Intel Core i7-2675QM vs Intel Core i7-2920XM Comparison

The Intel Core i7-2675QM and Intel Core i7-2920XM are two Sandy Bridge mobile processors that appear close on paper and end up in nearly the same neighborhood in the database, yet the recorded benchmarks tell a one-sided story. Both chips pair four cores with eight threads on Intel's 32 nm process, and both sit in the high twenties when percentile-ranked against all CPUs in the database. The data shows the i7-2920XM winning every head-to-head benchmark, with margins concentrated around eleven percent. This page walks through the architecture, the benchmark results, and the specification differences, and closes with a verdict on which chip suits which workload.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the i7-2920XM than the i7-2675QM overall?

A: It wins all seven recorded head-to-head benchmarks. Multi-core margins are 11% in Cinebench R15, 11% in Cinebench R20, 11% in Cinebench R23, and 10.4% in Geekbench multi-core. Single-core margins are 11.1% in R20, 10.9% in R23, and 3.5% in Geekbench single-core.

Q: Do these CPUs have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes. Both are quad-core, eight-thread Sandy Bridge processors built on Intel's 32 nm node. The differences lie in clocks, cache, TDP, and platform features rather than core counts.

Q: Which chip has more cache?

A: The i7-2920XM, with 8 MB of shared L3 versus 6 MB on the i7-2675QM. L1 and L2 are identical on both: 64 KB and 256 KB per core respectively.

Q: Is either processor unlocked for overclocking?

A: The i7-2920XM has an unlocked multiplier. The i7-2675QM does not, so its clocks cannot be raised through multiplier adjustment.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the i7-2920XM?

A: The recorded launch MSRP is $1096. No launch MSRP is recorded for the i7-2675QM.

Q: Are these CPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The i7-2920XM was released in January of its launch year, and the i7-2675QM followed later that same year, in October.

Architecture Differences

There is very little architectural separation here, and that is the point. Both processors are Sandy Bridge designs manufactured by Intel on the same 32 nm process, with an identical transistor count of 1,160 million and an identical die size of 216 mm². Both carry the Intel HD 3000 integrated graphics. Both sit in the mobile segment and neither supports ECC memory.

The meaningful differences are in configuration rather than architecture. The i7-2920XM belongs to the Core i7 Extreme tier of the Sandy Bridge generation, while the i7-2675QM belongs to the standard Core i7 tier. That Extreme positioning shows up in three concrete ways: higher clocks across the board, a larger 8 MB shared L3 cache instead of 6 MB, and an unlocked multiplier. The i7-2920XM also carries a higher thermal design point, 55 W against 45 W, which reflects those higher frequencies and the additional cache.

The sockets differ too. The i7-2675QM uses Intel BGA 1224, a soldered ball-grid arrangement, while the i7-2920XM uses Intel Socket G2 (988B), a socketed interface. This matters for upgrade paths: a Socket G2 part can in principle be swapped, whereas a BGA part is fixed to its board. The i7-2920XM also records explicit platform details the i7-2675QM lacks: DDR3 memory support, a stated memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s on a dual-channel bus, and PCI Express Gen 2 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Both list a dual-channel memory bus, but only the i7-2920XM has DDR3 support and bandwidth recorded in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data is unambiguous: the i7-2920XM wins seven of seven head-to-head tests, and the i7-2675QM wins zero.

Start with multi-core rendering. In Cinebench R15 multi-core the i7-2920XM scores 353 against 314 for the i7-2675QM, an 11% gap. Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the pattern almost exactly: 1471 versus 1309, again an 11% margin. Cinebench R23 multi-core stretches slightly further, 3504 versus 3118, at 11%. Geekbench multi-core lands at 1452 versus 1301, a 10.4% gap. Across four independent multi-core tests the deficit never leaves the 10-11% band, which is consistent with the clock and cache advantage of the Extreme part: a 2.50 GHz base against 2.20 GHz, a 3.50 GHz boost against 3.10 GHz, and 8 MB of L3 against 6 MB.

Single-core results mirror that. Cinebench R20 single-core is 207 versus 184, an 11.1% gap. Cinebench R23 single-core is 494 versus 440, a 10.9% gap. Geekbench single-core is the outlier: 430 versus 415, only 3.5% apart. That narrower spread suggests Geekbench's single-core workload extracts less from the higher boost clock than the Cinebench runs do, but the direction is still the same. The i7-2920XM also posts a Cinebench R15 single-core score of 52 in the database, a test for which no i7-2675QM result is recorded.

Context from the wider database reinforces how close these two are to each other in absolute terms. The i7-2675QM averages 1012 across its benchmark suite and sits at the 28th percentile versus all CPUs; the i7-2920XM averages 995 and sits at the 27th percentile. The i7-2675QM's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon W5580 at an identical 1012 average, the Intel Core i5-2300 at 1014 (a 0.2% difference), the Intel Core i3-7100H at 1009, and the Intel Processor N100 at 1007. The i7-2920XM's rivals include the Intel Core i7-2635QM and the AMD Opteron 4226, both at 995, the Intel Core i3-8130U at 994, and the Intel Xeon W3565 at 993. In other words, both chips land in the same performance neighborhood as each other and as desktop Xeons of an earlier era, with the i7-2920XM simply running ahead within that band in every direct comparison.

Specification Differences

The two chips share manufacturer, architecture, core count, thread count, process node, foundry, transistor count, die size, L1 and L2 cache, integrated graphics, dual-channel memory bus, ECC exclusion, mobile segment, and end-of-life status. The fields where they differ:

• Base clock: 2.20 GHz on the i7-2675QM versus 2.50 GHz on the i7-2920XM.
• Boost clock: 3.10 GHz versus 3.50 GHz.
• TDP: 45 W versus 55 W.
• L3 cache: 6 MB shared versus 8 MB shared.
• Socket: Intel BGA 1224 versus Intel Socket G2 (988B).
• Multiplier: locked versus unlocked.
• Generation tier: Core i7 (Sandy Bridge) versus Core i7 Extreme (Sandy Bridge).
• Memory support: not recorded versus DDR3, with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth recorded on the i7-2920XM.
• PCIe: not recorded versus Gen 2, 16 lanes (CPU only).
• Release date: October versus January of the same launch year.
• Launch MSRP: not recorded versus $1096.
• Part number: SR02S versus SR02E.

The Verdict

Strictly from the recorded data, the i7-2920XM is the faster processor in every measured test, typically by about 11% in rendering workloads and 3.5-11% in single-core tests. If the priority is maximum performance from this generation, the Extreme part is the pick. It also offers the unlocked multiplier, the socketed G2 interface, the larger L3 cache, and the higher clocks.

The i7-2675QM makes its case on power: a 45 W TDP against 55 W, with the same four cores and eight threads, identical integrated graphics, and a benchmark average (1012 versus 995) that actually edges the i7-2920XM in aggregate database terms despite losing every direct head-to-head. That average gap is small enough that both chips occupy effectively the same percentile band, 28th versus 27th. For situations where thermals matter more than the last ten percent of throughput, the i7-2675QM is the recorded equal of its sibling in class and the better-behaved of the two on paper.

Both are end-of-life parts, so any comparison is retrospective. Neither supports ECC, both use Intel HD 3000 graphics, and both run the same 32 nm silicon.

Where Each One Wins

i7-2920XM wins in:

• Sustained multi-core rendering: 11% ahead in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core, and 10.4% ahead in Geekbench multi-core.
• Single-core responsiveness: ahead in every single-core test, from 3.5% in Geekbench to 11.1% in Cinebench R20.
• Tunability: unlocked multiplier, unique between the two.
• Platform detail: recorded DDR3 support, 25.6 GB/s bandwidth, and Gen 2 PCIe with 16 CPU lanes.
• Cache-sensitive workloads: 8 MB of shared L3 versus 6 MB.

i7-2675QM wins in:

• Thermal efficiency: 45 W TDP versus 55 W while delivering roughly 90% of the i7-2920XM's throughput in every test.
• Later availability within the generation: October versus January.
• Database aggregate: a 1012 average benchmark score against 995, and a one-point-higher percentile rank.

There is no benchmark category in the recorded data where the i7-2675QM beats the i7-2920XM; its advantage is confined to power draw and aggregate positioning. The i7-2920XM's advantage is confined to measured speed and platform flexibility. That is the split, and the data supports no other.