Intel Core i7-2670QM vs Intel Core i7-4610M Comparison

Intel Core i7-2670QM and Intel Core i7-4610M are two end-of-life mobile processors that could not be more different in approach: the 2670QM is a 4-core, 8-thread Sandy Bridge part from 2011, while the 4610M is a 2-core, 4-thread Haswell chip from 2014. The benchmark data shows a clear split: the 2670QM wins 5 of the 7 head-to-head tests, but the 4610M wins the two Geekbench tests by massive margins. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical (1096 vs 1094), placing both in the bottom third of all CPUs (31st vs 30th percentile), yet the character of their performance diverges sharply depending on the workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The multi-core Cinebench tests are a complete sweep for the 2670QM. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 320 against the 4610M's 277, a 15.5% advantage. That same 15.5% delta repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core (1334 vs 1155) and Cinebench R23 multi-core (3177 vs 2750). The consistency of this 15.5% margin across three different Cinebench versions is striking — it suggests a structural advantage, likely from the extra two physical cores and four threads, rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Single-core Cinebench results tell a similar story, though with slightly different margins. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the 2670QM leads 188 to 162, a 16% gap. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 448 vs 388, again a 15.5% delta. This is counterintuitive: the 4610M has a higher base clock (3.00 GHz vs 2.20 GHz) and higher boost clock (3.70 GHz vs 3.10 GHz), yet it loses every single-core Cinebench test. The data suggests the older Sandy Bridge architecture's per-core performance in these specific workloads outpaces the newer Haswell design, despite the clock disadvantage.

The Geekbench tests reverse the picture dramatically. In Geekbench multi-core, the 4610M scores 1903 against the 2670QM's 1646, a 13.5% win. But the single-core Geekbench result is the most lopsided of the entire comparison: the 4610M scores 1024, which is 45.7% higher than the 2670QM's 556. This 45.7% delta is nearly three times larger than any other difference in the dataset. The 4610M's single-core Geekbench score of 1024 is almost double its multi-core deficit in Cinebench, indicating that Geekbench's workload mix heavily favors the Haswell architecture's newer execution resources.

Looking at the nearest rivals, both chips sit in a tight cluster. The 2670QM's nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-2710QE at an identical 1096 average score (0% delta), with the i5-3470S at 1095 (0.1% ahead) and the AMD PRO A10-8850B at 1098 (0.1% behind). The 4610M's nearest rival is the i7-4600M at 1093 (0.1% behind), with the 2670QM itself listed at 1096 (0.1% behind the 4610M). This reciprocal listing confirms they are near-performance equals in aggregate, making the workload-dependent swings all the more significant.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-2670QM has an average benchmark score of 1096, while the Intel Core i7-4610M scores 1094. The difference is 0.2%, with the 2670QM ahead by a negligible margin.

Q: How many benchmark tests does each processor win?

A: The 2670QM wins 5 of the 7 head-to-head benchmarks, while the 4610M wins 2. The 2670QM's wins are all in Cinebench tests; the 4610M's wins are both in Geekbench tests.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in either direction?

A: The largest gap is the 4610M's 45.7% win in Geekbench single-core (1024 vs 556). The largest 2670QM win is 16% in Cinebench R20 single-core (188 vs 162).

Q: Are these processors comparable in overall performance?

A: Yes, their average benchmark scores are nearly identical (1096 vs 1094), and they are listed as reciprocal nearest rivals with a 0.1% delta between them. However, this aggregate similarity masks extreme workload-dependent differences.

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speed?

A: The 4610M has both a higher base clock (3.00 GHz vs 2.20 GHz) and a higher boost clock (3.70 GHz vs 3.10 GHz). Despite this, it loses all Cinebench tests to the 2670QM.

Q: What are the percentile rankings of these two CPUs?

A: The 2670QM is in the 31st percentile of all CPUs, while the 4610M is in the 30th percentile. Both are in the lower third of the performance distribution.

Where Each One Wins

The 2670QM is the clear winner for multi-threaded rendering and compute workloads. Its 15.5% lead across all three Cinebench multi-core tests (R15, R20, R23) makes it the better choice for any application that scales with core count. The 2670QM also wins every single-core Cinebench test, which is notable given its lower clock speeds. Users running Cinebench or similar rendering workloads should prefer the 2670QM without hesitation.

The 4610M dominates in Geekbench, particularly in single-core performance where its 45.7% lead is decisive. Its Geekbench multi-core win of 13.5% (1903 vs 1646) is also substantial. The 4610M is the better choice for applications that follow Geekbench's workload patterns — typically short-burst, latency-sensitive tasks that favor newer architectures and higher clocks. The 4610M also has a lower TDP (37W vs 45W), making it more suitable for thermally constrained laptops despite its performance profile.

For mixed usage, the choice depends on which benchmark suite better represents the target application. The data shows no single winner across all tests; each chip wins the tests that align with its design strengths.

Specification Differences

The most fundamental difference is core count: the 2670QM has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the 4610M has 2 cores and 4 threads. Clock speeds favor the 4610M, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and boost clock of 3.70 GHz compared to the 2670QM's 2.20 GHz and 3.10 GHz. The 4610M has a lower TDP at 37W versus 45W for the 2670QM.

The sockets are incompatible: the 2670QM uses Intel Socket G2 (988B), while the 4610M uses Intel Socket G3. Cache sizes differ, with the 2670QM offering 6 MB of shared L3 cache versus 4 MB for the 4610M. The 4610M supports DDR3 memory with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the 2670QM's memory support is not listed in the data. PCIe capabilities also differ: the 4610M has Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the 2670QM's PCIe information is not provided. The 4610M has a launch MSRP of $346; the 2670QM has no listed launch MSRP. Both are end-of-life mobile processors with locked multipliers.

Architecture Differences

The 2670QM is built on Sandy Bridge architecture using a 32 nm process node, while the 4610M uses Haswell architecture on a 22 nm node. The transistor counts reflect this generational gap: the 2670QM has 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die, while the 4610M has 960 million transistors on a smaller 131 mm² die. The 4610M's newer 22 nm process allows for higher clock speeds at lower TDP despite fewer transistors.

The integrated graphics differ: the 2670QM has Intel HD 3000, while the 4610M has Intel HD 4600. L1 and L2 cache configurations are identical (64 KB per core and 256 KB per core, respectively), but the shared L3 cache differs as noted (6 MB vs 4 MB). The release dates show the generational separation — the 2670QM launched in October 2011, while the 4610M launched in January 2014. The codenames are Sandy Bridge and Haswell, respectively, and their generation labels match their codenames. The 4610M is the only one with listed memory support (DDR3) and PCIe information (Gen 3, 16 lanes).

The Verdict

The data supports a split decision based on workload. For Cinebench-style rendering and multi-threaded compute, the 2670QM is the superior processor, delivering a consistent 15.5% advantage across all multi-core tests and winning every Cinebench benchmark by at least 15.5%. Its 4-core, 8-thread configuration clearly benefits heavily threaded workloads, and its single-core Cinebench wins at lower clocks demonstrate architectural strength in those specific tests. Users prioritizing rendering performance should choose the 2670QM.

For Geekbench-style workloads, the 4610M is the clear winner. Its 45.7% single-core Geekbench lead is the largest margin in the entire comparison, and its 13.5% multi-core Geekbench win shows it can also hold its own in multi-threaded scenarios within that benchmark's framework. The 4610M also offers lower power consumption (37W vs 45W), newer integrated graphics (HD 4600 vs HD 3000), and PCIe Gen 3 support. Users who prioritize responsiveness, single-thread performance, or power efficiency should favor the 4610M.

The choice between these two is not about overall capability — their average scores are nearly identical at 1096 vs 1094 — but about matching the processor to the specific application. The 2670QM is the rendering workhorse; the 4610M is the responsive, efficient all-rounder. Both are end-of-life parts, so the decision should be driven by the benchmark results that matter most for the intended use case. Given the near-identical average scores and the reciprocal nearest-rival listing, the data does not support declaring one as universally better — only differently suited to different tasks.