
A10-9700

Core i7-2630QM
A10-9700 vs Core i7-2630QM Performance Spectrum
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
A10-9700 vs Core i7-2630QM FPS Benchmarks
Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.
Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
A10-9700 vs Core i7-2630QM: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
A10-9700
2017Why buy it
- β +0.1% higher PassMark.
- β Costs $209 less on MSRP ($169 MSRP vs $378 MSRP).
- β Delivers 124.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 21.0 vs 9.4 PassMark/$ ($169 MSRP vs $378 MSRP).
- β Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i7-2630QM.
Trade-offs
- βWorse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i7-2630QM across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- β44.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 45W.
Core i7-2630QM
2011Why buy it
- β Better for gaming: +3.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- β Draws 45W instead of 65W, a 20W reduction.
- β 100% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- βLower PassMark (3,550 vs 3,555).
- βLower PassMark per dollar, at 9.4 vs 21.0 PassMark/$ ($378 MSRP vs $169 MSRP).
- βNo boxed cooler included, unlike A10-9700.
Quick Answers
So, is A10-9700 better than Core i7-2630QM?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
A10-9700 vs Core i7-2630QM Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

A10-9700
The A10-9700 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 27 July 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Bristol Ridge (2016β2019) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 3,555 points. Launch price was $90.

Core i7-2630QM
The Core i7-2630QM is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 January 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011β2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2.9 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333. Passmark benchmark score: 3,550 points. Launch price was $378.
Processing Power
The A10-9700 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, matching the Core i7-2630QM's 4 cores. Boost clocks reach 3.8 GHz on the A10-9700 versus 2.9 GHz on the Core i7-2630QM β a 26.9% clock advantage for the A10-9700 (base: 3.5 GHz vs 2 GHz). The A10-9700 uses the Bristol Ridge (2016β2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Core i7-2630QM uses Sandy Bridge (2011β2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A10-9700 scores 3,555 against the Core i7-2630QM's 3,550 β a 0.1% lead for the A10-9700. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A10-9700 vs 6 MB (total) on the Core i7-2630QM.
| Feature | A10-9700 | Core i7-2630QM |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 4 / 4 | 4 / 8 |
| Boost Clock | 3.8 GHz+31% | 2.9 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.5 GHz+75% | 2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 6 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 2048 kB+700% | 256K (per core) |
| Process | 28 nm-13% | 32 nm |
| Architecture | Bristol Ridge (2016β2019) | Sandy Bridge (2011β2013) |
| PassMark | 3,555 | 3,550 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 642 | β |
Memory & Platform
The A10-9700 uses the AM4 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i7-2630QM uses PGA988 (PCIe 2.0) β making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2400 on the A10-9700 versus 1600 on the Core i7-2630QM β the A10-9700 supports 50% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A10-9700 supports up to 64 GB of RAM compared to 32 GB β 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 8 (A10-9700) vs 16 (Core i7-2630QM) β the Core i7-2630QM offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: A320,B350,X370 (A10-9700) and HM65,HM67,QM67,QS67 (Core i7-2630QM).
| Feature | A10-9700 | Core i7-2630QM |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM4 | PGA988 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0+50% | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2400+50% | 1600 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 64 GB+100% | 32 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | No | No |
| PCIe Lanes | 8 | 16+100% |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A10-9700) vs true (Core i7-2630QM). Both include integrated graphics β Radeon R7 (A10-9700) and Intel HD Graphics 3000 (Core i7-2630QM) β useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A10-9700 targets Budget. Direct competitor: A10-9700 rivals Pentium G4560; Core i7-2630QM rivals AMD A8-3510MX.
| Feature | A10-9700 | Core i7-2630QM |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | Yes |
| IGPU Model | Radeon R7 | Intel HD Graphics 3000 |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | true |
| Target Use | Budget | β |
Value Analysis
At launch, the A10-9700 was priced at $169, while the Core i7-2630QM came in at $378. On launch pricing ($169 vs $378), A10-9700 was $209 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the A10-9700 delivers 21.0 pts/$ vs 9.4 pts/$ for the Core i7-2630QM β making the A10-9700 the 76.5% better value option.
| Feature | A10-9700 | Core i7-2630QM |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $169-55% | $378 |
| Performance per Dollar | 21.0+123% | 9.4 |
| Release Date | 2017 | 2011 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
















