Intel Core i7-10610U vs Intel Core i7-4810MQ Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core i7-10610U across every Cinebench workload in the comparison. The Core i7-4810MQ does not register a single benchmark win, with the 10610U taking all six head-to-head tests. The margins are consistent, which suggests the newer architecture's efficiency advantage translates directly into performance across different rendering and compute tasks.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 10610U scores 561 against 516 for the 4810MQ, a delta of 8 percent. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 79 versus 72, a difference of 8.9 percent. These are the largest percentage gaps in the entire comparison, indicating that the 10610U's advantage is slightly more pronounced when only one core is active.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the 10610U again leads with 2338 points versus 2154, a 7.9 percent advantage in multi-core. The single-core R20 test shows 330 versus 304, also 7.9 percent. The consistency of the delta across R15, R20, and R23 is notable: the newer part maintains nearly the same relative edge regardless of the workload generation.

Cinebench R23 multi-core sees the 10610U score 5569 against 5129, again 7.9 percent ahead. The single-core R23 test puts the 10610U at 786 versus 724, matching the 7.9 percent figure. This uniformity suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-specific, likely stemming from the architectural and process differences between the two chips.

For context, the 4810MQ sits at the 40th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 1651. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 3550H at 1653 (0.1 percent behind), the Intel Core i5-5675R at 1648 (0.2 percent ahead), the Intel Core i5-4670K at 1656 (0.3 percent behind), and the Intel Core i7-5700HQ at 1645 (0.4 percent ahead). The 10610U, meanwhile, sits at the 39th percentile with an average score of 1611, placing it near the Intel Core i7-970 at 1613 (0.1 percent behind), the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 at 1609 (0.1 percent ahead), the Intel Core i3-9100E at 1605 (0.4 percent ahead), and the Intel Core i3-9100T at 1620 (0.6 percent behind). Despite the 10610U winning every head-to-head test, its overall average score is slightly lower because the 4810MQ has Geekbench results in the database (3203 multi-core, 1106 single-core) that the 10610U lacks, pulling the older part's average upward.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core i7-10610U scores 5569, while the Intel Core i7-4810MQ scores 5129. The 10610U leads by 7.9 percent.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap in Cinebench R15?

A: The 10610U records 79 points versus 72 for the 4810MQ, a margin of 8.9 percent. This is the largest single-core delta in the head-to-head results.

Q: Does the 4810MQ win any benchmark in the comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head data records zero wins for the 4810MQ and six wins for the 10610U across all Cinebench tests.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The 4810MQ has an average benchmark score of 1651, while the 10610U has an average of 1611. The 4810MQ's average is higher despite losing every head-to-head test because it has additional Geekbench scores in the database.

Q: How do the two compare in Geekbench?

A: The 4810MQ scores 3203 in multi-core and 1106 in single-core. The 10610U has no Geekbench results recorded in the database, so a direct comparison is not possible.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each chip?

A: The 4810MQ sits at the 40th percentile among all CPUs, while the 10610U sits at the 39th percentile. They are effectively adjacent in the overall distribution.

The Verdict

The data points decisively toward the Intel Core i7-10610U for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance in Cinebench workloads. It wins every single test in the head-to-head comparison, with margins ranging from 7.9 percent to 8.9 percent. The consistency of these deltas across R15, R20, and R23 indicates a reliable advantage that should hold across similar rendering and multi-threaded applications.

The Intel Core i7-4810MQ, however, is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 1651 actually exceeds the 10610U's 1611, driven by the inclusion of Geekbench results that the newer chip lacks. In the Geekbench tests, the 4810MQ delivers 3203 multi-core and 1106 single-core, which are respectable figures for a processor from its era. Those who rely on Geekbench as a primary metric may find the older chip adequate.

For Cinebench-centric workflows, the 10610U is the clear pick. The data shows it outperforms the 4810MQ in every measured scenario, and its newer architecture brings the performance advantage without the older chip's 47 W thermal envelope. The 4810MQ remains a viable option for legacy systems or workloads where its Geekbench performance is relevant, but the head-to-head results leave no ambiguity about which part is faster in the tests that were directly compared.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on several key specifications. The 4810MQ has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, while the 10610U lists a base clock of 1800.00 MHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The 10610U's boost clock is substantially higher, which aligns with its benchmark dominance.

Thermal design power differs significantly: the 4810MQ consumes 47 W, while the 10610U is rated at 25 W. This means the newer chip delivers better performance at nearly half the power envelope, a notable efficiency improvement.

The socket types are incompatible. The 4810MQ uses Intel Socket G3, while the 10610U uses Intel BGA 1440. This makes direct system upgrades between the two impossible without changing the motherboard.

Memory support varies as well. The 4810MQ supports DDR3 only, with dual-channel memory and a recorded bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. The 10610U supports both DDR3 and DDR4, also in dual-channel configuration, though its bandwidth is not recorded in the database.

PCIe capabilities differ. The 4810MQ supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the 10610U supports PCIe Gen 3 without a specific lane count listed. The 4810MQ's discrete 16-lane allocation may matter for dedicated GPUs, though the 10610U's integrated graphics target a different usage profile.

The integrated graphics also differ: the 4810MQ features Intel HD 4600, while the 10610U features UHD Graphics. The newer UHD Graphics architecture is generally expected to be more capable, though no benchmark data is provided to quantify the difference.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips spans several generations. The 4810MQ is built on the Haswell architecture, while the 10610U uses Comet Lake (specifically Comet Lake-U). This represents a significant generational leap in Intel's design philosophy.

The manufacturing process differs as well. The 4810MQ uses a 22 nm process node, while the 10610U uses 14 nm. The smaller process node typically enables higher clock speeds and better power efficiency, which the benchmark data appears to confirm.

The 4810MQ contains 1,400 million transistors on a die size of 177 mm². The 10610U has no transistor count or die size recorded in the database, so a direct comparison of physical characteristics is not possible.

Cache configurations show a difference in L3 capacity. Both chips have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, but the 4810MQ has 6 MB of shared L3 cache while the 10610U has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The additional 2 MB of L3 in the 10610U likely contributes to its performance advantage in cache-sensitive workloads.

Both processors have 4 cores and 8 threads, so the core count is identical. The differences lie in the underlying architecture, process node, and cache hierarchy, which collectively explain the 10610U's consistent benchmark wins despite the 4810MQ's higher base clock and larger thermal budget.

The 4810MQ was released in 2014, while the 10610U arrived in 2020. This six-year gap in release dates aligns with the architectural improvements seen in the newer part. The 4810MQ carries a launch MSRP of $378, while the 10610U has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-10610U wins across every Cinebench workload measured. Its advantages span multi-core and single-core tests, from R15 through R23. The margins are consistent at roughly 8 percent, with the single-core R15 test showing the largest gap at 8.9 percent. This makes the 10610U the preferred choice for rendering, content creation, and any multi-threaded application that relies on the Cinebench engine or similar workloads.

The 10610U's lower 25 W TDP also gives it an edge in thermally constrained environments. Systems using this chip can potentially sustain performance for longer periods without throttling compared to the 47 W 4810MQ, though the database does not include sustained-load tests to confirm this directly.

The Intel Core i7-4810MQ does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but it does hold an advantage in average benchmark score due to its Geekbench results. The 4810MQ scores 3203 in Geekbench multi-core and 1106 in single-core, and these figures contribute to its higher average of 1651 versus 1611 for the 10610U. For users who prioritize Geekbench as their primary performance metric, the 4810MQ presents a competitive profile.

The 4810MQ also offers PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes dedicated to the CPU, which may benefit systems with discrete graphics cards that require full-bandwidth PCIe connectivity. The 10610U's PCIe configuration is listed simply as Gen 3 without lane specifics, so the 4810MQ's 16-lane allocation is a documented advantage for GPU-heavy workloads.

In summary, the 10610U is the clear winner for Cinebench-class workloads and efficiency-sensitive designs. The 4810MQ retains relevance for Geekbench-based comparisons and systems that need the documented 16 PCIe lanes. The data does not support any scenario where the 4810MQ outperforms the 10610U in the directly compared tests, but its overall average score and Geekbench results keep it from being wholly obsolete.