Intel Core i7-2630QM vs Intel Core i7-880 Comparison

The Intel Core i7-2630QM consistently outperforms the Intel Core i7-880 across every shared benchmark in this comparison, despite the i7-880's substantially higher clock speeds. The data shows a narrow but decisive victory for the mobile Sandy Bridge chip, which wins all five head-to-head tests with margins ranging from 2.8% to 3.3%. This outcome is notable because the i7-880 operates at a 3.07 GHz base clock and 3.73 GHz boost clock, while the i7-2630QM operates at a 2.00 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost — yet the newer architecture delivers superior results across the board.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core i7-2630QM takes the lead in every measured workload, but the margins are consistently tight. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i7-2630QM scores 304 against the i7-880's 294, a 3.3% advantage. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the i7-2630QM posts 1268 versus 1227, a 3.2% gap. The single-core results tell the same story: the i7-2630QM reaches 178 in Cinebench R20 single-core versus 173 for the i7-880 (2.8% ahead), and 426 versus 412 in Cinebench R23 single-core (3.3% ahead).

The most significant margin appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the i7-2630QM scores 3020 against the i7-880's 2923. That 97-point difference represents a 3.2% improvement, which is meaningful for a chip that runs at roughly 2.9 GHz boost versus the i7-880's 3.73 GHz boost. The aggregate benchmark average confirms the pattern: the i7-880 averages 1006 points while the i7-2630QM averages 1005 points, placing them statistically tied overall despite the i7-2630QM winning every individual comparison. The nearest-rival data reinforces this near-equivalence, showing a deltaPct of 0.1% between the two parts.

What stands out is that the i7-2630QM achieves its wins with a 45 W TDP compared to the i7-880's 95 W TDP. The data does not directly measure power efficiency, but the benchmark results indicate that the mobile chip delivers equal or better performance while drawing less than half the power budget. The i7-880's higher clocks do not translate into victories; instead, the architectural efficiency of Sandy Bridge overcomes the clock-speed deficit.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i7-2630QM wins all three multi-core tests. It scores 304 in Cinebench R15, 1268 in Cinebench R20, and 3020 in Cinebench R23, beating the i7-880 by 3.3%, 3.2%, and 3.2% respectively.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: The i7-2630QM also leads in single-core workloads. It scores 178 in Cinebench R20 single-core versus 173 for the i7-880 (2.8% ahead), and 426 versus 412 in Cinebench R23 single-core (3.3% ahead).

Q: Are these processors evenly matched overall?

A: Yes. The i7-880 has an average benchmark score of 1006, while the i7-2630QM averages 1005. The nearest-rival data shows a deltaPct of 0.1%, indicating the two are effectively tied in aggregate performance.

Q: What is the clock speed difference?

A: The i7-880 runs at a 3.07 GHz base clock and 3.73 GHz boost clock. The i7-2630QM runs at a 2.00 GHz base clock and 2.90 GHz boost clock. Despite the i7-880's higher clocks, the i7-2630QM wins every benchmark.

Q: Which chip has more cache?

A: The i7-880 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i7-2630QM has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory configuration?

A: Both use dual-channel memory, and both support DDR3 memory (the i7-880 explicitly lists DDR3 support; the i7-2630QM's memory support field is not specified in the data). Neither supports ECC memory.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-2630QM wins every benchmark in this comparison, making the use-case split straightforward based on the data. The i7-2630QM is the better choice for any workload measured here: Cinebench R15 multi-core, Cinebench R20 multi-core, Cinebench R20 single-core, Cinebench R23 multi-core, and Cinebench R23 single-core. The margins are small but consistent, ranging from 2.8% to 3.3%.

For users prioritizing raw performance in rendering or CPU-intensive tasks, the i7-2630QM delivers a slight edge despite its lower clock speeds. The i7-880 does not win any of the five head-to-head tests, so there is no benchmark-driven case for choosing it over the i7-2630QM on performance grounds alone.

However, the i7-880's higher base and boost clocks may matter in scenarios not captured by these benchmarks. The data does not include tests for memory bandwidth, I/O throughput, or sustained multi-threaded workloads beyond Cinebench. The i7-880 also has a larger L3 cache (8 MB versus 6 MB), which could benefit certain cache-sensitive applications, though the benchmark results do not reflect such an advantage. The i7-880's desktop segment, with its Intel Socket 1156, may also appeal to users with existing desktop motherboards, whereas the i7-2630QM uses the mobile Intel Socket G2 (988B).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several key specifications. The i7-880 is a desktop chip with a 95 W TDP, while the i7-2630QM is a mobile chip with a 45 W TDP. The i7-880 uses the Intel Socket 1156, whereas the i7-2630QM uses the Intel Socket G2 (988B).

Clock speeds differ significantly: the i7-880 runs at 3.07 GHz base and 3.73 GHz boost, while the i7-2630QM runs at 2.00 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost. The i7-880 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i7-2630QM has 6 MB. The i7-880 explicitly supports DDR3 memory; the i7-2630QM's memory support field is not specified. The i7-880 has PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the i7-2630QM's PCIe information is not provided. The i7-2630QM includes integrated Intel HD 3000 graphics; the i7-880 has no integrated graphics listed.

Release dates also differ: the i7-880 launched on 2010-05-29, and the i7-2630QM launched on 2011-01-02. Both are end-of-life products, neither has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory. The part numbers are SLBPS for the i7-880 and SR02Y for the i7-2630QM.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these chips explains the benchmark results. The i7-880 is built on the Nehalem architecture with the Lynnfield codename, fabricated on a 45 nm process at Intel with 774 million transistors on a 296 mm² die. The i7-2630QM uses the Sandy Bridge architecture with the same Sandy Bridge codename, fabricated on a 32 nm process at Intel with 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die.

The newer 32 nm process gives the i7-2630QM a smaller die (216 mm² versus 296 mm²) while packing more transistors (1,160 million versus 774 million). This density increase, combined with the architectural improvements in Sandy Bridge, allows the i7-2630QM to outperform the i7-880 at much lower clock speeds and with less than half the TDP.

Both chips have 4 cores and 8 threads, with identical L1 (64 KB per core) and L2 (256 KB per core) caches. The i7-880 has more L3 cache (8 MB versus 6 MB), but the i7-2630QM's superior architecture compensates for the cache deficit. The i7-2630QM also integrates Intel HD 3000 graphics, which the i7-880 lacks entirely — a significant feature difference for systems that cannot accommodate a discrete GPU.

The generation labels confirm the gap: the i7-880 belongs to the Core i7 (Lynnfield) generation, while the i7-2630QM belongs to the Core i7 (Sandy Bridge) generation. Sandy Bridge's architectural efficiency is the decisive factor, as the benchmark data shows the newer chip winning every test despite its lower clocks.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i7-2630QM is the better performing processor in every measured benchmark. It wins all five head-to-head tests with margins between 2.8% and 3.3%, and it does so while consuming 45 W versus the i7-880's 95 W. The i7-2630QM's architectural advantages — Sandy Bridge on a 32 nm process with 1,160 million transistors — outweigh the i7-880's higher clock speeds and larger L3 cache.

Users should select the i7-2630QM if they want the best benchmark results in this comparison. It delivers superior Cinebench scores across both single-core and multi-core tests, making it the stronger choice for rendering workloads, CPU-bound applications, and general productivity. The integrated Intel HD 3000 graphics also provide a built-in display output that the i7-880 cannot match without a discrete GPU.

The i7-880 is only preferable in scenarios the benchmark data does not cover. Its desktop socket (Intel Socket 1156) may be more convenient for users with existing desktop motherboards, and its larger 8 MB L3 cache could theoretically benefit cache-sensitive workloads, though no benchmark in this dataset supports that advantage. The i7-880's higher base and boost clocks (3.07 GHz/3.73 GHz versus 2.00 GHz/2.90 GHz) do not translate into any measured wins, so there is no performance-based justification for choosing it over the i7-2630QM based on the available data.

The aggregate scores confirm the near-tie: the i7-880 averages 1006 and the i7-2630QM averages 1005, with a 0.1% deltaPct in the nearest-rival data. But when individual benchmarks matter, the i7-2630QM wins every time. For a user who must choose between these two end-of-life processors, the data says pick the i7-2630QM.