Intel Celeron G6900T vs Intel Core i7-3630QM Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Celeron G6900T records an average benchmark score of 1321, while the Intel Core i7-3630QM sits at 1289. The Celeron leads by a small margin of roughly 2.5%.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: The Core i7-3630QM wins all four multi-core Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 4364 versus the Celeron's 3117, a 28.6% advantage. The gap is consistent at about 28.5% across R15, R20, and R23.

Q: Which processor wins in Geekbench single-core performance?

A: The Celeron G6900T dominates single-core Geekbench with a score of 1422 against the i7-3630QM's 633, a massive 124.6% lead. This is the largest performance gap in either direction across all recorded tests.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each part?

A: The Celeron G6900T has 2 cores and 2 threads. The Core i7-3630QM has 4 cores and 8 threads, giving it four times the thread count.

Q: Which processor is still in production?

A: The Intel Celeron G6900T is listed as "Active" in production status, while the Intel Core i7-3630QM is marked "End-of-life."

Q: What is the process node for each CPU?

A: The Celeron G6900T is built on Intel's 10 nm process, while the Core i7-3630QM uses a 22 nm process. This represents a significant generational manufacturing difference.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Celeron G6900T belongs to the Alder Lake family, specifically the Alder Lake-S desktop variant. It uses Intel's 10 nm process node and is designed for the Intel Socket 1700 platform. This is a modern, actively produced desktop chip.

The Intel Core i7-3630QM is a mobile processor from the Ivy Bridge generation, using a 22 nm process. It fits into Intel Socket G2 (988B) and is now end-of-life. The transistor count for the i7-3630QM is recorded at 1,480 million, with a die size of 160 mm². No transistor or die size data exists for the Celeron in the database.

The cache layouts differ notably. The Celeron uses 80 KB L1 per core and 1.25 MB L2 per core, with a shared 4 MB L3 cache. The i7-3630QM uses 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core, with a larger shared 6 MB L3. Despite having fewer cores, the Celeron's per-core L2 is substantially larger.

Integrated graphics also separate the two. The Celeron carries UHD Graphics 710, while the i7-3630QM has Intel HD 4000. Memory support diverges completely: the Celeron supports DDR4 and DDR5, whereas the i7-3630QM is limited to DDR3. The i7-3630QM has a recorded memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s, while the Celeron has no listed bandwidth figure.

PCIe generation differs as well. The Celeron supports PCIe Gen 5, while the i7-3630QM uses PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The i7-3630QM's base clock is 2.40 GHz with a boost clock of 3.40 GHz; the Celeron's base clock is 2.80 GHz with no boost clock recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i7-3630QM wins in every Cinebench multi-core test, which aligns with its 4-core, 8-thread configuration. It also wins all single-core Cinebench tests, despite the Celeron's higher base clock. This suggests the i7-3630QM's older architecture still delivers competitive rendering performance in these specific workloads.

The Celeron G6900T wins both Geekbench tests. Its single-core Geekbench score is more than double that of the i7-3630QM, a 124.6% difference. The multi-core Geekbench result also favors the Celeron, with a 16.5% lead. This indicates a clear split in benchmark methodology: Cinebench favors the i7-3630QM, while Geekbench favors the Celeron.

The i7-3630QM wins 5 of the 7 head-to-head tests, but the Celeron's two wins are decisive, particularly in single-core Geekbench. The Celeron's modern architecture appears to excel in certain integer and memory-latency-sensitive workloads, while the i7-3630QM's extra cores and threads dominate sustained multi-threaded rendering.

Specification Differences

• Cores: Celeron G6900T has 2, i7-3630QM has 4
• Threads: Celeron G6900T has 2, i7-3630QM has 8
• Base Clock: Celeron G6900T at 2.80 GHz, i7-3630QM at 2.40 GHz
• Boost Clock: Not recorded for Celeron, i7-3630QM boosts to 3.40 GHz
• TDP: Celeron G6900T at 35, i7-3630QM at 45
• Socket: Celeron G6900T uses Intel Socket 1700, i7-3630QM uses Intel Socket G2 (988B)
• Architecture: Celeron G6900T is Alder Lake, i7-3630QM is Ivy Bridge
• Process Node: Celeron G6900T at 10 nm, i7-3630QM at 22 nm
• Transistors: Not recorded for Celeron, i7-3630QM has 1,480 million
• Die Size: Not recorded for Celeron, i7-3630QM has 160 mm²
• L1 Cache: 80 KB per core for Celeron, 64 KB per core for i7-3630QM
• L2 Cache: 1.25 MB per core for Celeron, 256 KB per core for i7-3630QM
• L3 Cache: 4 MB shared for Celeron, 6 MB shared for i7-3630QM
• Memory Support: DDR4/DDR5 for Celeron, DDR3 for i7-3630QM
• Memory Bandwidth: Not recorded for Celeron, 25.6 GB/s for i7-3630QM
• PCIe: Gen 5 for Celeron, Gen 3 (16 lanes CPU only) for i7-3630QM
• Integrated Graphics: UHD Graphics 710 for Celeron, Intel HD 4000 for i7-3630QM
• Market Segment: Desktop for Celeron, Mobile for i7-3630QM
• Production Status: Active for Celeron, End-of-life for i7-3630QM
• Release Date: 2022-01-03 for Celeron, 2012-09-29 for i7-3630QM
• Launch MSRP: $42 for Celeron, $378 for i7-3630QM
• Part Number: SRL68 for Celeron, SR0UX for i7-3630QM
• Multiplier Unlocked: False for both

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The i7-3630QM establishes a consistent lead across all four Cinebench multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 439 against the Celeron's 314, a 28.5% advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 1832 versus 1309, also a 28.5% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core records 4364 versus 3117, a 28.6% difference. These figures confirm that the i7-3630QM's additional cores and threads provide a steady rendering advantage.

Single-core Cinebench results also favor the i7-3630QM. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 258 against 184, a 28.7% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core follows the same pattern: 616 versus 440, a 28.6% gap. Despite the Celeron's higher base clock of 2.80 GHz versus 2.40 GHz, the i7-3630QM's boost clock of 3.40 GHz and older architecture still outperforms in these tests.

The Celeron G6900T turns the tables in Geekbench. In Geekbench multi-core, it scores 2460 against 2111, a 16.5% win. The single-core Geekbench result is far more dramatic: 1422 versus 633, a 124.6% margin. This is the single largest delta in the entire comparison. The Celeron's modern Alder Lake design clearly excels in Geekbench's workload mix, likely benefiting from its 10 nm process and significantly larger per-core L2 cache.

The overall win count sits at 5 for the i7-3630QM and 2 for the Celeron G6900T. However, the magnitude of the Celeron's Geekbench single-core victory outweighs the relatively narrow multi-core margins in Cinebench, making the performance profile highly workload-dependent.

The Verdict

The Intel Core i7-3630QM is the stronger choice for multi-threaded rendering workloads. Its 4-core, 8-thread configuration delivers consistent 28.5% to 28.7% advantages across all Cinebench tests, both multi-core and single-core. Users running Cinebench-style applications should select the i7-3630QM without hesitation.

The Intel Celeron G6900T is the better option for Geekbench-centric tasks. Its single-core Geekbench score of 1422 is more than double the i7-3630QM's 633, and its multi-core Geekbench result is 16.5% higher. This chip also offers modern platform features: DDR4/DDR5 memory support, PCIe Gen 5, a smaller 10 nm process, and a significantly lower 35 TDP compared to 45.

The i7-3630QM carries a launch MSRP of $378, while the Celeron G6900T lists at $42. The production status also differs: the Celeron is active, the i7-3630QM is end-of-life. For new system builds, the Celeron's active status and modern socket compatibility make it the more practical long-term choice. For legacy mobile systems or applications heavily reliant on Cinebench rendering, the i7-3630QM remains competitive despite its age.

The database's percentile ranking places both processors at the 35th percentile among all CPUs, indicating they occupy similar overall performance tiers. The nearest rivals for the Celeron include the Intel Core i5-4570R at 0.2% higher average score and the Intel Core i5-2500K at 0.6% lower. The i7-3630QM's closest competitors are the Intel Core i5-3570 and i5-3570K, both within 0.3% of its average score. These proximity figures show that neither chip is an outlier in its performance class.

In summary, pick the Celeron G6900T for Geekbench-sensitive applications, modern platform features, and lower power consumption. Pick the Core i7-3630QM for Cinebench-heavy workloads and when the extra threads matter more than architectural modernity. The data does not support a universal winner; the correct choice depends entirely on the target benchmark suite.