Intel Core i7-2670QM vs Intel Core i7-4600M Comparison

The Intel Core i7-2670QM and Intel Core i7-4600M represent two distinct design philosophies from Intel’s mobile lineup, separated by two process generations and a fundamental shift in core count versus clock speed. The benchmark data reveals a fascinating split: the older Sandy Bridge chip dominates multi-threaded Cinebench tests, while the newer Haswell part posts decisive wins in Geekbench. This creates a complex picture for anyone choosing between a 45W quad-core and a 37W dual-core.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a clear pattern, though not the one you might expect from a newer processor. The Intel Core i7-2670QM wins five of the seven direct comparisons, all of them in the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 2670QM scores 320 against the 4600M’s 275, a 16.4% advantage. The margin holds almost exactly across the other Cinebench versions: R20 multicore shows 1334 versus 1147 (16.3% delta), and R23 multicore shows 3177 versus 2732 (16.3% delta). Even in single-threaded Cinebench tests, the quad-core Sandy Bridge chip stays ahead—R20 single-core sees 188 versus 161 (16.8%), and R23 single-core sees 448 versus 385 (16.4%).

The story flips dramatically in Geekbench, where the 4600M takes both wins. The multicore result is 1930 for the Haswell chip against 1646 for the 2670QM, a 14.7% margin. The single-core gap is the largest of any benchmark: 1018 versus 556, a 45.4% blowout. This is a massive divergence—the 4600M is nearly twice as fast in Geekbench single-core, yet consistently about 16% slower in Cinebench. The data implies that Geekbench rewards the newer architecture’s per-clock efficiency and higher boost clock, while Cinebench scales with raw core count and thread throughput.

Interestingly, the average benchmark scores for these two CPUs are almost identical: 1096 for the 2670QM and 1093 for the 4600M. The nearestRivals data confirms this near-parity, listing the Intel Core i7-4610M as a rival to both, with a delta of 0.2% for the 2670QM and -0.1% for the 4600M. The overall percentiles are equally close: 31st for the 2670QM and 30th for the 4600M. This suggests that on average, these processors deliver comparable performance, but the nature of that performance is entirely different.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two is substantial. The 2670QM is built on Sandy Bridge, a 32nm process with 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die. It packs four cores and eight threads, with a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost of 3.10 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The integrated GPU is Intel HD 3000, and it uses the Intel Socket G2 (988B).

The 4600M, by contrast, is a Haswell part on a 22nm node. It has 960 million transistors on a smaller 131 mm² die. The core configuration drops to two cores and four threads, but the clocks jump significantly: 2.90 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost. L3 cache is 4 MB shared, with the same per-core L1 and L2 sizes. The integrated GPU is the newer Intel HD 4600, and it sits on the Intel Socket G3. The 4600M also brings features the older chip lacks: it supports DDR3 memory with a bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s, and offers PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The 2670QM has no listed memory support or PCIe details in the data.

These differences explain the benchmark results. The 2670QM’s four physical cores give it a natural advantage in Cinebench’s multi-threaded rendering workload, which can use up to eight threads. The 4600M’s higher clocks and newer architecture give it a per-thread efficiency edge, which Geekbench’s tests appear to reward. The process node shrink from 32nm to 22nm likely contributes to the 4600M’s lower 37W TDP versus 45W, even with higher clock speeds.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is stark. The 2670QM is the clear choice for any workload that scales with cores and threads. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 all show consistent 16%+ wins for the quad-core part, indicating that video rendering, 3D modeling, and other heavily parallelized tasks will run noticeably faster on the older chip. The data from the multicore tests—320 vs 275, 1334 vs 1147, 3177 vs 2732—all point in the same direction.

The 4600M wins where single-thread performance or newer instructions matter. The Geekbench single-core result is the most telling: 1018 versus 556, a 45.4% advantage. This suggests that everyday responsiveness, legacy single-threaded applications, and tasks that cannot use more than one or two threads will feel significantly snappier on the Haswell chip. The Geekbench multicore win (1930 vs 1646) is more surprising, given the 4600M’s core deficit, but it indicates that the newer architecture’s efficiency can overcome the lack of physical cores in some mixed workloads.

For a laptop user, the choice depends on the primary use. A content creator running Cinebench-heavy renders would favor the 2670QM. A business user running office suites, web browsing, and light productivity—where single-thread speed dominates—would see better results from the 4600M. The 37W TDP of the 4600M also implies longer battery life and easier cooling, though the data pack does not provide thermal or battery figures.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: The Intel Core i7-2670QM wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests. In R15, it scores 320 versus 275 (16.4% higher). In R20, it scores 1334 versus 1147 (16.3% higher). In R23, it scores 3177 versus 2732 (16.3% higher).

Q: Why does the i7-4600M win Geekbench despite having fewer cores?

A: The 4600M’s Geekbench wins come from its higher clocks (2.90 GHz base, 3.60 GHz boost versus 2.20/3.10 GHz) and newer Haswell architecture. In single-core, it scores 1018 versus 556, a 45.4% margin. In multicore, it scores 1930 versus 1646, a 14.7% margin.

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

A: The 2670QM has an average benchmark score of 1096, while the 4600M scores 1093. Their nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-4610M, which scores 1094, placing both chips within 0.2% of that rival.

Q: Which CPU has a better integrated GPU?

A: The 4600M features the Intel HD 4600, while the 2670QM has the older Intel HD 3000. The 4600M also offers PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), which the 2670QM does not list.

Q: How do the thread counts differ?

A: The 2670QM has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the 4600M has 2 cores and 4 threads. The 2670QM also has more L3 cache: 6 MB shared versus 4 MB shared.

Q: What are the production statuses of these chips?

A: Both are end-of-life. The 2670QM was released on 2011-10-11, and the 4600M was released on 2013-08-31.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification. The 2670QM uses a 32nm process with 1,160 million transistors and a 216 mm² die, while the 4600M uses 22nm with 960 million transistors and a 131 mm² die. Core counts are 4 versus 2, and thread counts are 8 versus 4. Clock speeds favor the 4600M: 2.90 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost, compared to 2.20 GHz and 3.10 GHz for the 2670QM.

L3 cache is 6 MB on the 2670QM and 4 MB on the 4600M. TDP is 45W for the older chip and 37W for the newer one. Sockets differ: Intel Socket G2 (988B) for the 2670QM, Intel Socket G3 for the 4600M. The integrated graphics are HD 3000 versus HD 4600. The 4600M supports DDR3 memory with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth and PCIe Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only); the 2670QM has no listed memory support or PCIe data. The 4600M has a launch MSRP of $346, while the 2670QM has no listed launch MSRP. The 2670QM’s part number is SR02N, and the 4600M’s is SR1H7.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split decision. The Intel Core i7-2670QM is the better choice for multi-threaded rendering and CPU-bound parallel workloads. Its consistent 16.3% to 16.8% wins across all Cinebench tests make it the obvious pick for video encoding, 3D rendering, and similar tasks. The four physical cores and eight threads provide a structural advantage that clock speed cannot overcome in these benchmarks.

The Intel Core i7-4600M is the better choice for single-thread performance and modern platform features. Its 45.4% Geekbench single-core lead is enormous, and it also wins Geekbench multicore by 14.7%. The newer Haswell architecture, higher clocks, DDR3 support, PCIe Gen 3, and lower 37W TDP make it a more versatile and efficient mobile processor. The launch MSRP of $346 also indicates its intended position in the market.

For a user who prioritizes raw parallel compute, the 2670QM is the answer. For a user who needs snappy single-thread performance, better integrated graphics, and a more modern feature set, the 4600M is the answer. The near-identical average scores (1096 versus 1093) and percentiles (31 versus 30) suggest that neither is a universal winner, but the choice hinges entirely on the workload. The data does not support a single “best” pick; it supports picking the right tool for the job.