Intel Core i7-2630QM vs Intel Core i7-960 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent, though narrow, victory for the Intel Core i7-2630QM across all five head-to-head benchmark tests. The 2630QM wins every comparison, but the margins are tight, ranging from 4.7% to 4.8% depending on the workload. This is not a landslide; it is a systematic edge that holds across both single-core and multi-core tests.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 2630QM scores 304 against the 960's 290, a 4.8% advantage. The same pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the 2630QM posts 1268 versus 1211, a 4.7% lead. The single-core results are equally telling: in Cinebench R20 single-core, the 2630QM scores 178 against 170, again a 4.7% delta. Cinebench R23 confirms the trend, with the 2630QM at 3020 multi-core and 426 single-core, while the 960 trails at 2885 and 407 respectively, both showing a 4.7% gap.

What is striking here is the consistency of the margin. The 4.7% or 4.8% advantage appears in every test, regardless of whether the workload stresses one core or all eight threads. This suggests the 2630QM's architectural improvements deliver a uniform performance uplift rather than a workload-specific benefit. The 960's higher base clock of 3.20 GHz and boost clock of 3.47 GHz are not enough to overcome the 2630QM's newer design, which runs at a lower 2.00 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost. Clock speed alone does not tell the full story.

The average benchmark scores in the database reinforce this picture. The 2630QM has an average score of 1005, while the 960 sits at 993, a difference that places both processors at the 27th percentile among all CPUs. The nearest rivals for the 2630QM include the Intel Core i7-880 (average 1006, delta -0.1%) and the Intel Core i5-4300M (average 1004, delta 0.1%), showing it sits in a dense cluster of similar-performing chips. The 960's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-965 and AMD Phenom II X6 1065T, both at an average of 993 with a 0% delta, and the Intel Core i3-8130U at 994 with a -0.1% delta. This clustering indicates that both processors are mid-pack performers, but the 2630QM holds a small, repeatable edge over the 960.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core i7-2630QM wins every multi-core test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core it scores 304 versus 290, a 4.8% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multi-core it scores 1268 versus 1211, and in Cinebench R23 multi-core it scores 3020 versus 2885, both showing a 4.7% lead.

Q: Is the single-core performance also in favor of the 2630QM?

A: Yes. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the 2630QM scores 178 against the 960's 170, a 4.7% difference. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 2630QM scores 426 versus 407, again a 4.7% edge. The 2630QM wins all single-core tests as well.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The 2630QM has an average benchmark score of 1005, while the 960 has an average of 993. Both processors sit at the 27th percentile among all CPUs, indicating they are in the same performance tier despite the 2630QM's small advantage.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each processor?

A: For the 2630QM, the closest rivals are the Intel Core i7-5600U (average 1005, delta 0%), AMD FX-9830P (average 1006, delta -0.1%), Intel Core i7-880 (average 1006, delta -0.1%), and Intel Core i5-4300M (average 1004, delta 0.1%). For the 960, the closest rivals are the Intel Core i7-965 (average 993, delta 0%), AMD Phenom II X6 1065T (average 993, delta 0%), Intel Xeon W3565 (average 993, delta 0%), and Intel Core i3-8130U (average 994, delta -0.1%).

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both have 4 cores and 8 threads. The performance difference is not due to core count but rather to architectural and clock differences.

Q: Which processor has a higher clock speed?

A: The Intel Core i7-960 has significantly higher clocks, with a base of 3.20 GHz and boost of 3.47 GHz. The 2630QM runs at a 2.00 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost. Despite the 960's clock advantage, it still loses in every benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations, and the data shows how those differences play out. The 2630QM is built on Sandy Bridge, using a 32 nm process node, while the 960 is a Nehalem design, codenamed Bloomfield, on a 45 nm node. This process shrink is a major factor: the 32 nm node allows the 2630QM to pack 1,160 million transistors into a 216 mm² die, whereas the 960 uses 731 million transistors across a larger 263 mm² die. The newer node delivers better transistor density and likely better power efficiency, which explains why the 2630QM achieves higher scores despite lower clocks.

Cache configurations also differ. The 2630QM has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 960 offers 8 MB of shared L3. Both share the same per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (256 KB) sizes. The 960's larger L3 cache does not compensate for its older architecture in the benchmark results. The 2630QM's Sandy Bridge design includes integrated graphics, specifically Intel HD 3000, while the 960 has no integrated graphics at all. This is a significant feature split: the 2630QM can handle display output without a discrete GPU, while the 960 requires a separate graphics card.

Memory support differs fundamentally. The 960 supports DDR3 and uses a triple-channel memory bus, while the 2630QM uses a dual-channel memory bus. The 960's triple-channel setup is a legacy advantage for bandwidth, but the database does not list memory bandwidth figures, so the practical impact is not quantified here. The 960 also lists PCIe Gen 2 support, while the 2630QM has no PCIe field recorded. The sockets are entirely different: the 2630QM uses Intel Socket G2 (988B), a mobile socket, while the 960 uses Intel Socket 1366, a desktop socket. This means they are not interchangeable in any system.

The TDP difference is stark, with the 2630QM at 45 watts and the 960 at 130 watts. This is a direct consequence of the process node and market segment: the 2630QM is a mobile chip, while the 960 is a desktop part. The 2630QM's lower TDP makes it suitable for laptops, while the 960 demands a desktop platform with more robust cooling. The release dates also reflect the generational gap, with the 960 arriving in 2009 and the 2630QM in early 2011. Both are now end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner: the Intel Core i7-2630QM outperforms the Intel Core i7-960 in every recorded benchmark, with a consistent 4.7% to 4.8% margin. The 2630QM wins all five head-to-head tests, including both single-core and multi-core workloads. This is despite the 960 having substantially higher clock speeds (3.20 GHz base versus 2.00 GHz base) and a larger L3 cache (8 MB versus 6 MB). The 2630QM's architectural advantages, particularly the 32 nm process node and Sandy Bridge design, overcome those deficits.

For users seeking raw performance in the benchmarks recorded, the 2630QM is the better choice. The 45-watt TDP also makes it far more practical for mobile systems, while the 960's 130-watt TDP and desktop socket limit it to stationary builds. The 2630QM's integrated graphics add functionality that the 960 lacks entirely. However, the 960 is not without merit: its triple-channel memory bus and larger L3 cache could theoretically benefit memory-intensive workloads, though the recorded benchmarks do not show any such advantage. The 960 also supports DDR3 explicitly, while the 2630QM's memory support is not listed, so compatibility details remain unclear for the mobile chip.

The average scores place both at the 27th percentile, meaning neither is a standout performer by modern standards. But in a direct comparison, the 2630QM is the superior processor in the measured tests. Any user choosing between these two should prioritize the 2630QM for its benchmark wins, lower power draw, and integrated graphics, unless they specifically need the 960's triple-channel memory or desktop socket form factor.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The 2630QM has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 2.90 GHz, while the 960 runs at 3.20 GHz base and 3.47 GHz boost. The TDP is drastically different: 45 watts for the 2630QM versus 130 watts for the 960. They use different sockets: Intel Socket G2 (988B) for the 2630QM and Intel Socket 1366 for the 960. The architecture and codename differ, with Sandy Bridge for the 2630QM and Nehalem/Bloomfield for the 960. The process node is 32 nm versus 45 nm. Transistor counts are 1,160 million versus 731 million, and die sizes are 216 mm² versus 263 mm². L3 cache is 6 MB shared on the 2630QM and 8 MB shared on the 960. Memory bus is dual-channel for the 2630QM and triple-channel for the 960. The 2630QM includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 3000), while the 960 has none. The 960 lists DDR3 memory support and PCIe Gen 2, while the 2630QM does not list those fields. The market segment is Mobile for the 2630QM and Desktop for the 960. Finally, the 960's part number is SLBEU, while the 2630QM's is SR02Y.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-2630QM wins every benchmark in the database, so its strengths are clear. It dominates in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core variants. The 4.7% to 4.8% margins are consistent, indicating a broad-based performance advantage that does not favor any particular workload type. The 2630QM also wins on efficiency, with a 45-watt TDP that is less than half of the 960's 130-watt TDP. Its integrated graphics provide a feature the 960 completely lacks, making it a more self-contained solution for systems without a discrete GPU. The mobile socket and lower power draw make it suitable for laptops and compact devices.

The Intel Core i7-960 has no benchmark wins in this comparison, but it does hold advantages in certain specifications. Its base clock of 3.20 GHz and boost clock of 3.47 GHz are substantially higher, which could translate to better performance in legacy software that relies heavily on raw clock speed, though the recorded benchmarks do not show such an effect. The 960's 8 MB L3 cache is 33% larger than the 2630QM's 6 MB, potentially aiding workloads with large working sets. The triple-channel memory bus is a unique feature that could offer higher memory bandwidth, though the database does not provide bandwidth figures to confirm this. The desktop socket 1366 and DDR3 support make it compatible with older desktop platforms, which might be relevant for users with existing motherboards. The 960 also has a larger die size at 263 mm², which historically could indicate more room for memory controllers and other integrated components.

In practical terms, the 2630QM is the winner for anyone prioritizing the recorded benchmark scores, power efficiency, or integrated graphics. The 960 might appeal to users with a specific need for triple-channel memory or a desktop socket, but based on the data, it loses in every measured performance test. The choice is clear: the 2630QM offers better performance at a fraction of the power draw, making it the more capable processor in this head-to-head comparison.