OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core i7-2960XM review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£920PassMark multi-core score:4646N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.7 GHzCPU socket:FCPGA988TDP (Thermal design power):55 W

Intel Core i7-2960XM Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 1 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i7-2960XM
5.3/10

Overall score

Score
5.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

40%

4.2

Technical score

25%

4.2

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 93% of processors
5.4

Value for money

Value for money
5.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

70%

5.3

Overall score

30%

5.7

Price

â–¼Worse than 99%
4.2

Technical score

Technical score
4.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components

60%

3.9

Performance

18%

3.8

Architecture

10%

4.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 79%
4.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models

4.2

Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.6

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 87%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • intel-core-i7-2960xm
intel-core-i7-2960xm
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i7-2960XM

Technical score
Technical score
4.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components:

60%

3.9

Performance

18%

3.8

Architecture

10%

4.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated graphics

4.2
Reviews score
4.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components:

70%

5.3

Overall score

30%

5.7

Price

5.4
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FCPGA988
This processor uses the FCPGA988 CPU socket, which is older than that of 64.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% of processors.
Chipset
?
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AES
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 73% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 33.4% of processors and equal to 18.8% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.7 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.7 GHz which is lower than that of 74.2% of processors and equal to that of 3.6% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.7 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.7 GHz which is lower than that of 65.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
4,646
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 4,646 in PassMark, which is lower than 74.9% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
32 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 32 nm process node, which is older than that of 97.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 32 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 32 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 97.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
L3 cache
8 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 8 MB which is smaller than that of 50.7% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 68.3% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3
This processor supports DDR DDR3, which is older than that of 86.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.3% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,600 MHz, which is lower than that of 87.7% of processors and equal to 10.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1600 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-1600 MHz, which is lower than that of 89.1% of processors and equal to 8.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 73% of processors and equal to 18.9% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 3000
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 3000 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 70.5% of processors and equal to that in 0.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
12
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 12 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 62.7% of processors and equal to 9.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
650 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 650 MHz which is higher than that of 80.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.5% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 51.6% of processors and equal to 4.7% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
55 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 55 W which is higher than that of 61.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
55 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 55 W which is higher than that of 61.8% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core i7-2960XM vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 3.2x faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,275.3 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,275.3 vs 398.015
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 85.7% higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (650 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    650 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 3.2x faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,275.3 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,275.3 vs 398.015
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 85.7% higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (650 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    650 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 37.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models

    4.2

    Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.2 vs 6.7
  • 38.3% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,578 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,578 vs 2,558
  • 62% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (583 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    583 vs 1,535
  • 59.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,646 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,646 vs 11,469
  • 63.4% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1904 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,904 vs 5,209
  • 15.9% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 2.67x larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (32 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    32 nm vs 12 nm
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 37.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models

    4.2

    Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.2 vs 6.7
  • 34.5% worse value for money
    Intel Core i7-2960XM has worse value for money than the average processor (5.42 vs 7.3).
    5.42 vs 7.29
  • 3.68x more expensive
    Intel Core i7-2960XM is more expensive than the average processor (£920 vs £250).
    £920 vs £250
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, TXT, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, TXT, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 9 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2011 vs 2020).
    September 2011
    2011 vs 2020
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 38.3% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,578 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,578 vs 2,558
  • 62% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (583 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    583 vs 1,535
  • 59.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,646 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,646 vs 11,469
  • 63.4% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1904 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,904 vs 5,209
  • 15.9% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.7 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.7 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 2.67x larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (32 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    32 nm vs 12 nm
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Sandy Bridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Sandy Bridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1 MB vs 3 MB
  • 50% less L2 per core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 22% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (216 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    216 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 76.6% fewer transistors
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.2 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    1.16 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • Less advanced foundry
    This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 32 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 32 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 50% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    1,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 45.4% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (25.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    25.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • Older PCIe version
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-1600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3-1,600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 50% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 3000 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel HD Graphics 3,000 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 50% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (12 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    12 vs 24
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 22.2% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (55 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    55 W vs 45 W
  • 22.2% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (55 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    55 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Overview video
Shop video
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
notebookcheck.net
≈ estimated
21/09/2011
Lab test · Laptop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i7-2960XM is the top laptop Sandy Bridge chip, nearly twice as fast as the dual-core 2640M in rendering, but it draws more power under load.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i7-2960XM

  • Extreme high performance for its generation, capable of handling demanding tasks like HD video editing and 3D gaming in 2011
  • Unlocked multiplier allows for easy overclocking, a key feature for enthusiasts and gamers
  • Large 8MB L3 cache and Hyper-Threading (8 threads) significantly boost multitasking and rendering speeds
  • Integrated Intel HD Graphics 3000 offers improved performance over previous mobile generations
  • Support for hardware virtualization (VT-x and VT-d) enhances virtual machine efficiency

What customers don't like about Intel Core i7-2960XM

  • High Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 55W limits its use to large, heavy laptops with robust cooling systems
  • Significantly higher power consumption (approx. 20% more) compared to contemporary non-extreme quad-core models
  • Very high original MSRP (over $1,000) made it inaccessible for mainstream users
  • Technologically outdated by modern standards, no longer competitive with newer mid-range or even budget mobile processors
  • Increased heat output can lead to thermal throttling if the laptop's cooling system is not perfectly maintained

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-2960XM is a high-end quad-core mobile processor from the Sandy Bridge architecture, launched in Q4 2011, featuring 4 cores, 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, and an 8MB L3 cache. It operates at a base frequency of 2.70 GHz with a Max Turbo frequency of 3.70 GHz and includes integrated Intel HD Graphics 3000. Its primary pros include an unlocked multiplier for easy overclocking, high performance that rivalled desktop chips of its era for demanding tasks like HD video editing, and support for up to 32GB of DDR3-1600 memory. However, it carries significant cons such as a high 55W TDP that requires substantial cooling, making it suitable only for large laptops, and its lack of support for newer standards like PCIe 3.0 or modern Windows 10/11 features.

Compare Intel Core i7-2960XM with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i7-2960XM and other processors

No results found