Intel Core i7-2920XM vs Intel Core i7-880 Comparison

The Intel Core i7-880 and the Intel Core i7-2920XM represent two distinct approaches to high-end computing from the same generation family, yet they were built for completely different environments. The i7-880 is a desktop part from the Nehalem architecture, while the i7-2920XM is a mobile extreme edition processor based on Sandy Bridge. Despite the i7-880 having a higher base clock and boost clock, the benchmark data consistently shows the i7-2920XM pulling ahead in every recorded test. This outcome is not a narrow margin either; the mobile chip wins by roughly 16 to 17 percent across all Cinebench workloads. The data suggests that architectural improvements, not raw clock speed, are the deciding factor here.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher base clock speed?

A: The Intel Core i7-880 has a base clock of 3.07 GHz, while the Intel Core i7-2920XM has a base clock of 2.50 GHz.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i7-880 and the Intel Core i7-2920XM have 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two in any single benchmark?

A: The largest recorded gap is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the Intel Core i7-2920XM scores 353 against 294 for the i7-880, a difference of 16.7 percent.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i7-2920XM includes Intel HD 3000 integrated graphics. The Intel Core i7-880 has no integrated graphics listed in the data.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No, the Intel Core i7-2920XM has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel Core i7-880 does not.

Q: What is the thermal design power (TDP) difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core i7-880 has a TDP of 95 watts, while the Intel Core i7-2920XM has a TDP of 55 watts.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations, which explains much of their performance divergence. The Intel Core i7-880 is based on the Nehalem architecture, specifically the Lynnfield codename, and was manufactured on a 45 nm process node. It contains 774 million transistors on a die size of 296 mm². The Intel Core i7-2920XM, on the other hand, uses the Sandy Bridge architecture, also known by the same codename, and was built on a smaller 32 nm process. This newer node allowed Intel to pack more transistors, 1,160 million, into a smaller die size of just 216 mm².

The cache hierarchy is identical in structure: both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, with 8 MB of shared L3 cache. However, the underlying microarchitecture differs significantly. Sandy Bridge introduced a number of efficiency and execution improvements over Nehalem, which are visible in the benchmark results. The i7-2920XM also belongs to the Core i7 Extreme family, while the i7-880 is a standard Core i7 part.

The process node shrink from 45 nm to 32 nm is a critical architectural difference. It typically allows for better power efficiency and higher performance per clock, which is exactly what the data shows. The i7-2920XM achieves higher scores despite having lower clock speeds, indicating that its architecture is more efficient at executing instructions.

Another key difference is the integrated graphics. The i7-2920XM comes with Intel HD 3000, while the i7-880 has no integrated graphics listed. This is a notable feature divergence, though it does not directly affect the CPU benchmark scores. The i7-2920XM also supports a memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s, a figure not listed for the i7-880.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded benchmark data, the Intel Core i7-2920XM wins in every single head-to-head test. There are no tests where the Intel Core i7-880 comes out ahead. The i7-880 does not have a single win across the five Cinebench comparisons, while the i7-2920XM wins all five.

The i7-880 does have a theoretical advantage in clock speed. Its base clock of 3.07 GHz and boost clock of 3.73 GHz are both higher than the i7-2920XM's 2.50 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. In older applications that are heavily dependent on raw clock speed and do not leverage architectural improvements, the i7-880 might be expected to perform better, but the data does not include any such tests. All recorded workloads show the i7-2920XM winning.

For users looking at multi-core rendering tasks, the i7-2920XM is the clear choice. It scores 353 in Cinebench R15 multi-core versus 294 for the i7-880, and it scores 3504 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 2923. The i7-2920XM also dominates in single-core tests, scoring 494 in Cinebench R23 single-core compared to 412 for the i7-880.

The i7-880's only potential advantage lies in its desktop form factor, which may allow for different cooling solutions, but the data does not include any thermal or sustained-load tests. From a pure performance standpoint, the i7-2920XM wins every category.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The socket types are different: the i7-880 uses Intel Socket 1156, while the i7-2920XM uses Intel Socket G2 (988B). This means they are not interchangeable in any system.

The process node differs, with the i7-880 using 45 nm and the i7-2920XM using 32 nm. Transistor counts are also different, at 774 million for the i7-880 and 1,160 million for the i7-2920XM. The die sizes are 296 mm² for the i7-880 and 216 mm² for the i7-2920XM.

Clock speeds are higher on the i7-880. Its base clock is 3.07 GHz versus 2.50 GHz, and its boost clock is 3.73 GHz versus 3.50 GHz. However, the TDP is much lower on the i7-2920XM at 55 watts compared to 95 watts for the i7-880.

The i7-2920XM includes integrated graphics, with Intel HD 3000, while the i7-880 has none. Memory bandwidth is listed as 25.6 GB/s for the i7-2920XM, but no figure is provided for the i7-880. Both support DDR3 memory and dual-channel memory buses, and both have PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

The i7-2920XM has an unlocked multiplier, making it suitable for overclocking, while the i7-880 does not. The market segments are also different: the i7-880 is a desktop processor, while the i7-2920XM is a mobile processor. The i7-2920XM carries a launch MSRP of $1096, while no launch MSRP is listed for the i7-880.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data is remarkably consistent. Across all five recorded Cinebench tests, the Intel Core i7-2920XM wins by a margin of roughly 16.4 to 16.7 percent. This uniformity suggests a systematic architectural advantage rather than workload-specific behavior.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i7-2920XM scores 353 against 294 for the i7-880. That is a 16.7 percent lead. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the scores are 1471 versus 1227, a 16.6 percent difference. The single-core tests show similar gaps. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i7-2920XM scores 207 versus 173, a 16.4 percent lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the scores are 494 versus 412, again a 16.6 percent gap.

The largest margin is in Cinebench R15 multi-core at 16.7 percent. The smallest is in Cinebench R20 single-core at 16.4 percent. This tight range indicates that the performance advantage of the i7-2920XM is consistent across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads.

The i7-2920XM also has additional benchmark results not available for the i7-880. It scores 1452 in Geekbench multi-core and 430 in Geekbench single-core. These scores cannot be directly compared since there is no corresponding data for the i7-880.

The average benchmark score for the i7-880 is 1006, while the i7-2920XM has an average benchmark score of 995. Despite the i7-2920XM winning all head-to-head tests, its average score is slightly lower. This is because the average includes different benchmark sets, and the i7-880's average is based on fewer tests. Both processors have a percentile ranking of 27 against all CPUs, placing them in the same overall performance tier.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i7-2920XM outperforms the Intel Core i7-880 in every recorded benchmark. Despite having a lower base clock and lower boost clock, the i7-2920XM wins by approximately 16.5 percent across all Cinebench workloads. This is a clear demonstration of the architectural improvements in Sandy Bridge over Nehalem.

For anyone choosing between these two processors based on performance, the i7-2920XM is the stronger option. It wins in both single-core and multi-core tests, and it does so while consuming significantly less power, with a TDP of 55 watts versus 95 watts for the i7-880. The i7-2920XM also offers an unlocked multiplier for overclocking and includes integrated graphics, neither of which is available on the i7-880.

The i7-880 does have higher clock speeds, which could theoretically benefit certain legacy workloads, but no such advantage appears in the recorded data. Its only practical advantage might be platform compatibility, as it uses a desktop socket, but the benchmark results do not support any performance-based reason to choose it.

The i7-2920XM is the clear winner for users prioritizing computational performance. Its consistent 16 percent lead across all tests, combined with lower power consumption and additional features, makes it the superior processor in this comparison. The i7-880 remains a functional desktop processor, but the data shows it is outclassed by the mobile Sandy Bridge part in every measurable way.