack a smaller die while consuming less power, though Intel does not list a transistor count for the i5-3360M.

The core configurations differ dramatically: the i7-920 has 4 physical cores and 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, while the i5-3360M has 2 physical cores and 4 threads. The i7-920's L3 cache is 8 MB shared, compared to 3 MB shared on the i5-3360M. Both have identical L1 (64 KB per core) and L2 (256 KB per core) cache structures. The memory architecture also diverges: the i7-920 supports triple-channel DDR3 memory, while the i5-3360M uses dual-channel DDR3. Neither chip supports ECC memory.

A notable difference is integrated graphics: the i5-3360M includes Intel HD 4000 graphics, while the i7-920 has no integrated graphics at all. The i7-920 uses PCIe Gen 2, while the i5-3360M's PCIe specification is not listed. The i7-920 is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1366, whereas the i5-3360M is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 1023. The i7-920 is marked as end-of-life production status, while the i5-3360M's status is not specified. Both processors are locked (multiplier not unlocked), and their part numbers are SLBCHSLBEJ for the i7-920 and SR0MW for the i5-3360M.

Specification Differences

The specifications where the two CPUs differ are extensive. The i7-920 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i5-3360M has 2 cores and 4 threads. The base clocks are 2.67 GHz versus 2.80 GHz, and boost clocks are 2.93 GHz versus 3.50 GHz, favoring the i5-3360M. The TDP is 130 watts for the i7-920 and 35 watts for the i5-3360M, a massive difference. The sockets are Intel Socket 1366 versus Intel BGA 1023.

The architectures are Nehalem versus Ivy Bridge, with codenames Bloomfield and Ivy Bridge respectively. Process nodes are 45 nm versus 22 nm. The i7-920 has 731 million transistors and a 263 mm² die, while the i5-3360M's transistor count is null and its die is 118 mm². The L3 cache differs: 8 MB shared versus 3 MB shared. Memory bus is triple-channel for the i7-920 and dual-channel for the i5-3360M. The i7-920 has no integrated graphics, while the i5-3360M includes Intel HD 4000. The i7-920 supports PCIe Gen 2, while the i5-3360M's PCIe is not listed. Market segments are Desktop versus Mobile. Release dates are 2008-11-16 versus 2012-05-31. Production status is end-of-life for the i7-920 and null for the i5-3360M.

Fields that are identical or not listed include manufacturer (both Intel), L1 and L2 cache (both 64 KB and 256 KB per core), memory support (DDR3 for i7-920, null for i5-3360M), ECC memory (both false), and multiplier unlocked (both false). Neither has a launch MSRP, so no pricing information is available.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably close, with the i5-3360M winning four of five tests by margins under 1%. The largest single-core advantage for the i5-3360M comes in Cinebench R20 single-core, where it scores 145 against the i7-920's 144, a delta of 0.7%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i5-3360M scores 346 versus 344, a 0.6% lead. These single-core wins are attributable to the i5-3360M's higher boost clock of 3.50 GHz versus 2.93 GHz, despite its newer architecture.

In multi-core tests, the i5-3360M also prevails, which is counterintuitive given the i7-920's 2x core advantage. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the i5-3360M scores 1029 versus 1025, a 0.4% lead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 2451 versus 2442, also a 0.4% lead. The only test where the i7-920 does not lose is Cinebench R15 multi-core, where both score exactly 246, resulting in a deltaPct of 0 and a win declared for the i7-920.

These results suggest that the i5-3360M's superior IPC (instructions per clock) from the Ivy Bridge architecture, combined with its 0.57 GHz boost clock advantage, fully compensates for having half the cores and threads. The i7-920's 8 MB L3 cache and 8 threads provide no measurable benefit in these benchmarks. The data indicates that architectural efficiency and clock speed matter more than raw core count in modern rendering workloads, even for multi-threaded tests. The i5-3360M also has additional benchmark data not available for the i7-920: a Geekbench multi-core score of 1110 and single-core score of 518, though these cannot be compared directly.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel Core i5-3360M is the better performer in the vast majority of benchmarks, despite being a mobile chip with half the cores and threads of the i7-920. The i5-3360M wins four of the five head-to-head tests, including all multi-core tests in Cinebench R20 and R23. Its average benchmark score of 835 is nearly identical to the i7-920's 840, and both sit at the 22nd percentile, meaning they perform at the same level overall. However, the i5-3360M achieves this with a TDP of just 35 watts versus 130 watts, making it dramatically more efficient.

Users who prioritize the i7-920 would be choosing it for its 8 threads and 8 MB of L3 cache, but the benchmark results show these features do not translate into wins. The single head-to-head victory for the i7-920 is a tie in Cinebench R15 multi-core, which does not represent a real advantage. The i5-3360M is the superior choice for anyone running Cinebench R20 or R23, whether in single-core or multi-core workloads. Its higher clock speeds and newer 22 nm architecture deliver consistent, if narrow, wins.

The i7-920's only remaining argument is its desktop platform with triple-channel memory and a larger L3 cache, but the data shows these do not overcome the i5-3360M's architectural advantages. For a user building a system today, the i5-3360M would be the recommended pick based on benchmark performance alone. The i7-920 is an end-of-life desktop part that offers no performance benefit over a mobile chip from four years later, making its 130-watt TDP hard to justify. The verdict is straightforward: the i5-3360M wins on performance, efficiency, and architectural modernity.