Intel Core i5-3475S vs Intel Core i7-2670QM Comparison

The Intel Core i5-3475S is the clear winner in this comparison, taking all seven head-to-head benchmarks against the Intel Core i7-2670QM. Despite having half the thread count, the i5-3475S leverages a newer architecture, higher clock speeds, and a desktop-class design to outperform the mobile i7 in every tested workload. The data shows the i7-2670QM’s only theoretical advantages are its 45W TDP and eight threads, but those do not translate into any benchmark victory. For any user choosing strictly from the data, the i5-3475S is the superior processor; the i7-2670QM is only relevant if the specific mobile socket and lower power envelope are required.

The Verdict

Pick the Intel Core i5-3475S if you need raw performance. It wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, with deltas ranging from -4.9% to -13.8% in favor of the i5. The largest gaps are in Cinebench multi-core tests, where the i5-3475S scores 371 vs 320 in R15 and 3685 vs 3177 in R23, translating to roughly 13.8% leads. Even in Geekbench multi-core, where the i7-2670QM’s eight threads should help, the i5-3475S still leads by 4.9% (1731 vs 1646). This is a decisive sweep.

Choose the Intel Core i7-2670QM only if the platform matters more than performance. It uses the Intel Socket G2 (988B), while the i5-3475S uses Intel Socket 1155. These are not interchangeable. The i7 also has a lower 45W TDP versus 65W, making it the more power-efficient choice for a mobile system. However, the benchmark results offer no performance-based reason to pick the i7. It ranks at the 31st percentile of all CPUs, barely above the i5-3475S’s 30th percentile, and its average benchmark score of 1096 is only 0.5% higher than the i5’s 1091. That average is misleading because the i7-2670QM’s nearest rivals include the i5-3470S at 0.1% delta, but the direct head-to-head results are unambiguous: the i5-3475S wins everywhere.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more threads?

A: The Intel Core i7-2670QM has 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, while the Intel Core i5-3475S has 4 threads. Despite this 2x thread advantage, the i5 wins every multi-threaded benchmark in the head-to-head data.

Q: What is the performance gap in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The i5-3475S scores 3685, while the i7-2670QM scores 3177. That is a 13.8% advantage for the i5, the same delta seen in Cinebench R20 multi-core (1547 vs 1334).

Q: Do the integrated graphics differ?

A: Yes. The i7-2670QM includes Intel HD 3000, while the i5-3475S includes Intel HD 4000. The i5’s newer graphics part is not benchmarked in the provided data, but the architectural generation is newer.

Q: Which CPU has a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The i5-3475S is built on a 22 nm process, compared to the i7-2670QM’s 32 nm process. The i5 also has a smaller die size at 160 mm² versus 216 mm².

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: In Geekbench single-core, the i5-3475S scores 607 vs 556 for the i7, an 8.4% lead. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the gap is 13.8% (218 vs 188). The i5 wins all single-core tests.

Q: Are the sockets the same?

A: No. The i7-2670QM uses Intel Socket G2 (988B), a mobile socket, while the i5-3475S uses Intel Socket 1155, a desktop socket. This makes physical upgrade paths incompatible.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different microarchitectures. The i7-2670QM is based on Sandy Bridge (32 nm), while the i5-3475S is based on Ivy Bridge (22 nm). This is the primary architectural split. The i5’s Ivy Bridge design uses a newer process node, which allows it to pack 1,400 million transistors into a 160 mm² die. The i7-2670QM has 1,160 million transistors on a larger 216 mm² die. The smaller process node is a key reason the i5 achieves higher clock speeds while maintaining a reasonable TDP.

Cache configurations are identical in structure: both have 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core, with 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The difference is not in cache size but in the efficiency of the underlying architecture. Ivy Bridge’s improvements over Sandy Bridge are not enumerated in the data, but the benchmark results consistently favor the newer design. The i5-3475S also supports DDR3 memory and PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), whereas the i7-2670QM’s PCIe support is not listed. The i7 lacks dedicated memory support details in the data, though it does use dual-channel memory.

Integrated graphics differ: the i7-2670QM has Intel HD 3000, while the i5-3475S has Intel HD 4000. That is a generational leap in the GPU component, though no graphics benchmarks are provided. The i7-2670QM is a mobile part (market segment: Mobile), while the i5-3475S is a desktop part. This explains the socket difference and partly why the i5 has a higher 65W TDP. The i7 is marked end-of-life, while the i5’s production status is not specified. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The core specifications highlight the i5-3475S’s advantage in clock speed and the i7-2670QM’s advantage in thread count. The i5 has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The i7 has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.10 GHz. That is a 0.70 GHz base clock difference and a 0.50 GHz boost clock difference in favor of the i5. Both have 4 physical cores, but the i7 adds 4 threads via Hyper-Threading for 8 total, while the i5 has 4 threads total.

TDP differs significantly: the i7-2670QM is rated at 45W, the i5-3475S at 65W. For mobile use, the i7’s lower power draw is a clear specification win. The i5 compensates with a newer process (22 nm vs 32 nm) and a smaller die (160 mm² vs 216 mm²). Transistor counts also differ: 1,400 million for the i5 vs 1,160 million for the i7.

Sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket G2 (988B) for the i7 vs Intel Socket 1155 for the i5. Memory support is listed for the i5 as DDR3, with dual-channel bus; the i7 lists no specific memory type but also uses dual-channel. The i5 has PCIe Gen 3, 16 lanes (CPU only); the i7 does not list PCIe support. Release dates differ by about seven months, with the i7 launching in October 2011 and the i5 in May 2012. Part numbers are SR02N for the i7 and SR0PP for the i5.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The i5-3475S wins all seven head-to-head tests. The most consistent margin is 13.8%, appearing in five of the seven tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i5 scores 371 vs 320, a -13.7% delta. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core (1547 vs 1334), R20 single-core (218 vs 188), R23 multi-core (3685 vs 3177), and R23 single-core (520 vs 448). The 13.8% margin in single-core tests is particularly telling: despite the i7 having Hyper-Threading, it cannot match the i5’s higher clock speeds and newer architecture on a per-core basis.

Geekbench results show a smaller but still decisive lead for the i5. In Geekbench multi-core, the i5 scores 1731 vs 1646, a -4.9% delta. In Geekbench single-core, the i5 scores 607 vs 556, a -8.4% delta. The multi-core Geekbench gap is the smallest of all tests, suggesting that the i7’s eight threads help narrow the divide in this particular workload. However, the i5 still wins. The i7-2670QM’s best performance relative to the i5 is in Geekbench multi-core, where it trails by less than 5%, but it never leads.

The win count is 0 for the i7-2670QM and 7 for the i5-3475S. The average benchmark scores reflect the overall parity: the i7 averages 1096, the i5 averages 1091. That 0.5% difference is within the noise of their nearest rivals, but the head-to-head tests are not noisy. The i5’s nearest rival is the Intel Pentium Gold G5400 at 0% delta, while the i7’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-2710QE at 0% delta. Both chips sit at the 30th-31st percentile of all CPUs, meaning they are mid-low tier in the broader market, but within this pairing, the i5 is superior.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-3475S wins in every performance category measured. It is the default choice for any workload that benefits from higher clock speeds or newer architecture efficiency. This includes single-threaded tasks, where it leads by 8.4% to 13.8%, and multi-threaded tasks, where it leads by 4.9% to 13.8%. For desktop users with Socket 1155 motherboards, this is the obvious pick. The i5 also offers PCIe Gen 3 support, which the i7 does not list, making it more suitable for modern expansion cards. Its 65W TDP is higher, but that is a non-issue for desktop cooling solutions.

The Intel Core i7-2670QM wins only in platform-specific attributes. It is the only option for systems using Intel Socket G2 (988B), which is a mobile socket. Its 45W TDP is lower than the i5’s 65W, making it the more power-efficient choice for laptops. The eight threads do not produce a benchmark win, but they might be relevant in highly parallel workloads not covered by the provided tests. The data shows no performance scenario where the i7 comes out ahead. Its integrated graphics, Intel HD 3000, is older than the i5’s HD 4000. The i7 is end-of-life, while the i5’s status is not listed. If you require a mobile processor with this specific socket, the i7 is the only option. Otherwise, the i5-3475S is the superior processor in every measurable way.