CPU Comparison

The Intel Processor N95 and Intel Core i7-2820QM are both mobile processors that land at nearly the same overall performance level, with average benchmark scores of 1070 and 1069 respectively. This places them within 0.1% of each other, a statistical tie that masks very different performance profiles. The N95, a modern Gracemont-based chip, and the i7-2820QM, a Sandy Bridge-era part, achieve parity through entirely different means, and the benchmark data reveals a clear split between single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic difference appears in Cinebench R15 single-core testing, where the Intel Processor N95 scores 151 against the i7-2820QM's 52. This is a 190.4% advantage for the N95, a gap so large it suggests the older i7 is severely handicapped in lightly-threaded workloads. The N95's lead extends to Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 914 versus 522, a 75.1% advantage. These results indicate that the N95's modern architecture delivers substantially better instructions-per-clock and higher effective single-thread performance.

The multi-core results tell a different story. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the N95 wins again, scoring 445 against the i7-2820QM's 372, a 19.6% margin. However, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the tables turn decisively. The i7-2820QM scores 3697, while the N95 manages only 2769, giving the older chip a 25.1% advantage. This reversal is notable because it shows that under sustained multi-threaded load, the i7-2820QM's 8 threads can overcome the N95's architectural superiority.

Across the four shared benchmark tests, the N95 wins three and the i7-2820QM wins one. Yet the overall average benchmark scores are nearly identical, which means the i7-2820QM's Cinebench R23 multi-core victory carries significant weight. The data shows a clear pattern: the N95 dominates in all single-threaded tests and wins the older Cinebench R15 multi-core test, while the i7-2820QM only prevails in the more demanding Cinebench R23 multi-core workload.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Processor N95 is the clear winner for any workload that relies on single-thread performance. Its 190.4% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core and 75.1% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core mean that everyday tasks, which typically depend on one or two cores, will feel noticeably snappier on the N95. The N95 also wins in Cinebench R15 multi-core, which suggests it handles moderate multi-threading well. Its lower power envelope of 15 watts, compared to 45 watts for the i7-2820QM, makes it better suited for thin-and-light systems where thermal and battery constraints are primary concerns.

The Intel Core i7-2820QM wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core by a 25.1% margin, indicating that its 8 threads provide an advantage in heavily parallel, sustained workloads. This makes it the better choice for rendering, video encoding, or other tasks that can fully utilize multiple threads over extended periods. However, this advantage comes at the cost of substantially higher power consumption, triple the TDP of the N95. The i7-2820QM also has dual-channel memory support, which could benefit memory-bandwidth-sensitive applications, though the N95's single-channel DDR4/DDR5 support with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth still provides modern memory capabilities.

The data suggests a use-case split: the N95 for responsive, single-threaded, and light-to-moderate multi-threaded work in a power-efficient package, and the i7-2820QM for heavy multi-threaded workloads where the extra threads and dual-channel memory outweigh its age and power draw.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The Intel Processor N95 uses the Gracemont architecture, built on a 10 nm process node, while the Core i7-2820QM uses Sandy Bridge, manufactured on a 32 nm process. This process gap explains much of the performance difference, as the smaller node allows for higher efficiency and better single-thread performance.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The N95 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The i7-2820QM has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. While the i7-2820QM has more total L2 and L3 cache, the N95's larger per-core L1 cache and newer design likely contribute to its single-thread advantage.

The i7-2820QM features Hyper-Threading, allowing 8 threads from its 4 cores, while the N95 has 4 threads from 4 cores. This explains the multi-threaded performance differences. The i7-2820QM also has a larger die size of 216 mm² and 1,160 million transistors, reflecting its older, less integrated design, whereas the N95's transistor count and die size are not specified in the data.

Integrated graphics differ as well, with the N95 featuring UHD Graphics 710 and the i7-2820QM using Intel HD 3000. The N95 also supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a single-channel configuration, while the i7-2820QM's memory support is not specified but uses a dual-channel bus. The N95 supports PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes, while PCIe information is unavailable for the i7-2820QM.

Specification Differences

The core counts are identical at 4, but the thread counts differ: the N95 has 4 threads, while the i7-2820QM has 8. Base clocks are starkly different, with the N95 at 100 MHz and the i7-2820QM at 2.30 GHz, yet both boost to 3.40 GHz. The N95's remarkably low base clock, combined with its 3.40 GHz boost, indicates aggressive power management, while the i7-2820QM maintains a higher baseline frequency.

Power consumption differs by 30 watts, with the N95 at 15 W TDP and the i7-2820QM at 45 W TDP. The N95 uses an Intel BGA 1264 socket, while the i7-2820QM uses Intel Socket G2 (988B). The N95 is built on a 10 nm process versus 32 nm for the i7-2820QM. The N95's memory bandwidth is specified at 38.4 GB/s with single-channel support, while the i7-2820QM supports dual-channel memory but has no bandwidth figure listed.

The N95 was released in January 2023 and remains active in production, while the i7-2820QM was released in January 2011 and is end-of-life. The i7-2820QM has a part number of SR012, while the N95 does not list one. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither lists a launch MSRP. Both are mobile market segment parts with ECC memory support absent.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Processor N95. It leads by 190.4% in Cinebench R15 single-core (151 vs 52) and by 75.1% in Cinebench R23 single-core (914 vs 522).

Q: Which processor wins in multi-threaded workloads?

A: It depends on the test. The N95 wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 19.6% (445 vs 372), but the i7-2820QM wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 25.1% (3697 vs 2769).

Q: How do their overall benchmark scores compare?

A: They are nearly identical. The N95 has an average benchmark score of 1070, while the i7-2820QM scores 1069, a difference of just 0.1%.

Q: What is the thread count difference?

A: The i7-2820QM has 8 threads from 4 cores, while the N95 has 4 threads from 4 cores. This gives the i7-2820QM an advantage in heavily multi-threaded tasks.

Q: How much power does each processor consume?

A: The N95 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the i7-2820QM has a TDP of 45 watts, making the N95 more power-efficient.

Q: What are the production statuses of these processors?

A: The N95 is active and was released in January 2023, while the i7-2820QM is end-of-life and was released in January 2011.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear choice based on workload priorities. The Intel Processor N95 is the superior processor for single-threaded applications, offering a 190.4% advantage in Cinebench R15 single-core and a 75.1% advantage in Cinebench R23 single-core. Its lower 15-watt TDP, modern 10 nm process, and active production status make it the more future-proof and power-efficient option. For users whose tasks involve web browsing, office productivity, or any lightly-threaded software, the N95 is the obvious pick.

The Intel Core i7-2820QM, despite its age, retains a meaningful edge in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where its 8 threads deliver a 25.1% performance lead. This makes it the better choice for sustained, heavily parallel workloads such as video rendering or batch processing, provided the system can handle its 45-watt TDP and the user accepts its end-of-life status. The i7-2820QM's dual-channel memory support may also offer advantages in memory-intensive scenarios, though no bandwidth figures are available for comparison.

Given that the N95 wins three of the four head-to-head benchmarks and matches the i7-2820QM's overall average score, the data favors the N95 for most use cases. The i7-2820QM only justifies selection when the specific Cinebench R23 multi-core workload is the primary concern and power consumption is not a limiting factor. For a balanced assessment, the N95 is the more versatile and efficient choice, while the i7-2820QM is a niche performer for heavy multi-threading.