CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i7-3520M and Intel Core i7-920 represent two very different approaches to the Core i7 brand: a 35-watt mobile dual-core from the Ivy Bridge generation against a 130-watt desktop quad-core from the Nehalem era. The benchmark data places them nearly on top of each other, with the i7-3520M achieving an average score of 843 and the i7-920 scoring 840, a delta of just 0.3%. This near-parity in overall performance is the central story, but it unfolds in specific ways across individual tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a consistent, if narrow, victory for the older desktop part. Across all five shared benchmarks, the Intel Core i7-920 wins every round. The margins are tight, but they are uniform. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i7-920 scores 246 against the i7-3520M’s 244, a difference of -0.8%. That is a negligible gap, but it represents the largest single-test delta in the comparison.

The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20. In the multi-core test, the i7-920 posts 1025 points versus 1018 for the i7-3520M, a -0.7% difference. The single-core R20 result is similarly close, with the i7-920 at 144 and the i7-3520M at 143. Moving to the more demanding Cinebench R23 workload, the i7-920 again leads in multi-core with 2442 points against 2426, and in single-core with 344 against 342. In every case, the delta hovers around -0.6% to -0.8%, meaning the i7-920 is consistently ahead by less than one percent.

What is striking is how little the architectural gap matters in practice. The i7-3520M has a higher base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz, compared to the i7-920’s 2.67 GHz base and 2.93 GHz boost. Despite this clock advantage, the i7-3520M cannot overcome the i7-920’s extra physical cores. The i7-920 has four cores and eight threads, while the i7-3520M is limited to two cores and four threads. The result is that the extra threads of the i7-920 compensate for its lower clock speeds, yielding a net tie in multi-threaded workloads and a slight edge in single-threaded tests.

The win count is decisive: the i7-920 wins 5 of 5 head-to-head benchmarks, while the i7-3520M wins none. However, the magnitude of those wins is so small that they fall within what could be considered run-to-run variance. The average benchmark scores tell the same story, with the i7-3520M at 843 and the i7-920 at 840. The nearest rival list for the i7-3520M includes the i7-920 with a deltaPct of 0.3%, meaning the i7-3520M is actually 0.3% ahead of the i7-920 in average score, even though the i7-920 wins every individual head-to-head test. This apparent contradiction is explained by the different benchmark sets: the i7-3520M’s average includes Geekbench scores, while the i7-920 lacks those results.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the Intel Core i7-920 is the faster processor in direct competition. It wins every benchmark where both are tested, and the margins, while small, are consistent. If the choice is purely about peak throughput in the Cinebench suite, the i7-920 is the pick. That said, the performance difference is so marginal that it should not be the deciding factor for most users. The i7-920 holds a 0.6% to 0.8% lead in multi-core tests, which translates to roughly 16 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 7 points in R20 multi-core. These are not meaningful real-world differences.

The i7-3520M is not a loser here. It matches the i7-920’s average score within 0.3%, and it does so while consuming 35 watts of power compared to the i7-920’s 130 watts. The i7-3520M also includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 4000), whereas the i7-920 has none. For a mobile platform, the i7-3520M is the rational choice because it delivers nearly identical benchmark performance at a fraction of the power draw. The i7-920, by contrast, is a desktop part from 2008 that is marked as end-of-life, requiring a separate graphics card and a high-wattage platform.

The data suggests a nuanced verdict: if you are building a desktop workstation and already have a discrete GPU, the i7-920 offers a slight edge in every tested workload. If you are selecting a laptop processor, the i7-3520M gives you the same level of performance with far lower power requirements, and the integrated GPU eliminates the need for a discrete card. Neither chip is a clear winner on raw performance; the i7-920 wins by a hair, but the i7-3520M wins on efficiency and platform simplicity.

Where Each One Wins

The i7-920 wins in raw compute benchmarks. It takes the lead in all five Cinebench tests, including multi-core and single-core variants. This makes it the better choice for sustained, CPU-bound rendering tasks where every point in Cinebench R23 multi-core (2442 vs 2426) counts toward shorter render times. The i7-920’s four cores and eight threads give it a structural advantage in heavily threaded workloads, even if that advantage is only 0.7% in practice. It is also the winner for users who already own a Socket 1366 motherboard and a discrete GPU, since it requires no integrated graphics and can drop into an existing desktop platform.

The i7-3520M wins in efficiency and portability. It delivers 35 watts of TDP against the i7-920’s 130 watts, a four-fold difference that is not captured in benchmark scores but is crucial for mobile use. It also includes Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics, which means a laptop based on the i7-3520M needs no separate GPU for basic display output. In the Geekbench tests, which the i7-920 does not have results for, the i7-3520M scores 1156 multi-core and 570 single-core, giving it a measurable advantage in cross-platform comparison even if those numbers cannot be directly compared to the i7-920.

The use-case split is clean: the i7-920 is for desktop users who prioritize maximum compute throughput and already have the supporting hardware; the i7-3520M is for mobile users who need the same level of performance in a power-constrained chassis. The benchmark data does not favor one over the other by a meaningful margin, so the decision rests on platform and power considerations rather than speed.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i7-920 wins all multi-core tests. It scores 246 vs 244 in Cinebench R15, 1025 vs 1018 in R20, and 2442 vs 2426 in R23, with deltas of -0.8%, -0.7%, and -0.7% respectively.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: The i7-920 also leads in single-core, scoring 144 vs 143 in Cinebench R20 single-core and 344 vs 342 in R23 single-core, both with -0.7% and -0.6% deltas.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The i7-3520M has an average benchmark score of 843, while the i7-920 scores 840. The i7-3520M is 0.3% ahead in this aggregate metric, despite losing every head-to-head test.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The i7-920 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i7-3520M has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Does the i7-3520M have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Intel HD 4000. The i7-920 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The i7-3520M has a TDP of 35 watts, and the i7-920 has a TDP of 130 watts.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras. The i7-3520M is built on the Ivy Bridge architecture using a 22 nm process node, while the i7-920 uses the Nehalem architecture on a 45 nm process. This process difference is significant: the i7-3520M’s die size is 118 mm², while the i7-920’s die is 263 mm². The i7-920 also has a listed transistor count of 731 million, whereas the i7-3520M does not have a transistor count in the data.

The cache layouts differ substantially. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, but the L3 cache is where they diverge. The i7-3520M has 4 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i7-920 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. This double L3 capacity helps the i7-920 compensate for its lower clock speeds.

The i7-920 is a desktop processor with a triple-channel memory bus and supports DDR3 memory. The i7-3520M is a mobile processor with a dual-channel memory bus; its memory support is not listed. The i7-920 also has PCIe Gen 2, while the i7-3520M’s PCIe configuration is not specified. The i7-920 is marked as end-of-life in production status, while the i7-3520M has no production status listed.

The integrated graphics situation is a major architectural differentiator. The i7-3520M includes Intel HD 4000, which is absent on the i7-920. This means the i7-3520M is a self-contained mobile chip, while the i7-920 requires an external GPU for any display output.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious differences: the i7-920 has 4 cores and 8 threads, double the i7-3520M’s 2 cores and 4 threads. Clock speeds favor the i7-3520M, with a 2.90 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost against the i7-920’s 2.67 GHz base and 2.93 GHz boost. The TDP difference is stark, with the i7-3520M at 35 watts and the i7-920 at 130 watts.

The sockets are incompatible: the i7-3520M uses Intel BGA 1023, while the i7-920 uses Intel Socket 1366. The process nodes differ, with the i7-3520M at 22 nm and the i7-920 at 45 nm. Die size also differs, as noted above. The L3 cache is 4 MB on the i7-3520M versus 8 MB on the i7-920.

Memory channels differ, with dual-channel on the i7-3520M and triple-channel on the i7-920. The i7-920 lists DDR3 memory support, while the i7-3520M does not list memory support. The i7-920 has PCIe Gen 2, while the i7-3520M has no PCIe listing. Integrated graphics are present only on the i7-3520M (Intel HD 4000). Release dates differ, with the i7-3520M released in 2012 and the i7-920 in 2008. The part numbers are also different: SR0MU for the i7-3520M and SLBCHSLBEJ for the i7-920. Neither processor has a launch MSRP listed, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.