Intel Core i7-2675QM vs Intel Processor N150 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Processor N150 has an average benchmark score of 1025, placing it at the 28th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core i7-2675QM records an average score of 1012, also at the 28th percentile. The difference in average score is just 13 points, roughly 1.3%.

Q: Which processor wins in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Processor N150 wins decisively. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 935 versus 440 for the Core i7-2675QM, a delta of 112.5%. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the N150 scores 153.15, while the i7-2675QM has no recorded R15 single-core result.

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: It depends on the test generation. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel Core i7-2675QM wins with 3118 points against 2590.5 for the N150, a 16.9% advantage. However, in Cinebench R15 multi-core, the N150 wins with 422.5 versus 314, a 34.6% advantage.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: Both processors have 4 cores. The Intel Core i7-2675QM has 8 threads (Hyper-Threading enabled), while the Intel Processor N150 has 4 threads.

Q: What are the process nodes and release dates?

A: The Intel Processor N150 is built on a 10 nm process and was released on 2024-11-19. The Intel Core i7-2675QM is built on a 32 nm process and was released on 2011-10-11.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The Intel Processor N150 is listed as Active, meaning it is still in production. The Intel Core i7-2675QM is listed as End-of-life.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Processor N150 belongs to the Twin Lake architecture, part of the Intel Processor (Alder Lake-N) generation, and is fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel. The Intel Core i7-2675QM is based on the Sandy Bridge architecture, part of the Core i7 (Sandy Bridge) generation, and uses a 32 nm process node. The process node gap is significant: 10 nm versus 32 nm, which directly influences power efficiency and transistor density.

The N150 has a base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The i7-2675QM has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.10 GHz. While the older chip starts at a much higher base frequency, the N150 boosts higher under load. The thermal design power differs sharply: the N150 is rated at 6 W, while the i7-2675QM is rated at 45 W, a sevenfold difference. This makes the N150 far more suited to fanless or low-power designs, whereas the i7-2675QM requires substantial cooling.

Cache layouts diverge as well. The N150 features 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The i7-2675QM has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The N150's larger L1 cache and shared L2 design reflect a modern efficiency-oriented layout, while the i7-2675QM uses a per-core L2 arrangement typical of high-end mobile chips of its era. Both share the same total L3 capacity (6 MB), but the N150's L3 is shared across all cores.

Memory support also differentiates the two. The N150 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory, has a single-channel memory bus, and a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The i7-2675QM supports dual-channel memory, though the database does not list specific memory types or bandwidth for it. The N150 also exposes PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only), while the i7-2675QM has no recorded PCIe information.

Integrated graphics differ: the N150 includes UHD Graphics 730, while the i7-2675QM includes Intel HD 3000. The N150 is an active production part with part number SRPNR, while the i7-2675QM is end-of-life with part number SR02S. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither has ECC memory support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head benchmarks cover three tests, and the results are split between the two processors, with the Intel Processor N150 winning two and the Intel Core i7-2675QM winning one.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel Processor N150 scores 422.5 against 314 for the i7-2675QM. That is a 34.6% advantage for the N150. This is a substantial margin, and it is somewhat surprising given that the i7-2675QM has double the threads (8 versus 4). The N150's higher boost clock (3.60 GHz versus 3.10 GHz) and modern architecture likely compensate for the thread deficit in this older rendering workload.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the results flip. The Intel Core i7-2675QM scores 3118, while the N150 scores 2590.5. The i7-2675QM leads by 16.9%. The extra threads (8 versus 4) appear to matter more in this newer, more demanding renderer, allowing the Sandy Bridge chip to pull ahead despite its lower boost clock and older process node.

In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel Processor N150 dominates. It scores 935, more than double the i7-2675QM's 440, a delta of 112.5%. This is the largest margin in any recorded benchmark. The N150's modern Twin Lake architecture delivers a massive per-core advantage over the decade-older Sandy Bridge design. The i7-2675QM's single-core score of 440 is less than half of the N150's, which underscores how far single-threaded performance has advanced.

The broader benchmark data reinforces these patterns. The N150 also has a Cinebench R15 single-core score of 153.15, while the i7-2675QM has no recorded result for that test. The i7-2675QM has additional benchmarks not present for the N150: Cinebench R20 multi-core (1309), Cinebench R20 single-core (184), Geekbench multi-core (1301), and Geekbench single-core (415). These results show that the i7-2675QM's single-core scores in R20 (184) and Geekbench (415) are comparable to its R23 single-core score (440), all of which are far below the N150's R23 single-core result of 935.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Processor N150 | Intel Core i7-2675QM |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Architecture | Twin Lake | Sandy Bridge |

| Generation | Intel Processor (Alder Lake-N) | Core i7 (Sandy Bridge) |

| Process node | 10 nm | 32 nm |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 1,160 million |

| Die size | Not recorded | 216 mm² |

| Cores | 4 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base clock | 0.10 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.60 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| TDP | 6 W | 45 W |

| L1 cache | 96 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 | Not recorded |

| Memory bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | Not recorded |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 9 Lanes (CPU only) | Not recorded |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Intel HD 3000 |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1264 | Intel BGA 1224 |

| Release date | 2024-11-19 | 2011-10-11 |

| Production status | Active | End-of-life |

| Part number | SRPNR | SR02S |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | No |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Processor N150 wins where single-threaded performance and power efficiency are priorities. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 935 is 112.5% higher than the i7-2675QM's 440, making it the clear choice for workloads that rely on per-core speed, such as web browsing, office applications, and light productivity tasks. Its 6 W TDP, versus 45 W for the i7-2675QM, makes it suitable for compact, low-power, or passively cooled systems where thermal output is a constraint. The N150 also wins in Cinebench R15 multi-core (422.5 versus 314, a 34.6% lead), which suggests that in some older multi-threaded workloads, its modern architecture and higher boost clock outweigh the i7-2675QM's thread advantage.

The Intel Core i7-2675QM wins where sustained multi-threaded rendering is the primary task. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 3118 is 16.9% higher than the N150's 2590.5. With 8 threads versus 4, the i7-2675QM scales better in newer, heavily threaded workloads. Its dual-channel memory bus, though not quantified in the database, also provides a bandwidth advantage over the N150's single-channel configuration. The i7-2675QM has additional recorded benchmarks (Cinebench R20 and Geekbench) that show it can complete a broader range of test suites, though those results are not directly comparable to the N150.

The N150 also benefits from modern platform features: it supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory, while the i7-2675QM's memory support is not recorded. The N150's PCIe Gen 3 support enables connectivity that the i7-2675QM's database entry does not document. For general-purpose mobile computing in 2024 and beyond, the N150 is the more relevant part.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload and system design priorities. For users building a low-power, modern mobile system where single-threaded responsiveness and efficiency matter most, the Intel Processor N150 is the stronger choice. It delivers more than double the single-core performance of the i7-2675QM in Cinebench R23 (935 versus 440), uses only 6 W of power, and is built on a much newer 10 nm process. It is also an active production part, meaning it remains available for new designs. Its 34.6% win in Cinebench R15 multi-core further shows that its architectural efficiency can overcome a thread deficit in certain workloads.

For users who need maximum multi-threaded throughput in newer rendering workloads, the Intel Core i7-2675QM retains an edge. Its 16.9% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core (3118 versus 2590.5) demonstrates that its 8 threads, despite the older Sandy Bridge architecture, still matter in heavily parallel tasks. However, its 45 W TDP and 32 nm process make it a poor fit for modern low-power designs, and its end-of-life status limits its availability.

The average benchmark scores are nearly identical (1025 for the N150 versus 1012 for the i7-2675QM), and both sit at the 28th percentile of all CPUs. The nearest rivals for the N150 include the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T (delta 0.1%) and the Intel Core i3-4340 (delta -0.1%), while the i7-2675QM's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon W5580 (delta 0%) and the Intel Core i5-2300 (delta -0.2%). In practice, the N150 is the better all-around processor for modern use, while the i7-2675QM is only preferable in multi-threaded rendering scenarios where its thread count can be fully utilized.