Core i5-6402P vs Core i7-4700MQ

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.

Core i5-6402P vs Core i7-4700MQ 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.

Core i5-6402P vs Core i7-4700MQ: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core i5-6402P

2015

Why buy it

✅Costs $201 less on MSRP ($182 MSRP vs $383 MSRP).
✅Delivers 110.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 29.4 vs 14.0 PassMark/$ ($182 MSRP vs $383 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i7-4700MQ across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (5,343 vs 5,349).
❌38.3% higher power demand at 65W vs 47W.

Core i7-4700MQ

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +16.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 47W instead of 65W, a 18W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.0 vs 29.4 PassMark/$ ($383 MSRP vs $182 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-4700MQ better than Core i5-6402P?

Yes. Core i7-4700MQ is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 16.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.1% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i7-4700MQ is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 16.3% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i7-4700MQ is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core i7-4700MQ is still the much better call for a fresh build. Core i7-4700MQ comes in 110.4% more expensive on MSRP at $383 MSRP versus $182 MSRP, and it still gives you a 16.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-6402P only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2015 platform. Even with 110.2% better value on paper (29.4 vs 14.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA1151.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core i5-6402P makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2013). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core i5-6402P vs Core i7-4700MQ Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core i5-6402P

The Core i5-6402P is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 27 December 2015 (9 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1866/2133, DDR3L-1333/1600. Passmark benchmark score: 5,343 points. Launch price was $187.

Core i7-4700MQ

The Core i7-4700MQ is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 27 May 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA946. Thermal design power (TDP): 47 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,349 points. Launch price was $288.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-6402P packs 4 cores / 4 threads, matching the Core i7-4700MQ's 4 cores. Boost clocks reach 3.4 GHz on the Core i5-6402P versus 3.4 GHz on the Core i7-4700MQ — identical boost frequencies (base: 2.8 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Core i5-6402P uses the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i7-4700MQ uses Haswell (2013−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-6402P scores 5,343 against the Core i7-4700MQ's 5,349 — a 0.1% lead for the Core i7-4700MQ. L3 cache: 6 MB on the Core i5-6402P vs 6 MB (total) on the Core i7-4700MQ.

Feature	Core i5-6402P	Core i7-4700MQ
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 8
Boost Clock	3.4 GHz	3.4 GHz
Base Clock	2.8 GHz+17%	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	6 MB	6 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB	256K (per core)+25500%
Process	14 nm-36%	22 nm
Architecture	Skylake (2015−2016)	Haswell (2013−2015)
PassMark	5,343	5,349

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-6402P uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i7-4700MQ uses PGA946 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-6402P	Core i7-4700MQ
Socket	LGA1151	PGA946
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i5-6402P was priced at $182, while the Core i7-4700MQ came in at $383. On launch pricing ($182 vs $383), Core i5-6402P was $201 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-6402P delivers 29.4 pts/$ vs 14.0 pts/$ for the Core i7-4700MQ — making the Core i5-6402P the 71.1% better value option.

Feature	Core i5-6402P	Core i7-4700MQ
MSRP	$182-52%	$383
Performance per Dollar	29.4+110%	14.0
Release Date	2015	2013

Search Core i5-6402P on Amazon

Search Core i7-4700MQ on Amazon

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.