Intel Core i3-1005G1 vs Intel Core i7-3615QM Comparison

The Verdict

The data delivers a clear split decision. The Intel Core i7-3615QM wins the majority of head-to-head benchmark comparisons, taking 6 of 8 tests, with particularly consistent margins in Cinebench workloads. However, the Intel Core i3-1005G1 counters with a decisive victory in Geekbench single-core performance, where it leads by a massive 95.5%.

For users prioritizing sustained multi-threaded rendering or encoding tasks, the Core i7-3615QM is the data-backed choice. Its 4 cores and 8 threads provide a structural advantage that shows up in every Cinebench test, with margins ranging from 7.2% to 8.1% in the older R15 suite and a steady 7.4% in both R20 and R23 multi-core and single-core runs.

Conversely, the Core i3-1005G1 is the pick for workloads that rely heavily on single-threaded responsiveness or Geekbench-measured tasks. Its Geekbench single-core score of 1083 versus 554 for the i7-3615QM is not a marginal edge; it is a near-doubling of performance. The i3 also wins Geekbench multi-core (1978 vs 1907), a 3.7% advantage, despite having half the physical cores.

The aggregate benchmark data shows these two are nearly inseparable overall. The i3-1005G1 posts an average benchmark score of 1265, while the i7-3615QM sits at 1260. The delta between them is 0.4%, placing them within the same performance tier in the database's percentile rankings (35th vs 34th percentile).

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design eras and philosophies. The Core i3-1005G1 is built on Intel's 10 nm process node using the Ice Lake architecture (Ice Lake-U codename, Sunny Cove-U generation). Its die size is 123 mm². In contrast, the Core i7-3615QM uses the older 22 nm process with the Ivy Bridge architecture, and its die is larger at 160 mm², containing 1,400 million transistors.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The i3-1005G1 is a dual-core part with 4 threads, while the i7-3615QM is a quad-core processor with 8 threads. This doubling of physical cores and threads is the primary structural reason the i7 wins most multi-threaded tests.

Cache hierarchies also differ. Both parts share 64 KB of L1 cache and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The key difference is in the shared L3 cache: the i3-1005G1 has 4 MB, while the i7-3615QM has 6 MB. This 50% larger L3 pool helps the older i7 mitigate its architectural disadvantage in some workloads.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The i3-1005G1 has a base clock of 1200 MHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz. The i7-3615QM runs at a higher 2.30 GHz base but a slightly lower 3.30 GHz boost. The i3's higher top-end frequency helps explain its single-core dominance, while the i7's higher base clock supports sustained multi-threaded throughput.

Power envelopes are drastically different. The i3-1005G1 is rated at 15 W TDP, making it a low-power part, while the i7-3615QM is rated at 45 W TDP. The i3's lower power draw comes with a smaller socket footprint (Intel BGA 1526 versus Intel BGA 1224). Integrated graphics also differ: the i3 ships with UHD Graphics, while the i7 has Intel HD 4000. Memory support is dual-channel for both, but only the i3 explicitly lists DDR4 support and a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s; the i7's memory support and bandwidth are not specified in the data.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-1005G1 has a marginally higher average benchmark score of 1265, compared to 1260 for the Intel Core i7-3615QM. This represents a 0.4% difference.

Q: Why does the Core i7-3615QM win Cinebench tests despite being older?

A: The i7-3615QM has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i3-1005G1 only has 2 cores and 4 threads. This doubling of cores provides a structural advantage in Cinebench's multi-threaded workloads, and the i7 also has a larger 6 MB L3 cache versus 4 MB on the i3.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Core i3-1005G1 wins decisively?

A: Yes, in Geekbench single-core testing, the i3-1005G1 scores 1083 versus 554 for the i7-3615QM, a 95.5% lead. The i3 also wins Geekbench multi-core by 3.7% (1978 vs 1907).

Q: What are the process node differences?

A: The Core i3-1005G1 is fabricated on a 10 nm process, while the Core i7-3615QM uses a 22 nm process. The i7's die is also larger at 160 mm² compared to 123 mm² for the i3.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The i3-1005G1 has a TDP of 15 W, which is significantly lower than the 45 W TDP of the i7-3615QM. This indicates the i3 is designed for more power-efficient mobile platforms.

Q: Which processor sits higher in the overall CPU percentile ranking?

A: The i3-1005G1 is at the 35th percentile of all CPUs, while the i7-3615QM is at the 34th percentile. Both are effectively in the same tier.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every core specification. The Core i3-1005G1 offers 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Core i7-3615QM doubles that with 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 1200 MHz for the i3 and 2.30 GHz for the i7. Boost clocks are closer, with the i3 at 3.40 GHz and the i7 at 3.30 GHz.

Process technology separates them by a full node generation: the i3 uses 10 nm, the i7 uses 22 nm. This corresponds to a die size difference of 123 mm² versus 160 mm². The i7 also has a transistor count of 1,400 million, a figure not listed for the i3. L3 cache is 4 MB on the i3 and 6 MB on the i7.

The socket types differ (Intel BGA 1526 for the i3, Intel BGA 1224 for the i7). TDP ratings are 15 W versus 45 W. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics on the i3 and Intel HD 4000 on the i7. Memory support explicitly lists DDR4 and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth for the i3, while the i7's memory support and bandwidth are absent from the data. PCIe generation is Gen 3 for the i3, and not specified for the i7. Release dates are separated by over seven years: the i3 launched on 2019-07-31, the i7 on 2012-04-28.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite tells a consistent story of i7-3615QM superiority. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i7 scores 442 versus 410 for the i3, a 7.2% lead. The single-core R15 test shows the i7 at 62 versus 57, an 8.1% margin. Moving to R20, the i7 again wins multi-core with 1845 against 1709 (7.4% lead) and single-core with 260 against 241 (7.3% lead). The R23 results mirror this pattern: multi-core is 4393 versus 4070 (7.4% lead), and single-core is 620 versus 574 (7.4% lead). Across all six Cinebench tests, the i7's advantage is remarkably stable, hovering between 7.2% and 8.1%.

The Geekbench results flip the script. In Geekbench single-core, the i3-1005G1 achieves 1083, while the i7-3615QM manages only 554. This 95.5% delta is the single largest margin in the entire comparison. The i3 also takes Geekbench multi-core with 1978 versus 1907, a 3.7% lead. This suggests the i3's modern architecture and higher boost clock of 3.40 GHz provide a substantial per-thread performance advantage that offsets its core deficit.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-3615QM is the clear winner for any workload that scales with core count and sustained throughput. Its victories in all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both multi-core and single-core, indicate strong performance in rendering, video encoding, and other compute-intensive tasks. The 45 W TDP and 4-core/8-thread configuration position it as a workhorse for applications that can utilize parallel processing. The larger 6 MB L3 cache also provides a buffering advantage in data-heavy scenarios.

The Intel Core i3-1005G1 wins where architecture efficiency and single-thread speed matter most. Its Geekbench single-core score of 1083 is nearly double that of the i7-3615QM, making it the better choice for lightly-threaded applications, web browsing, office productivity, and any software that relies on high per-core frequency. The 10 nm process and 15 W TDP also make it the more power-efficient option, suitable for thin-and-light laptops where battery life is a priority. Its Geekbench multi-core win, despite having half the cores, further demonstrates that its architectural efficiency can overcome raw core counts in certain workloads.