Intel Core i7-4860HQ vs Intel Core i7-980X Comparison

The Intel Core i7-980X and the Intel Core i7-4860HQ represent two distinct philosophies from Intel's engineering timeline. The data reveals a fascinating split: the 980X, a desktop Extreme Edition from the Westmere era, dominates synthetic rendering workloads with its six physical cores, while the 4860HQ, a mobile Haswell part, counters with superior single-thread performance in Geekbench. This comparison is not a simple generational victory; it is a study in how core count versus architectural efficiency shapes real-world capability.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results divide cleanly along workload types. In all six Cinebench tests, spanning R15, R20, and R23, the Intel Core i7-980X takes the lead. The margins are consistent, ranging from 9.3% to 9.6% across both multi-core and single-core variants. This uniform advantage suggests that the 980X's higher base clock of 3.33 GHz, combined with its additional cores, provides a structural edge in rendering tasks that depend on sustained throughput.

Conversely, the Intel Core i7-4860HQ wins both Geekbench tests, and its victories are decisive. In single-core Geekbench, it posts a score of 1045 against the 980X's 659, a massive 36.9% advantage. The multi-core Geekbench result shows a 7.9% lead for the mobile chip, scoring 3527 versus 3247. This indicates that Geekbench's workload mix rewards the newer Haswell architecture's per-core efficiency and its support for faster memory bandwidth, which the recorded data shows as 25.6 GB/s for the 4860HQ.

The use-case split is therefore clear. For users running Cinebench-style professional rendering, the 980X is the superior tool. For general-purpose computing, system responsiveness, and tasks that rely on strong single-thread performance, the 4860HQ demonstrates a clear advantage. The 980X wins 6 of the 8 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, but the two wins for the 4860HQ are in tests that often matter more for everyday user experience.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are separated by four years of silicon evolution, and the data reflects that gap. The 980X uses the Westmere architecture on a 32 nm process, packing 1,170 million transistors into a 239 mm² die. In contrast, the 4860HQ uses the Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process, with 1,400 million transistors on a 264 mm² die. The newer process node allowed Intel to integrate more functionality per area, including the Intel HD 5200 integrated graphics, which the desktop 980X lacks entirely.

Core configuration is the most obvious divergence. The 980X offers 6 cores and 12 threads, while the 4860HQ provides 4 cores and 8 threads. This gives the desktop part a 50% core advantage, which directly contributes to its Cinebench multi-core wins. The 980X also features a larger 12 MB shared L3 cache, double the 6 MB found on the 4860HQ. However, the 4860HQ counters with a higher base clock ratio per core relative to its TDP, and its boost clock of 3.60 GHz matches the 980X's maximum boost exactly.

Memory architecture further separates them. The 980X supports DDR3 triple-channel memory, while the 4860HQ uses dual-channel DDR3. The mobile part has a recorded memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s, a figure absent for the 980X in the database. This bandwidth advantage likely explains the 4860HQ's superior Geekbench multi-core score, as memory-intensive workloads benefit from faster data transfer. Additionally, the 4860HQ uses PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, whereas the 980X is limited to PCIe Gen 2, which impacts expansion and GPU communication speeds.

The TDP difference is stark: 130 W for the 980X versus 47 W for the 4860HQ. This nearly threefold gap underscores their intended markets. The 980X is a desktop monster requiring robust cooling, while the 4860HQ is a mobile processor designed for laptops. The 980X has an unlocked multiplier, appealing to enthusiasts, while the 4860HQ is locked, reflecting its OEM-focused mobile deployment.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear conclusion: choose the Intel Core i7-980X for multi-threaded rendering workloads where core count and high sustained clocks are paramount. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 5797 is 9.4% ahead of the 4860HQ's 5297, and this pattern holds across every Cinebench iteration. Users running professional 3D modeling, video encoding, or any task that scales with CPU cores will find the 980X to be the stronger performer.

Choose the Intel Core i7-4860HQ for single-thread performance and memory-sensitive applications. Its Geekbench single-core score of 1045 is a remarkable 36.9% higher than the 980X's 659, indicating a significant per-core IPC advantage from the Haswell architecture. The 4860HQ also wins Geekbench multi-core by 7.9%, likely due to its faster memory bandwidth, making it the better choice for general desktop responsiveness and everyday multitasking within its 47 W power envelope.

The 980X's 41st percentile ranking among all CPUs matches the 4860HQ's 41st percentile, placing them statistically equal in overall performance. However, this aggregate hides the divergent strengths. The 980X's average benchmark score of 1746 sits close to its rivals like the Intel Core i5-8269U and AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE, while the 4860HQ's 1720 aligns with the Intel Core i7-4910MQ and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 2700U. The data suggests neither is a universal winner, but each excels in its respective domain.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher single-core Geekbench score?

A: The Intel Core i7-4860HQ scores 1045, which is 36.9% higher than the Intel Core i7-980X's 659.

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in multi-core Cinebench R20?

A: The Intel Core i7-980X scores 2434, a 9.4% advantage over the Intel Core i7-4860HQ's 2224.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The 980X has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the 4860HQ has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The 980X has a 12 MB shared L3 cache, double the 6 MB shared L3 cache of the 4860HQ.

Q: Does the 4860HQ have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the 4860HQ includes Intel HD 5200, while the 980X has no integrated graphics listed.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each CPU?

A: The 980X has a TDP of 130 W, while the 4860HQ has a TDP of 47 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite provides a consistent narrative. In R15 multi-core, the 980X scores 584 against 533, a 9.6% win. Single-core R15 shows 82 versus 75, a 9.3% edge. R20 multi-core repeats the pattern with 2434 versus 2224, a 9.4% delta, and single-core R20 sees 343 versus 313, another 9.6% margin. R23 multi-core delivers 5797 versus 5297, a 9.4% win, while single-core R23 closes the Cinebench series with 818 versus 747, a 9.5% advantage. Every Cinebench test follows the same trend: the 980X wins by roughly 9.5%, regardless of core count scaling. This uniformity suggests the desktop chip's higher base clock of 3.33 GHz, compared to the 4860HQ's 2.40 GHz, provides a consistent throughput advantage that the newer architecture cannot overcome in this specific rendering workload.

The Geekbench results invert the narrative. Multi-core Geekbench sees the 4860HQ win 3527 to 3247, a 7.9% margin. Single-core Geekbench is a landslide for the mobile chip: 1045 versus 659, a 36.9% victory. These deltas are significantly larger than any Cinebench margin, indicating that Geekbench's test design heavily favors the Haswell architecture's improved instruction handling and memory subsystem. The 4860HQ's recorded 25.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, absent for the 980X, likely plays a crucial role here. The data implies that while the 980X excels at sustained multi-threaded rendering, the 4860HQ offers a dramatically better experience for latency-sensitive and single-threaded applications.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs diverge on nearly every core specification. The 980X features 6 cores and 12 threads, while the 4860HQ uses 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks differ significantly: 3.33 GHz for the 980X versus 2.40 GHz for the 4860HQ, though both share a 3.60 GHz boost clock. TDP separates them by 83 W: 130 W for the 980X, 47 W for the 4860HQ. The sockets are incompatible, with the 980X using Intel Socket 1366 and the 4860HQ using Intel BGA 1364.

Architecture and process nodes reflect their eras. The 980X uses Westmere (codename Gulftown) on 32 nm, with 1,170 million transistors on a 239 mm² die. The 4860HQ uses Haswell (codename Crystalwell) on 22 nm, with 1,400 million transistors on a 264 mm² die. L3 cache sizes are 12 MB for the 980X and 6 MB for the 4860HQ. Memory channels differ: triple-channel DDR3 for the 980X, dual-channel DDR3 for the 4860HQ, with only the latter having a recorded 25.6 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe support advances from Gen 2 on the 980X to Gen 3 with 16 lanes on the 4860HQ. The 4860HQ includes Intel HD 5200 integrated graphics, which the 980X lacks. Finally, the 980X has an unlocked multiplier, while the 4860HQ is locked.