CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i7-920 and the Intel Core i5-3380M are separated by nearly half a decade of silicon evolution, yet they land at the exact same performance tier. The data shows a 4-core, 8-thread desktop flagship from 2008 squaring off against a 2-core, 4-thread mobile chip from 2012, with the younger i5-3380M winning every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. This is a fascinating case where architectural efficiency completely neutralizes a raw core-count advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the Intel Core i5-3380M wins all five head-to-head tests, leaving the i7-920 with zero victories. This is not a narrow margin either, the i5-3380M consistently outperforms the i7-920 by roughly 2.4% to 2.7% across every Cinebench workload. The i5-3380M takes the lead in both single-core and multi-core tests, which is remarkable given that the i7-920 has twice the cores and threads.

Looking at the Cinebench R20 multicore test, the i5-3380M scores 1051 versus the i7-920's 1025, a 2.5% advantage. The i7-920's architectural handicap is clear: its 45 nm Nehalem design simply cannot match the per-core throughput of the 22 nm Ivy Bridge architecture, even when the older chip has double the physical cores. The i5-3380M also wins decisively in single-core tests, with a 148 to 144 advantage in Cinebench R20 single-core and a 353 to 344 lead in Cinebench R23 single-core.

The use-case implication is straightforward: for any workload that relies on Cinebench-style rendering or compute, the i5-3380M is the faster processor despite its smaller core count. The i7-920's advantage would theoretically lie in heavily threaded scenarios with more than four threads, but the benchmark data does not reflect that, the i5-3380M's superior IPC (instructions per clock) and higher clock speeds compensate for its thread deficit. The i7-920's only consolation is that it remains competitive, with an average benchmark score of 840 versus the i5-3380M's 838, placing both at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The i7-920 uses the Nehalem architecture on the Bloomfield codename, built on Intel's 45 nm process node with 731 million transistors packed into a 263 mm² die. It is a desktop part with a 130 W TDP, designed for the Intel Socket 1366 platform. The i5-3380M, in contrast, uses the Ivy Bridge architecture with the same codename, built on a 22 nm process node with a die size of just 118 mm². It is a mobile processor with a 35 W TDP, targeting the Intel Socket G2 (988B) platform.

The transistor count difference is telling: the i7-920 packs 731 million transistors, while the i5-3380M's transistor count is not listed. The die size difference, 263 mm² versus 118 mm², highlights the manufacturing process gap. The 45 nm process required far more silicon area to achieve similar performance levels, while the 22 nm process delivers higher density and efficiency. This explains why the i5-3380M can achieve better performance with a fraction of the power budget.

Cache configurations also differ significantly. Both processors have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, but the L3 cache is where they diverge. The i7-920 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i5-3380M has only 3 MB of shared L3. Despite having less than half the L3 cache, the i5-3380M still outperforms the i7-920, suggesting that Ivy Bridge's cache management and prefetching algorithms are substantially more efficient than Nehalem's.

The i5-3380M also includes integrated graphics in the form of Intel HD 4000, while the i7-920 has no integrated graphics listed. This makes the i5-3380M a more complete package for systems without a discrete GPU. Memory support is DDR3 for both, but the i7-920 uses a triple-channel memory bus while the i5-3380M uses dual-channel, another area where the older desktop chip has a theoretical bandwidth advantage that the benchmarks do not reflect.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multicore test sets the tone: the i5-3380M scores 252 against the i7-920's 246, a 2.4% delta. This is the smallest margin in the comparison, but it establishes the pattern. Moving to Cinebench R20 multicore, the i5-3380M extends its lead slightly, scoring 1051 versus 1025, a 2.5% delta. The consistency of these results is striking, the i5-3380M's advantage hovers in the 2.4% to 2.7% range across all tests.

Single-core performance tells the same story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i5-3380M scores 148 while the i7-920 manages 144, a 2.7% delta, the largest margin in the entire comparison. Cinebench R23 single-core follows with the i5-3380M at 353 and the i7-920 at 344, a 2.5% delta. The i5-3380M's base clock of 2.90 GHz and boost clock of 3.60 GHz give it a clear frequency advantage over the i7-920's 2.67 GHz base and 2.93 GHz boost, which explains the single-core dominance.

The Cinebench R23 multicore result is particularly telling. The i5-3380M scores 2504 versus the i7-920's 2442, a 2.5% delta. This means that even when both processors are fully loaded across all their threads, the i5-3380M with only 4 threads beats the i7-920 with 8 threads. The per-thread performance of the Ivy Bridge architecture is so superior that it overcomes a 50% thread-count deficit. The i5-3380M also has additional geekbench scores not available for the i7-920, scoring 1055 in geekbench multicore and 505 in geekbench singlecore, further cementing its position.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification difference is core and thread count: the i7-920 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i5-3380M has 2 cores and 4 threads. Clock speeds favor the i5-3380M, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and boost clock of 3.60 GHz compared to the i7-920's 2.67 GHz base and 2.93 GHz boost. The TDP difference is enormous: 130 W for the i7-920 versus 35 W for the i5-3380M, reflecting the desktop versus mobile design targets.

The manufacturing process separates the two by a full node generation: 45 nm for the i7-920 and 22 nm for the i5-3380M. This shows up in the die size, with the i7-920 at 263 mm² and the i5-3380M at 118 mm². The transistor count of 731 million for the i7-920 has no equivalent for the i5-3380M, but the process shrink alone explains the efficiency gains. The i7-920 uses triple-channel memory, while the i5-3380M uses dual-channel, yet both support DDR3.

The i5-3380M includes integrated graphics with Intel HD 4000, while the i7-920 has no integrated graphics listed. The i7-920 supports PCIe Gen 2, while the i5-3380M does not list a PCIe version. The i7-920 is marked as end-of-life, while the i5-3380M has no production status listed. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both support ECC memory only as a "false" value, meaning neither supports it. The i7-920 was released in November 2008, while the i5-3380M was released in December 2012, a gap of roughly four years.

FAQ

Q: Why does the 2-core i5-3380M beat the 4-core i7-920 in multicore tests?

A: The i5-3380M wins all five head-to-head benchmarks despite having half the cores and threads. The data indicates that Ivy Bridge's architectural efficiency on the 22 nm process delivers substantially higher per-core performance than the 45 nm Nehalem design, allowing the i5-3380M's 4 threads to outperform the i7-920's 8 threads by 2.4% to 2.7%.

Q: What is the performance gap between the two processors?

A: The i5-3380M leads by 2.4% in Cinebench R15 multicore, 2.5% in Cinebench R20 multicore, 2.7% in Cinebench R20 single-core, 2.5% in Cinebench R23 multicore, and 2.5% in Cinebench R23 single-core. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical at 840 for the i7-920 and 838 for the i5-3380M.

Q: Which processor has better single-core performance?

A: The i5-3380M has better single-core performance, scoring 148 versus 144 in Cinebench R20 single-core and 353 versus 344 in Cinebench R23 single-core. This is likely due to its higher clock speeds of 2.90 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost, compared to the i7-920's 2.67 GHz base and 2.93 GHz boost.

Q: How do their cache configurations compare?

A: Both have 64 KB of L1 cache and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The i7-920 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i5-3380M has only 3 MB of shared L3 cache. Despite having less cache, the i5-3380M still outperforms the i7-920.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The i7-920 has a TDP of 130 W, while the i5-3380M has a TDP of 35 W. This makes the i5-3380M significantly more power-efficient, a direct result of the 22 nm process versus 45 nm and the mobile versus desktop design targets.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?

A: Both support DDR3 memory, but the i7-920 uses a triple-channel memory bus while the i5-3380M uses dual-channel. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for almost any use case: the Intel Core i5-3380M is the faster processor. It wins every single head-to-head benchmark, despite having only half the cores and threads of the i7-920. The 22 nm Ivy Bridge architecture delivers superior IPC and higher clock speeds, which more than compensates for the thread deficit. For single-threaded workloads, the i5-3380M's 3.60 GHz boost clock gives it a decisive edge. For multi-threaded workloads, the benchmark results show that the i5-3380M's 4 threads outperform the i7-920's 8 threads.

The i7-920's only potential advantages are its larger 8 MB L3 cache and triple-channel memory support, but these do not translate into benchmark wins. The i7-920 is also end-of-life, while the i5-3380M has no production status listed, though both are clearly outdated by modern standards. For anyone choosing between these two, the i5-3380M is the obvious pick based on performance, power efficiency, and integrated graphics support. The i7-920's 45 nm desktop design is simply outclassed by the mobile Ivy Bridge chip, evidence of how quickly process node improvements reshape the performance landscape.