Intel Core i7-2920XM vs Intel Core i7-5600U Comparison

The Intel Core i7-5600U and the Intel Core i7-2920XM represent two very different philosophies in mobile computing: one is a 15-watt, dual-core efficiency part from 2015, the other a 55-watt, quad-core Extreme edition from 2011. The benchmark data shows a fascinating split, where the older, larger chip dominates in Cinebench rendering workloads while the newer, smaller chip decisively wins in Geekbench. This head-to-head is less about a single winner and more about understanding what each architecture was optimized to do.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is the Geekbench single-core test, where the Core i7-5600U posts a score of 917 against the Core i7-2920XM's 430. That is a delta of 113.3% in favor of the 5600U—a more than two-fold advantage. This is the largest margin in the entire comparison and highlights how far Intel's core design advanced in the four years separating the two processors. The 5600U's architectural efficiency, derived from the 14nm Broadwell design, allows it to obliterate the older Sandy Bridge core in a latency-sensitive, single-threaded workload.

The Geekbench multi-core result also favors the 5600U, though by a smaller margin. Here, the 5600U scores 1750 against the 2920XM's 1452, a 20.5% lead. This is particularly notable because the 2920XM has twice as many physical cores. The data suggests that the 5600U's superior single-thread performance and architectural improvements are enough to overcome the 2920XM's core-count advantage in this specific benchmark. The 5600U wins this round despite having only 2 cores and 4 threads.

The narrative flips completely in the Cinebench suite. The 2920XM wins all five Cinebench tests, with remarkably consistent margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 2920XM scores 353 versus the 5600U's 255, a 27.8% advantage. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core (1471 vs 1065, a 27.6% lead) and Cinebench R23 multi-core (3504 vs 2537, also a 27.6% lead). The consistency of this delta across multiple versions of Cinebench suggests a fundamental scaling advantage for the 2920XM in this rendering workload.

The Cinebench single-core results are more surprising. The 2920XM wins Cinebench R20 single-core with a score of 207 against the 5600U's 150, a 27.5% margin. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it again wins with 494 versus 358, a 27.5% lead. This contradicts the Geekbench single-core result. The data indicates that while the 5600U's core is more efficient in Geekbench's workload, the 2920XM's higher boost clock of 3.50 GHz (versus 3.20 GHz on the 5600U) gives it an edge in Cinebench's specific rendering instructions. The older chip's raw clock speed advantage appears to matter more here than architectural IPC improvements.

Overall, the 2920XM wins 5 out of 7 benchmarks, but the 5600U wins the two that show the most dramatic delta. The 5600U's average benchmark score is 1005, while the 2920XM sits at 995, a negligible difference that places both at the 27th percentile of all CPUs. The head-to-head deltas, however, tell a story of workload-dependent extremes rather than a close, even contest.

Architecture Differences

The most fundamental difference is the process node. The 5600U is built on a 14nm process with 1,300 million transistors on an 82 mm² die. The 2920XM uses a 32nm process with 1,160 million transistors on a much larger 216 mm² die. This explains the dramatic efficiency gap: the 5600U has a TDP of 15 watts, while the 2920XM draws 55 watts—nearly four times as much power for a similar transistor count.

Core configuration is the next major divider. The 5600U has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the 2920XM doubles that with 4 cores and 8 threads. The 2920XM also has a larger L3 cache: 8 MB shared versus 4 MB shared on the 5600U. Both have the same per-core L1 and L2 cache sizes of 64 KB and 256 KB respectively. The 2920XM's extra cores and additional L3 cache are the primary drivers of its Cinebench multi-core wins.

Clock speeds differ in a nuanced way. The 5600U has a higher base clock of 2.60 GHz, but the 2920XM has a higher boost clock of 3.50 GHz. The 2920XM also features an unlocked multiplier, allowing for overclocking, whereas the 5600U is locked. The 5600U's lower base clock and higher boost clock suggest a design that aggressively power-gates and boosts, while the 2920XM's higher sustained boost is a product of its higher power budget.

Memory support is identical on paper: both support DDR3 in dual-channel configuration with a memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. However, the platforms differ. The 5600U uses the Intel BGA 1168 socket and is a system-on-chip design, while the 2920XM uses the Intel Socket G2 (988B) and is a traditional PGA-style processor. PCIe support also differs: the 5600U provides 12 PCIe Gen 2 lanes, while the 2920XM offers 16 PCIe Gen 2 lanes.

The integrated graphics tell a generational story. The 5600U features Intel HD 5500, while the 2920XM has Intel HD 3000. The 5500 is a significantly newer architecture with better media capabilities, though the FACT PACK does not include graphics benchmark scores. The 5600U is also unlocked in no way, while the 2920XM's unlocked multiplier is a notable feature for enthusiasts. Finally, the release dates show a four-year gap: the 2920XM launched in January 2011, and the 5600U launched in February 2015. The launch MSRP for the 5600U was $393, while the 2920XM launched at $1096. Both are end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

The 5600U is the clear winner in single-threaded, latency-sensitive applications as measured by Geekbench. Its score of 917 versus 430 is a landslide. This makes it the better choice for everyday desktop responsiveness, office productivity, and any software that relies heavily on a single thread. Its 20.5% lead in Geekbench multi-core also suggests that it can handle light multi-threaded tasks better than its core count might suggest, likely due to its superior memory subsystem and core efficiency. The 5600U's 15-watt TDP also means it is the only viable option for fanless or ultra-thin designs.

The 2920XM is the dominant processor for sustained, multi-threaded rendering workloads, as evidenced by its consistent 27.5-27.8% lead across all Cinebench versions. For video encoding, 3D rendering, or compiling code, the 2920XM's 4 cores and 8 threads provide a tangible advantage. Its 8 MB of L3 cache also helps in workloads that repeatedly access a large working set. The 2920XM's higher boost clock of 3.50 GHz also gives it a win in Cinebench single-core tests, suggesting it is the better choice for older software that is not optimized for newer instruction sets.

The data shows a clear split: the 5600U wins the synthetic, general-purpose Geekbench suite, while the 2920XM wins the rendering-focused Cinebench suite. The 5600U's wins are defined by efficiency and IPC, while the 2920XM's wins are defined by raw core count and clock speed. The 2920XM's 55-watt TDP makes it suitable for larger, gaming-oriented laptops with robust cooling, while the 5600U's 15-watt TDP is suited for thin-and-light portables.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i7-2920XM has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i7-5600U has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Does the newer 5600U always beat the older 2920XM?

A: No. The 5600U wins in Geekbench single-core (917 vs 430) and multi-core (1750 vs 1452), but the 2920XM wins all five Cinebench tests, including multi-core R23 (3504 vs 2537).

Q: What is the TDP difference between these two chips?

A: The 5600U has a TDP of 15 watts, while the 2920XM has a TDP of 55 watts. This is a significant difference that impacts cooling requirements and battery life.

Q: Which CPU has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core i7-2920XM has an 8 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel Core i7-5600U has a 4 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: Can either of these processors be overclocked?

A: The Intel Core i7-2920XM has an unlocked multiplier, meaning it can be overclocked. The Intel Core i7-5600U has a locked multiplier and cannot be overclocked.

Q: Which chip has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i7-2920XM has a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. The Intel Core i7-5600U has a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The 5600U, however, has a higher base clock of 2.60 GHz versus 2.50 GHz.

The Verdict

The data does not crown a single champion; it defines two distinct profiles. For users prioritizing raw multi-threaded rendering performance in a mobile platform, the Intel Core i7-2920XM is the correct choice. Its 27.5-27.8% lead in Cinebench R20 and R23 multi-core tests is decisive, and its 8 MB L3 cache and 4-core/8-thread configuration are directly responsible. The higher 55-watt TDP is a trade-off for this capability, but the benchmark results justify it for sustained workloads.

For users who need a balance of single-thread responsiveness and multi-thread capability in a low-power envelope, the Intel Core i7-5600U is superior. Its 113.3% lead in Geekbench single-core and 20.5% lead in Geekbench multi-core demonstrate that architectural efficiency can overcome core-count deficits. The 15-watt TDP makes it the only realistic option for thin-and-light laptops. The 5600U's 27th percentile ranking and average score of 1005 are roughly identical to the 2920XM's 27th percentile and 995 average, but the specific workload results show that the 5600U is the more versatile processor for general-purpose computing, while the 2920XM is a specialized tool for rendering. The choice depends entirely on the workload: the 2920XM for Cinebench-style rendering, the 5600U for everything else.