Celeron N2930 vs i7-3630QM

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i7-3630QM
2012
4 cores / 8 threads, 45 Watt
3.31
+402%

i7-3630QM outperforms Celeron N2930 by a whopping 402% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i7-3630QM and Celeron N2930 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking15702723
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Core i7Intel Celeron
Architecture codenameIvy Bridge (2012−2013)Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
Release date30 September 2012 (11 years ago)23 February 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$284no data

Detailed specifications

Core i7-3630QM and Celeron N2930 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads84
Base clock speed2.4 GHz1.83 GHz
Boost clock speed3.4 GHz2.16 GHz
Bus rate5 GT/sno data
L1 cache256 KB224 KB
L2 cache1 MB2 MB
L3 cache6 MB0 KB
Chip lithography22 nm22 nm
Die size160 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature105 °C100 °C
Number of transistors1400 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Core i7-3630QM and Celeron N2930 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 configuration11
SocketFCPGA988FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt7.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-3630QM and Celeron N2930. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVXno data
AES-NI+-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
My WiFi+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0-
Hyper-Threading Technology+-
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
Smart Connectno data+
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data
StatusDiscontinuedLaunched
RSTno data-

Security technologies

Core i7-3630QM and Celeron N2930 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB++
Secure Key++
Identity Protection+-
Anti-Theft+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-3630QM and Celeron N2930 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-d+-
VT-x++
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-3630QM and Celeron N2930. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size32 GB8 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics 4000Intel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Series
Quick Sync Video++
Clear Video HD+-
Graphics max frequency1.15 GHz854 MHz
InTru 3D+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core i7-3630QM and Celeron N2930 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported32
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
SDVO+no data
CRT+no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-3630QM and Celeron N2930.

PCIe version3.02.0
PCI Express lanes164
USB revisionno data3.0 and 2.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data5

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.

i7-3630QM 3.31
+402%
Celeron N2930 0.66

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.

i7-3630QM 5115
+402%
Celeron N2930 1018

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.

i7-3630QM 560
+241%
Celeron N2930 164

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.

i7-3630QM 1903
+289%
Celeron N2930 489

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

i7-3630QM 4654
+311%
Celeron N2930 1132

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

i7-3630QM 18091
+366%
Celeron N2930 3880

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

i7-3630QM 6392
+189%
Celeron N2930 2214

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

i7-3630QM 8.42
+224%
Celeron N2930 27.25

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

i7-3630QM 6
+308%
Celeron N2930 2

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

i7-3630QM 1.41
+244%
Celeron N2930 0.41

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

i7-3630QM 3.1
+1192%
Celeron N2930 0.2

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

i7-3630QM 4491
+280%
Celeron N2930 1181

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

i7-3630QM 35
+279%
Celeron N2930 9

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

i7-3630QM 137
+192%
Celeron N2930 47

Geekbench 2

i7-3630QM 9799
+230%
Celeron N2930 2968

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.31 0.66
Recency 30 September 2012 23 February 2014
Threads 8 4
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 7 Watt

i7-3630QM has a 401.5% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more threads.

Celeron N2930, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 542.9% lower power consumption.

The Core i7-3630QM is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2930 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-3630QM and Celeron N2930, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core i7-3630QM
Core i7-3630QM
Intel Celeron N2930
Celeron N2930

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 925 votes

Rate Core i7-3630QM on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 56 votes

Rate Celeron N2930 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i7-3630QM or Celeron N2930, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.