Intel Core i7-2675QM vs Intel Core i7-880 Comparison

The Intel Core i7-2675QM and Intel Core i7-880 are both end-of-life quad-core processors, but they target fundamentally different market segments and architectural eras. The i7-2675QM is a 45W mobile part built on Sandy Bridge, while the i7-880 is a 95W desktop part from the older Nehalem generation. Despite the i7-880’s higher base and boost clocks, the benchmark data consistently favors the mobile chip, which wins all five head-to-head comparisons. This outcome shows that architectural improvements can offset clock-speed deficits, though the desktop part retains a cache capacity advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-2675QM wins every benchmark in the head-to-head set, making its use-case position clear: it is the stronger performer in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 3118 against the i7-880’s 2923, a 6.7% advantage. Its single-core results are similarly ahead, with a 440 score versus 412 in the same test, representing a 6.8% lead. This sweep indicates that for any application relying on CPU throughput—whether rendering, encoding, or general productivity—the Sandy Bridge architecture delivers more work per clock than the older Nehalem design.

The i7-880, conversely, has no benchmark wins to claim. Its strengths lie in its specification sheet rather than its measured performance. It offers 8 MB of shared L3 cache compared to the i7-2675QM’s 6 MB, and it runs at a higher base clock of 3.07 GHz versus 2.20 GHz. These traits do not translate into superior scores in the available data, but they do suggest the i7-880 may be preferable in scenarios where raw clock speed is a proxy for responsiveness in lightly-threaded, cache-sensitive tasks. However, the benchmark results do not support this hypothesis, as the i7-2675QM leads even in single-core tests.

For a user prioritizing integrated graphics, the i7-2675QM is the only option, as it includes Intel HD 3000, while the i7-880 has no integrated graphics at all. This makes the mobile chip a more self-contained solution for basic display output, whereas the desktop part requires a discrete GPU. In terms of market positioning, the i7-2675QM is mobile-focused, while the i7-880 is desktop-focused, but the data shows the mobile chip outperforms the desktop chip across all measured workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-2675QM has an average benchmark score of 1012, while the Intel Core i7-880 scores 1006. The difference is 6 points, which places the i7-2675QM slightly ahead in the aggregate.

Q: How does the i7-2675QM compare to the i7-880 in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The i7-2675QM scores 3118, while the i7-880 scores 2923. This gives the i7-2675QM a 6.7% advantage in that test.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference in Cinebench R20?

A: The i7-2675QM scores 184, and the i7-880 scores 173, resulting in a 6.4% lead for the i7-2675QM.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the Intel Core i7-2675QM and the Intel Core i7-880 have ECC memory support listed as false.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core i7-880 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, whereas the Intel Core i7-2675QM has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The multiplier is locked on both the Intel Core i7-2675QM and the Intel Core i7-880.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent distinct architectural generations from Intel. The i7-2675QM is built on Sandy Bridge, using a 32 nm process node, while the i7-880 is a Nehalem part, codenamed Lynnfield, fabricated on a 45 nm process. This process shrink allows the i7-2675QM to pack 1,160 million transistors onto a 216 mm² die, whereas the i7-880 has 774 million transistors on a larger 296 mm² die. The smaller, denser design of the Sandy Bridge chip contributes to its significantly lower 45W TDP compared to the i7-880’s 95W TDP.

The cache hierarchies differ in total capacity but not in per-core allocation. Both processors provide 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The shared L3 cache, however, is larger on the i7-880 at 8 MB versus 6 MB on the i7-2675QM. This gives the desktop part a potential advantage in workloads that benefit from a larger pool of shared cache, although the benchmark data does not reflect this.

The i7-2675QM includes integrated graphics in the form of Intel HD 3000, a feature entirely absent from the i7-880. This reflects their different market segments: mobile versus desktop. The i7-2675QM uses an Intel BGA 1224 socket, while the i7-880 uses Intel Socket 1156. The i7-880 also includes a PCIe Gen 2 interface with 16 lanes (CPU only), whereas the i7-2675QM has no PCIe information listed in the data. Both processors support dual-channel memory, but the i7-880 lists DDR3 memory support, while the i7-2675QM’s memory support field is null.

Clock speeds favor the i7-880 substantially. It has a base clock of 3.07 GHz and a boost clock of 3.73 GHz, compared to the i7-2675QM’s 2.20 GHz base and 3.10 GHz boost. The i7-880 also has a later boost clock headroom of 0.66 GHz over its base, while the i7-2675QM has 0.90 GHz of boost headroom. Despite this, the Sandy Bridge architecture of the i7-2675QM proves more efficient in executing instructions per clock, which is why it wins all measured benchmarks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i7-2675QM wins all five comparisons. The smallest margin is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the i7-2675QM scores 184 against the i7-880’s 173, a 6.4% difference. The largest margin is a tie between Cinebench R15 multi-core and Cinebench R23 single-core, both at 6.8%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the scores are 314 for the i7-2675QM and 294 for the i7-880. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the scores are 440 and 412, respectively.

The multi-core results show consistent performance deltas. Cinebench R20 multi-core yields 1309 for the i7-2675QM and 1227 for the i7-880, a 6.7% lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 3118 versus 2923, also a 6.7% difference. This consistency across different versions of Cinebench suggests that the architectural advantage of Sandy Bridge scales uniformly across workload generations. The i7-2675QM’s lower clock speeds are more than compensated by its newer design and smaller process node.

Single-core performance tells a similar story. In Cinebench R20, the i7-2675QM’s 184 score beats the i7-880’s 173 by 6.4%. In Cinebench R23, the 440 score beats 412 by 6.8%. These single-threaded wins are notable because they indicate that even in lightly-threaded tasks, the older and higher-clocked Nehalem part cannot overcome the IPC advantage of Sandy Bridge. The i7-880’s higher boost clock of 3.73 GHz does not translate into a win, reinforcing the conclusion that microarchitecture is the dominant factor in these benchmarks.

Notably, the i7-2675QM has additional benchmark data that the i7-880 lacks. Geekbench multi-core and single-core scores are available for the mobile chip, showing 1301 and 415, respectively. The i7-880 has no corresponding Geekbench entries in the data, so no direct comparison can be made. The i7-2675QM’s percentile ranking is 28, slightly higher than the i7-880’s 27, and its average benchmark score of 1012 edges out the i7-880’s 1006.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification gap is TDP: the i7-2675QM draws 45W, while the i7-880 draws 95W. This reflects their intended use cases, with the mobile part designed for thermal constraints and the desktop part for higher power budgets. Clock speeds also differ significantly, with the i7-880 running at 3.07 GHz base and 3.73 GHz boost, compared to the i7-2675QM’s 2.20 GHz base and 3.10 GHz boost.

Process node and die characteristics are distinct. The i7-2675QM uses a 32 nm process with 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die. The i7-880 uses a 45 nm process with 774 million transistors on a 296 mm² die. These numbers highlight the manufacturing advantage of the newer generation, which achieves higher transistor density and smaller physical size. The L3 cache differs as well, with the i7-880 offering 8 MB shared versus 6 MB shared on the i7-2675QM. L1 and L2 caches are identical per core.

Socket compatibility is another differentiator. The i7-2675QM uses Intel BGA 1224, a soldered mobile socket, while the i7-880 uses Intel Socket 1156, a desktop socket. Integrated graphics are present on the i7-2675QM with Intel HD 3000, but absent on the i7-880. The i7-880 also lists PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the i7-2675QM has no PCIe information. Memory support is listed as DDR3 for the i7-880, while the i7-2675QM’s memory support field is null, though both are dual-channel.

Release dates and part numbers differ: the i7-2675QM launched on October 11, 2011, with part number SR02S, while the i7-880 launched on May 29, 2010, with part number SLBPS. The architecture names also differ—Sandy Bridge for the i7-2675QM and Nehalem (Lynnfield) for the i7-880. Both are end-of-life, have locked multipliers, and do not support ECC memory. No launch MSRP is available for either processor.