Intel Core i7-5600U vs Intel Core i7-960 Comparison

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i7-960, a desktop part from 2009, outperforms the Intel Core i7-5600U, a mobile part from 2015, in every recorded test. The Core i7-960 wins all five head-to-head benchmarks, with a consistent performance advantage of approximately 12% across the board. This result is notable because it shows that older, high-power desktop architectures can still hold a significant edge over newer, ultra-low-power mobile designs in raw compute throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head results is the uniformity of the performance gap. In the Cinebench R15 multicore test, the Core i7-960 scores 290 points against the Core i7-5600U’s 255 points, a delta of -12.1%. This same exact delta of -12.1% reappears in the Cinebench R20 multicore test, where the scores are 1211 for the Core i7-960 and 1065 for the Core i7-5600U. The consistency suggests that the performance difference is structural rather than workload-specific.

Single-core performance tells a similar story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Core i7-960 records 170 points, while the Core i7-5600U manages 150 points, a delta of -11.8%. The Cinebench R23 single-core test shows the same pattern: 407 points for the Core i7-960 versus 358 points for the Core i7-5600U, a delta of -12%. The Core i7-960’s advantage in single-threaded workloads is slightly smaller than its multicore lead, but it remains significant.

The largest absolute difference appears in the Cinebench R23 multicore test, where the Core i7-960 scores 2885 points and the Core i7-5600U scores 2537 points. The 348-point gap is the biggest in the dataset, and it reinforces the conclusion that the Core i7-960’s four physical cores and eight threads provide a substantial advantage over the Core i7-5600U’s two cores and four threads. In the aggregate, the Core i7-960 wins all five benchmarks, with a perfect 5-0 record in the head-to-head comparison.

The average benchmark scores from the database corroborate this result. The Core i7-5600U has an average benchmark score of 1005, while the Core i7-960 sits at 993. This puts the Core i7-960 slightly behind in the average, despite winning every direct comparison. The reason is that the Core i7-5600U has additional benchmark entries, including Geekbench multicore and single-core scores of 1750 and 917, which are not available for the Core i7-960. These Geekbench results pull the mobile chip’s average up. When looking strictly at the shared Cinebench tests, the Core i7-960 is consistently ahead.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-5600U has an average benchmark score of 1005, while the Intel Core i7-960 has an average of 993. However, the Core i7-960 wins every head-to-head test, and the mobile chip’s higher average is due to its additional Geekbench scores.

Q: How much faster is the Core i7-960 in multicore performance?

A: The Core i7-960 is 12.1% faster than the Core i7-5600U in both Cinebench R15 and R20 multicore tests. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it is also 12.1% faster, scoring 2885 against 2537.

Q: Does the Core i7-5600U win any benchmark?

A: No. The recorded data shows zero wins for the Core i7-5600U and five wins for the Core i7-960 across all head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Core i7-960 scores 170 versus 150 for the Core i7-5600U, a delta of -11.8%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the scores are 407 and 358, a delta of -12%.

Q: How do these processors compare to their closest rivals?

A: The Core i7-5600U is exactly tied with the Intel Core i7-2630QM (0% delta) and nearly tied with the AMD FX-9830P and Intel Core i7-880 (-0.1%). The Core i7-960 is tied with the Intel Core i7-965 and AMD Phenom II X6 1065T (0% delta) and is 0.1% behind the Intel Core i3-8130U.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth support?

A: The Core i7-5600U supports dual-channel DDR3 memory with a bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. The Core i7-960 supports triple-channel DDR3 memory, but its bandwidth is not recorded in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies separated by six years of process technology evolution. The Core i7-5600U is built on the Broadwell architecture using a 14 nm process node, while the Core i7-960 uses the Nehalem architecture on a 45 nm node. This process difference is stark: the Core i7-5600U packs 1,300 million transistors into an 82 mm² die, whereas the Core i7-960 contains 731 million transistors spread across a much larger 263 mm² die.

The transistor density advantage of the newer chip is clear. The Core i7-5600U crams nearly twice as many transistors into less than a third of the silicon area. This is the expected result of the 14 nm versus 45 nm process gap, and it explains why the mobile chip can achieve competitive performance while consuming a fraction of the power. The Core i7-5600U has a thermal design power (TDP) of 15 watts, compared to 130 watts for the Core i7-960.

Cache configurations also differ significantly. Both chips have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The shared L3 cache, however, is twice as large on the desktop part: 8 MB shared for the Core i7-960 versus 4 MB shared for the Core i7-5600U. This larger cache pool benefits the Core i7-960’s four-core design, providing more room for shared data across eight threads.

The integrated graphics situation is another major architectural divergence. The Core i7-5600U includes Intel HD 5500 graphics, while the Core i7-960 has no integrated graphics at all. This makes the mobile chip a complete system-on-chip solution, whereas the desktop part requires a discrete graphics card. The PCIe support also differs: the Core i7-5600U provides Gen 2 with 12 lanes (CPU only), while the Core i7-960 offers Gen 2 without a specified lane count in the database.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most fundamental specification difference. The Core i7-5600U has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Core i7-960 has 4 cores and 8 threads. This doubles the available parallel execution resources on the desktop part, which directly explains its multicore benchmark wins.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The Core i7-960 has a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.47 GHz, both higher than the Core i7-5600U’s 2.60 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. Despite the lower clocks, the Core i7-5600U’s newer architecture allows it to stay within 12% of the older chip in single-threaded tests, demonstrating significant per-clock efficiency gains from the Broadwell architecture.

The memory interfaces are different. The Core i7-5600U uses dual-channel DDR3 with a recorded bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. The Core i7-960 uses triple-channel DDR3, which theoretically provides more bandwidth, though the exact figure is not recorded. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

The physical and market specifications are entirely different. The Core i7-5600U uses Intel BGA 1168 and targets the mobile segment, while the Core i7-960 uses Intel Socket 1366 and targets desktop. The Core i7-960 was released on 2009-10-19, while the Core i7-5600U came later on 2015-02-28. The Core i7-5600U has a launch MSRP of $393, while the Core i7-960 has no recorded launch MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The process node difference is 14 nm versus 45 nm, and the transistor counts are 1,300 million versus 731 million. The die sizes are 82 mm² versus 263 mm². The Core i7-5600U has a part number of SR23V, while the Core i7-960 has a part number of SLBEU.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i7-960 wins in every measured performance category. It is 12.1% faster in Cinebench R15 multicore, 12.1% faster in Cinebench R20 multicore, 11.8% faster in Cinebench R20 single-core, 12.1% faster in Cinebench R23 multicore, and 12% faster in Cinebench R23 single-core. The data shows no scenario where the Core i7-5600U takes the lead in any of the shared benchmarks.

The Core i7-5600U’s strengths are not in raw compute but in efficiency and integration. Its 15 watt TDP is dramatically lower than the Core i7-960’s 130 watt TDP, making it suitable for compact mobile systems. It includes integrated graphics, which the Core i7-960 lacks entirely. The newer 14 nm process and smaller die size indicate a more modern design, and the Geekbench scores of 1750 multicore and 917 single-core show it can handle general productivity tasks, even though those scores have no direct comparison in the dataset.

The Core i7-960’s advantage is its higher core count, larger L3 cache, and higher clock speeds. For applications that scale with threads, such as multi-threaded rendering in Cinebench, the 4-core/8-thread configuration provides a clear edge. The 8 MB shared L3 cache is double the mobile chip’s 4 MB, which helps with data-heavy workloads.

The Verdict

The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward: the Intel Core i7-960 is the stronger performer in every benchmark where both processors were tested. It wins all five head-to-head comparisons with a consistent 12% lead. Anyone prioritizing raw compute throughput should choose the Core i7-960, provided they can accommodate its 130 watt TDP, desktop socket, and need for discrete graphics.

The Intel Core i7-5600U is the choice for scenarios where power consumption and system integration matter more than peak performance. Its 15 watt TDP, integrated graphics, and mobile socket make it the only viable option for battery-powered laptops. The data shows it is not far behind in single-threaded performance, trailing by only 11.8% to 12%, which means everyday tasks will feel similar. However, the Core i7-960’s multicore advantage is decisive for threaded workloads.

The database places both processors at the 27th percentile among all CPUs, indicating they occupy similar overall performance tiers despite their architectural differences. The Core i7-5600U’s average benchmark score of 1005 is slightly higher than the Core i7-960’s 993, thanks to its additional Geekbench results, but this does not change the head-to-head outcome. For a desktop user with power to spare, the Core i7-960 is the clear winner. For a mobile user who needs a complete integrated solution, the Core i7-5600U is the only option that fits, and its performance deficit is modest and consistent.