Core i7-2960XM vs Core i5-4670
Aggregate performance score
i5-4670 outperforms i7-2960XM by a moderate 15% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i5-4670 and Core i7-2960XM processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1477 | 1569 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.03 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Core i7 |
| Architecture codename | Haswell (2013−2015) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 2 June 2013 (11 years ago) | 3 September 2011 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $360 | $1,096 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core i5-4670 and Core i7-2960XM basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 6144 KB (shared) | 8 MB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 177 mm2 | 216 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 72 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 995 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on Core i5-4670 and Core i7-2960XM compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | 1150 | FCPGA988 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 84 Watt | 55 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-4670 and Core i7-2960XM. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | + | no data |
Security technologies
Core i5-4670 and Core i7-2960XM technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-4670 and Core i7-2960XM are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-4670 and Core i7-2960XM. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD 4600 | Intel HD Graphics 3000 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-4670 and Core i7-2960XM.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 16 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Core i5-4670 outperforms Core i7-2960XM by 15% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Core i5-4670 outperforms Core i7-2960XM by 15% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
Benchmark coverage: 41%
Core i5-4670 outperforms Core i7-2960XM by 107% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Benchmark coverage: 41%
Core i5-4670 outperforms Core i7-2960XM by 76% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.54 | 3.07 |
| Recency | 2 June 2013 | 3 September 2011 |
| Threads | 4 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 84 Watt | 55 Watt |
i5-4670 has a 15.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 45.5% more advanced lithography process.
i7-2960XM, on the other hand, has 100% more threads, and 52.7% lower power consumption.
The Core i5-4670 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i7-2960XM in performance tests.
Note that Core i5-4670 is a desktop processor while Core i7-2960XM is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-4670 and Core i7-2960XM, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
