Intel Core i5-4300M vs Intel Core i7-2630QM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results paint a fascinating picture of two mobile CPUs from different eras, with the older quad-core i7-2630QM and the newer dual-core i5-4300M each claiming victories in different test suites. The most striking outcome is the sheer dominance of the i7-2630QM across all Cinebench tests, where it wins by remarkably consistent margins. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i7-2630QM scores 304 against the i5-4300M's 253, a 20.2% advantage. That margin holds almost exactly across the newer Cinebench versions: the R20 multicore test shows 1268 versus 1056 (a 20.1% lead), and R23 multicore shows 3020 versus 2515 (also 20.1% ahead). The consistency of these deltas suggests that the i7-2630QM's advantage in multi-threaded rendering workloads is structural, not a quirk of any one benchmark version.

What is more surprising is that the i7-2630QM also wins the single-core Cinebench tests, despite the i5-4300M having a much higher boost clock. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i7-2630QM posts 178 versus the i5-4300M's 149, a 19.5% win. The R23 single-core test shows a 20% lead, with scores of 426 and 355 respectively. This is counterintuitive given the specification sheets, but the data is unambiguous: in Cinebench, the older Sandy Bridge architecture with its four physical cores simply outruns the newer Haswell dual-core, even on a single thread.

However, the story flips completely when looking at Geekbench. The i5-4300M wins Geekbench multicore with 1817 points against the i7-2630QM's 1393, a massive 23.3% swing in favor of the newer chip. The single-core Geekbench result is even more lopsided: the i5-4300M scores 882 versus 445, a 49.5% advantage — nearly double the performance of the i7-2630QM. The two benchmark suites clearly measure different aspects of CPU performance, and the results could not be more divergent. Cinebench leans heavily on sustained multi-threaded rendering, where the i7-2630QM's 4 cores and 8 threads provide a structural advantage. Geekbench appears to reward the i5-4300M's higher clock speeds and newer architecture more directly.

The overall win count favors the i7-2630QM at 5 wins versus 2 for the i5-4300M, but the average benchmark scores tell a different story: both chips land at nearly identical average scores of 1005 and 1004 respectively. This puts them at the same 27th percentile among all CPUs, and they are listed as nearest rivals to each other with a deltaPct of just 0.1% in either direction. The i7-2630QM's nearest rivals also include the Intel Core i7-5600U and AMD FX-9830P, both at essentially the same average score of 1005-1006. The i5-4300M's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-2500S at 1004 and the same i7-5600U and FX-9830P, again all within 0.2% of each other. These two chips are effectively tied in overall benchmark averages, yet they achieve that parity through completely opposite performance profiles.

The Verdict

The data shows two CPUs that are statistically inseparable in overall average performance, yet radically different in what they do well. The i7-2630QM is the clear choice for anyone prioritizing Cinebench-style workloads — multi-threaded rendering, video encoding, or any task that can use its 4 cores and 8 threads. It wins every Cinebench test by roughly 20%, which is a substantial and consistent margin. The i5-4300M, by contrast, is the better pick for Geekbench-style workloads — and particularly for single-threaded tasks, where it nearly doubles the i7-2630QM's score. That 49.5% Geekbench single-core advantage is the single largest delta in the entire comparison.

For a practical buyer, the choice comes down to what software you run. If your applications are heavily threaded and can use all available cores, the i7-2630QM's extra two physical cores and four threads deliver reliably better performance. If your workloads are lighter, more interactive, or single-threaded, the i5-4300M's higher clocks and newer architecture win decisively. The i5-4300M also has a lower TDP of 37 watts versus 45 watts for the i7-2630QM, which could matter in thin-and-light laptops where thermals and battery life are concerns. Both chips are end-of-life or discontinued products, so this is strictly a used-market decision, but the performance data gives clear guidance: pick the i7-2630QM for multi-threaded grunt, pick the i5-4300M for single-threaded responsiveness and efficiency.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and different manufacturing processes. The i7-2630QM is built on Sandy Bridge, Intel's 32 nm process, with a die size of 216 mm² and 1,160 million transistors. The i5-4300M uses Haswell, manufactured on a 22 nm process, with a smaller 118 mm² die but more transistors at 1,400 million. The newer 22 nm process allows the i5-4300M to pack more transistors into roughly half the die area, which explains how it achieves higher clock speeds while consuming less power.

The core configurations differ fundamentally. The i7-2630QM has 4 physical cores with 8 threads, while the i5-4300M has 2 cores with 4 threads. Both support simultaneous multithreading, but the i7-2630QM has double the physical core count. The i7-2630QM also has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, exactly double the i5-4300M's 3 MB. Both have the same per-core L1 cache of 64 KB and L2 cache of 256 KB, so the differences are at the shared cache level and in core count.

The integrated graphics differ as well: the i7-2630QM uses Intel HD 3000, while the i5-4300M has Intel HD 5000. The i5-4300M is from a later generation and has a more capable integrated GPU, which matters for systems without a discrete graphics card. The memory support also differs: the i5-4300M explicitly supports DDR3 memory, while the i7-2630QM's memory support is not listed in the data. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the i5-4300M's memory controller benefits from the newer Haswell design.

The sockets are different too: the i7-2630QM uses Intel Socket G2 (988B), while the i5-4300M uses Intel Socket G3. These are not interchangeable, so there is no upgrade path between the two without changing the motherboard. The i7-2630QM has a part number of SR02Y, while no part number is listed for the i5-4300M. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not an option on either.

Specification Differences

| Specification | i7-2630QM | i5-4300M |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Threads | 8 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.00 GHz | 2.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 2.90 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 37 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket G2 (988B) | Intel Socket G3 |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 22 nm |

| Die Size | 216 mm² | 118 mm² |

| Transistors | 1,160 million | 1,400 million |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 3 MB (shared) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 3000 | Intel HD 5000 |

| Memory Support | Not listed | DDR3 |

| Release Date | 2011-01-02 | 2013-08-31 |

The i5-4300M has higher base and boost clocks by 600 MHz and 700 MHz respectively, but the i7-2630QM counters with double the cores, double the threads, and double the L3 cache. The TDP difference of 8 watts favors the i5-4300M for mobile applications. The i7-2630QM is listed as end-of-life production status, while the i5-4300M's status is not specified. The process node advantage of 22 nm versus 32 nm explains the smaller die and higher transistor count in the i5-4300M. Neither chip supports ECC memory, and both are mobile market segments.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster overall?

A: The average benchmark scores are nearly identical — 1005 for the i7-2630QM and 1004 for the i5-4300M, a deltaPct of just 0.1%. Both sit at the 27th percentile among all CPUs. Overall, they are effectively tied.

Q: Why does the i7-2630QM win all Cinebench tests despite being older?

A: The i7-2630QM has 4 cores and 8 threads versus the i5-4300M's 2 cores and 4 threads. Cinebench uses multi-threaded rendering, which scales with core count. The i7-2630QM wins Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests by approximately 20% each.

Q: How much faster is the i5-4300M in Geekbench single-core?

A: The i5-4300M scores 882 versus 445 for the i7-2630QM, a 49.5% advantage. This is the largest single delta in the entire comparison.

Q: Do these CPUs fit the same motherboard?

A: No. The i7-2630QM uses Intel Socket G2 (988B), and the i5-4300M uses Intel Socket G3. They are not interchangeable.

Q: Which CPU has better integrated graphics?

A: The i5-4300M has Intel HD 5000, while the i7-2630QM has Intel HD 3000. The i5-4300M's integrated GPU is from a later generation.

Q: Which chip is more power-efficient?

A: The i5-4300M has a TDP of 37 watts versus 45 watts for the i7-2630QM. The i5-4300M also uses a 22 nm process versus 32 nm, which contributes to its lower power draw.

Where Each One Wins

The i7-2630QM is the clear winner for multi-threaded rendering and compute workloads. It wins all five Cinebench tests — R15 multicore, R20 multicore, R20 single-core, R23 multicore, and R23 single-core — by margins between 19.5% and 20.2%. This makes it the better choice for video encoding, 3D rendering, batch photo processing, or any task that can utilize its 4 cores and 8 threads. The consistent ~20% margin across all Cinebench versions indicates that this advantage is robust and will likely extend to similar rendering workloads. The i7-2630QM also has double the L3 cache at 6 MB, which helps in data-heavy workloads.

The i5-4300M wins the Geekbench tests, and wins them big. The single-core score of 882 versus 445 is a 49.5% advantage, which suggests it will feel snappier in everyday use — web browsing, office applications, lightweight coding, and any software that is primarily single-threaded. The multicore Geekbench win of 1817 versus 1393 is a 23.3% margin, showing that even in multi-threaded Geekbench scenarios, the i5-4300M's higher clocks and newer architecture overcome the i7-2630QM's core count advantage. The i5-4300M also has a lower TDP of 37 watts, making it better suited for thinner laptops with smaller cooling solutions, and its Intel HD 5000 graphics are superior to the i7-2630QM's HD 3000 for light gaming or media playback without a discrete GPU.

The practical takeaway: if your software is heavily threaded and you can tolerate a 45-watt chip, the i7-2630QM delivers more raw multi-threaded throughput. If you want a more responsive everyday machine with better single-threaded performance and lower power consumption, the i5-4300M is the data-backed choice. The near-identical average benchmark scores mean you are not losing overall performance either way — you are just choosing which performance profile better matches your actual usage.