Intel Core i7-2630QM vs Intel Core i7-2920XM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a clear pattern: the Intel Core i7-2920XM wins six of the seven recorded head-to-head tests, but the one loss is significant. In Geekbench single-core, the i7-2630QM scores 445 against 430 for the i7-2920XM, a 3.5% advantage. That is the only benchmark where the 2630QM comes out ahead.

Every Cinebench result favors the 2920XM by a consistent margin. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 2920XM scores 353 versus 304, a 13.9% lead. The R20 multicore test shows the same story: 1471 versus 1268, a 13.8% gap. Single-core R20 also goes to the 2920XM, 207 versus 178, a 14% difference. The R23 runs mirror that pattern, with the 2920XM scoring 3504 multicore against 3020 and 494 single-core against 426, both about 13.8% ahead.

Geekbench multicore shows the narrowest margin of the 2920XM's wins. The 2920XM scores 1452, only 4.1% above the 2630QM's 1393. That is a much smaller gap than the Cinebench results, which consistently show around 14% separation in both single-core and multicore workloads. The single-core Geekbench result, with the 2630QM winning, suggests the two chips are closer in lightly threaded real-world tasks than the Cinebench numbers would imply.

Average benchmark scores put the two nearly level. The 2630QM averages 1005, while the 2920XM averages 995. Both sit at the 27th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The 2630QM's nearest rivals include the Core i7-5600U at 1005, the FX-9830P at 1006, and the Core i5-4300M at 1004, all within 0.1%. The 2920XM's nearest rivals include the Core i7-2635QM at 995, the Opteron 4226 at 995, and the Core i3-8130U at 994. These figures indicate that despite the 2920XM's higher clock speeds, the overall benchmark profile of the two parts is nearly identical.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Core i7-2920XM wins every recorded multicore test. It leads by 13.9% in Cinebench R15 multicore, 13.8% in R20 multicore, 13.8% in R23 multicore, and 4.1% in Geekbench multicore.

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

A: Yes, it wins Geekbench single-core with a score of 445 against 430 for the 2920XM, a 3.5% advantage.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The 2630QM has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 1005, compared to 995 for the 2920XM, a difference of 1%.

Q: Do the two processors share the same socket?

A: Yes, both use Intel Socket G2 (988B) and both are built on the Sandy Bridge architecture with a 32 nm process node.

Q: What is the difference in cache size?

A: Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache differs: 6 MB shared on the 2630QM versus 8 MB shared on the 2920XM.

Q: Is the multiplier unlocked on either processor?

A: The 2920XM has an unlocked multiplier, while the 2630QM does not. The 2920XM is part of the Core i7 Extreme lineup.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are Sandy Bridge parts on the same 32 nm Intel process, with the same 1,160 million transistors and the same 216 mm² die size. They share the same Intel HD 3000 integrated graphics, dual-channel memory bus, and both are end-of-life mobile parts. The core and thread counts are identical at 4 cores and 8 threads.

The L3 cache is the main architectural difference. The 2920XM carries 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 2630QM has 6 MB. That extra 2 MB of cache is one likely contributor to the 2920XM's consistent Cinebench lead. L1 and L2 caches are identical at 64 KB and 256 KB per core, respectively.

The 2920XM belongs to the Core i7 Extreme generation, which is reflected in its unlocked multiplier. The 2630QM is a standard Core i7 with a locked multiplier. Both use the same Intel Socket G2 (988B), so the platform compatibility is identical. The 2920XM is also the only one of the two with a listed memory support specification: DDR3 with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth. The 2630QM's memory support field is not recorded in the database, though it does share the dual-channel memory bus.

The 2920XM also lists PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the 2630QM has no PCIe specification recorded. Neither processor supports ECC memory. Both were released on the same date and both are now end-of-life.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are identical, so the differences are in clock speeds, power, cache, and features. The 2630QM has a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2.90 GHz. The 2920XM runs at 2500 MHz base and 3.50 GHz boost, which is 25% higher on base clock and roughly 21% higher on boost. This clock advantage explains much of the performance gap in the Cinebench tests.

Thermal design power differs by 10 watts: 45 W for the 2630QM versus 55 W for the 2920XM. That is a meaningful increase for a mobile platform, and it is the trade-off for the higher clocks. The 2920XM has 8 MB of shared L3 cache versus 6 MB on the 2630QM. The 2920XM has an unlocked multiplier and is part of the Core i7 Extreme line; the 2630QM is a standard locked part.

The 2920XM lists DDR3 memory support with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth and PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The 2630QM has no recorded memory support or PCIe details. Both use dual-channel memory, both have Intel HD 3000 graphics, and neither supports ECC. The 2920XM carries a launch MSRP of $1096, while the 2630QM has no recorded launch price.

The Verdict

The data points to the Core i7-2920XM as the faster processor in almost every measured workload. It leads in all four Cinebench tests by roughly 14% and in Geekbench multicore by 4.1%. The only exception is Geekbench single-core, where the 2630QM wins by 3.5%. If the priority is raw multi-threaded performance, the 2920XM is the clear choice.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a different story. The 2630QM actually posts a slightly higher average of 1005 versus 995, and both chips sit at the same 27th percentile. For a buyer looking at overall performance across a broad set of tasks, the two are effectively equivalent. The 2920XM's wins are concentrated in Cinebench, while the Geekbench scores show a much smaller multicore gap and a single-core loss.

The 2920XM demands a 55 W TDP versus 45 W for the 2630QM, so it will run hotter and drain battery faster in a laptop. The unlocked multiplier on the 2920XM adds overclocking headroom, but only if the laptop's cooling and BIOS allow it. The 2630QM, meanwhile, matches the 2920XM in average score despite lower clocks and less cache, which makes it the more efficient part on paper.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i7-2920XM wins in Cinebench-heavy workloads. Its 13.9% lead in R15 multicore, 13.8% in R20 multicore, and 13.8% in R23 multicore makes it the better choice for rendering, video encoding, and other tasks that scale across all 8 threads. The extra 2 MB of L3 cache and the 500 MHz base clock advantage support those gains. In Geekbench multicore, the 2920XM still wins, but only by 4.1%, so the margin shrinks in some synthetic multi-threaded scenarios.

The Core i7-2630QM wins the single-core Geekbench test by 3.5%. That is a narrow but real advantage in lightly threaded workloads such as older games, basic office tasks, or applications that rely on a single thread. Its lower 45 W TDP also makes it the more practical choice for thinner laptops or systems where thermals and battery life matter more than peak performance.

For buyers who prioritize sustained multi-threaded throughput and do not mind the higher power draw, the 2920XM is the pick. For buyers who want nearly identical average performance, a better single-core Geekbench result, and a lower thermal footprint, the 2630QM is the more balanced option. The 2920XM's extreme-class features, unlocked multiplier and larger cache, do not translate into a dominant overall win in the recorded data, which makes the 2630QM a surprisingly competitive alternative.