Core i7-2640M vs Core i7-3667U

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 i7-2640M vs Core i7-3667U 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 i7-2640M vs Core i7-3667U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i7-2640M

2011

Why buy it

✅Draws 35W instead of 512W, a 477W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,445 vs 2,451).
❌Launch MSRP is still $346 MSRP, while Core i7-3667U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Core i7-3667U

2012

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌1362.9% higher power demand at 512W vs 35W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-2640M better than Core i7-3667U?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core i7-2640M is ahead with a 2.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core i7-3667U pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i7-3667U is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i7-2640M is the better buy right now. Core i7-2640M comes in at an unclear MSRP at $346 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Core i7-3667U is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.2% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (7.1 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Core i7-3667U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i7-2640M vs Core i7-3667U Technical Specifications

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

Core i7-2640M

The Core i7-2640M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 September 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,445 points. Launch price was $346.

Core i7-3667U

The Core i7-3667U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 June 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,451 points. Launch price was $346.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core i7-2640M and Core i7-3667U share an identical 2-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.5 GHz on the Core i7-2640M versus 3.2 GHz on the Core i7-3667U — a 9% clock advantage for the Core i7-2640M (base: 2.8 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Core i7-2640M uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Core i7-3667U uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-2640M scores 2,445 against the Core i7-3667U's 2,451 — a 0.2% lead for the Core i7-3667U. L3 cache: 4 MB on the Core i7-2640M vs 4 MB (total) on the Core i7-3667U.

Feature	Core i7-2640M	Core i7-3667U
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 4
Boost Clock	3.5 GHz+9%	3.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.8 GHz+40%	2 GHz
L3 Cache	4 MB	4 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512 kB+100%	256K (per core)
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	2,445	2,451
Geekbench 6 Single	563	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	1,184	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-2640M uses the PGA988 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core i7-3667U uses BGA1023 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 1333 on the Core i7-2640M versus 1600 on the Core i7-3667U — the Core i7-3667U supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i7-3667U supports up to 32 of RAM compared to 16 — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: HM65,HM67,QM67,QS67 (Core i7-2640M) and HM76,UM77,QM77,QS77 (Core i7-3667U).

Feature	Core i7-2640M	Core i7-3667U
Socket	PGA988	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	1333	1600+20%
Max RAM Capacity	16	32+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support true virtualization. Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics 3000 (Core i7-2640M) and Intel HD Graphics 4000 (Core i7-3667U) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core i7-2640M rivals Phenom II Black Edition N660; Core i7-3667U rivals AMD A10-4655M.