Intel Core i7-2630QM vs Intel Core i7-2675QM Comparison

Both of these processors come from Intel's Sandy Bridge generation and target the mobile segment, sharing the same core and thread counts. The data separates them by a series of close Cinebench victories for the Intel Core i7-2675QM, while the Intel Core i7-2630QM claims a notable win in Geekbench. These are end-of-life parts, so the comparison is about understanding which one holds up better for legacy applications and specific workload types.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-2675QM is the clear winner in rendering and compute-heavy workloads. It takes all five Cinebench tests, which are standard for measuring sustained multi-threaded and single-threaded CPU performance. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 314 against the 2630QM's 304, a 3.3% advantage. That lead extends to Cinebench R20 multicore (1309 vs 1268, 3.2% ahead) and Cinebench R23 multicore (3118 vs 3020, 3.2% ahead). The single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern, with the 2675QM winning by 3.4% in R20 and 3.3% in R23. For anyone running older rendering tasks or video encoding that relies on Cinebench-style scaling, the 2675QM is the better pick.

The Intel Core i7-2630QM, however, claims a decisive victory in Geekbench. It scores 1393 in Geekbench multicore, which is 6.6% higher than the 2675QM's 1301. In Geekbench singlecore, it wins by an even larger margin: 445 versus 415, a 6.7% gap. Geekbench is often used as a proxy for general system responsiveness and everyday application performance, so the 2630QM has an edge in tasks that are less about sustained rendering and more about bursty, single-threaded work. The data shows a clear split: the 2675QM for Cinebench-class workloads, the 2630QM for Geekbench-class workloads.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same Sandy Bridge architecture, sharing the 32 nm process node and the same foundry. They also have identical transistor counts (1,160 million) and die sizes (216 mm²), which suggests they are extremely close siblings rather than fundamentally different designs. The cache layout is exactly the same: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. Neither supports ECC memory, and both have the same memory bus configuration (dual-channel). Integrated graphics are also identical, with both featuring Intel HD 3000.

The only real architectural difference between them is the socket. The 2675QM uses Intel BGA 1224, which is a soldered, non-upgradeable socket. The 2630QM uses Intel Socket G2 (988B), which is also a mobile socket but technically a different physical package. This matters if you are trying to swap one for the other in an existing laptop: the BGA 1224 socket is not compatible with the G2 socket, so the two are not interchangeable. Beyond that, the silicon is effectively the same design, with the performance gap coming down to clock speeds rather than core layout or cache hierarchy.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are consistently in favor of the 2675QM, but the margins are tight. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 2675QM scores 314 versus 304, a 3.3% delta. That is a small but repeatable advantage. Cinebench R20 multicore shows a 3.2% lead (1309 vs 1268), and Cinebench R23 multicore also shows a 3.2% lead (3118 vs 3020). The single-core Cinebench tests are similarly close: R20 singlecore gives the 2675QM a 3.4% win (184 vs 178), and R23 singlecore gives a 3.3% win (440 vs 426). These results are consistent across different versions of the same benchmark, which suggests the 2675QM has a slight but real frequency advantage that scales across both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering.

The Geekbench results are where the tables turn. The 2630QM wins Geekbench multicore by 6.6% (1393 vs 1301) and Geekbench singlecore by 6.7% (445 vs 415). That is a larger delta than any of the Cinebench wins, and it is in the opposite direction. The pattern is stark: the 2675QM dominates every Cinebench variant, but the 2630QM dominates both Geekbench variants. If you only looked at Cinebench, you would assume the 2675QM is uniformly faster. The Geekbench data contradicts that, showing that the 2630QM has a measurable edge in a different benchmark suite. The overall win tally is 5-2 in favor of the 2675QM, but the Geekbench margin is nearly double the Cinebench margin, so the 2630QM's losses are closer in percentage terms than its wins.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ only in a few specification fields. The base clock is the most obvious difference: the 2675QM runs at 2.20 GHz, while the 2630QM is listed at 2000.00 MHz, which is equivalent to 2.00 GHz. That is a 0.20 GHz gap in base frequency. The boost clock follows a similar pattern, with the 2675QM boosting up to 3.10 GHz versus the 2630QM's 2.90 GHz. This 0.20 GHz difference in both base and boost clocks explains the Cinebench results, where the 2675QM consistently wins by around 3.3%.

The socket is the other differentiating field. The 2675QM uses Intel BGA 1224, while the 2630QM uses Intel Socket G2 (988B). This is not just a naming difference; it means the two chips are physically incompatible with each other's motherboards. The release dates also differ, with the 2675QM coming out on 2011-10-11 and the 2630QM on 2011-01-02, placing the 2630QM earlier in the product cycle. The part numbers are different as well (SR02S for the 2675QM, SR02Y for the 2630QM). All other specifications — cores, threads, TDP, process node, cache, integrated graphics, and memory bus — are identical.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core i7-2675QM is faster, scoring 3118 versus the 2630QM's 3020, a 3.2% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-2630QM win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins both Geekbench tests. It scores 1393 in multicore (6.6% higher) and 445 in singlecore (6.7% higher) compared to the 2675QM.

Q: Are these processors the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are Sandy Bridge, built on a 32 nm process with identical transistor counts (1,160 million) and die size (216 mm²). They also share the same 6 MB L3 cache and Intel HD 3000 integrated graphics.

Q: Can I swap one for the other in the same laptop?

A: No. The 2675QM uses Intel BGA 1224, while the 2630QM uses Intel Socket G2 (988B). These are different physical sockets, so they are not interchangeable.

Q: What is the difference in boost clock between the two?

A: The 2675QM boosts to 3.10 GHz, while the 2630QM boosts to 2.90 GHz, a 0.20 GHz difference in favor of the 2675QM.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The 2675QM has an average benchmark score of 1012, placing it in the 28th percentile. The 2630QM has an average score of 1005, placing it in the 27th percentile.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core i7-2675QM as the better choice for anyone prioritizing Cinebench-style rendering workloads. It wins all five Cinebench tests, with margins between 3.2% and 3.4% across both single-core and multi-core variants. The 2675QM also has a higher base clock (2.20 GHz vs 2.00 GHz) and a higher boost clock (3.10 GHz vs 2.90 GHz), which directly explains its consistent lead in this benchmark suite. Its average benchmark score of 1012 is also slightly higher than the 2630QM's 1005, and it sits one percentile higher (28th versus 27th).

However, the Intel Core i7-2630QM is not a clear loser. It wins Geekbench multicore by 6.6% and Geekbench singlecore by 6.7%, which are the largest margins in the entire head-to-head comparison. If your workload leans on Geekbench-style tests — general office tasks, web browsing, light multitasking — the 2630QM's edge is real and larger than the 2675QM's Cinebench lead. The 2630QM also has the advantage of an earlier release date (2011-01-02 versus 2011-10-11), which might make it more common in older laptops.

For a practical recommendation: if you are building or upgrading a legacy system and expect to run rendering, video encoding, or other Cinebench-sensitive applications, pick the 2675QM. If you want better general performance as measured by Geekbench, pick the 2630QM. The overall win count (5-2) favors the 2675QM, but the magnitude of the Geekbench wins favors the 2630QM in specific scenarios. Both are end-of-life parts with the same architecture and TDP, so the decision comes down to which benchmark suite matches your intended use. The 2675QM is the safer default given its broader win count and higher average score, but the 2630QM is the better specialist for Geekbench-class tasks.