Intel Core i3-10110U vs Intel Core i7-3612QM Comparison

The Intel Core i3-10110U and Intel Core i7-3612QM represent two distinct eras of Intel mobile computing, yet they land in the same performance percentile. Both processors sit at the 32nd percentile among all CPUs, with nearly identical average benchmark scores: 1131 for the i3-10110U and 1129 for the i7-3612QM. This statistical parity, however, masks fundamentally different strengths. The i3-10110U, a 2-core Comet Lake part from 2019, dominates in single-threaded workloads and Geekbench tests, while the i7-3612QM, a 4-core Ivy Bridge part from 2012, takes the lead in multi-threaded Cinebench rendering. The data reveals a classic trade-off between modern architectural efficiency and raw core count.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-10110U is the clear victor in single-threaded and latency-sensitive applications. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 162 against the i7-3612QM’s 55, a massive 194.5% advantage. Geekbench single-core results tell the same story, with the i3-10110U posting 1174 versus 501, a 134.3% lead. This performance gap stems from the i3’s higher 4.10 GHz boost clock compared to the i7’s 3.10 GHz, combined with the newer Comet Lake microarchitecture. For everyday tasks like web browsing, office productivity, and light coding, the i3-10110U provides noticeably snappier response times. The Geekbench multicore result also favors the i3-10110U, scoring 2143 against the i7-3612QM’s 1691, a 26.7% win, despite having half the physical cores. This suggests that the i3’s superior per-core performance can overcome its core deficit in certain mixed workloads.

The Intel Core i7-3612QM is the winner in sustained multi-threaded rendering workloads. It outperforms the i3-10110U in every Cinebench multicore test: R15 multicore (397 vs 326, a 17.9% lead), R20 multicore (1656 vs 1359, 17.9%), and R23 multicore (3944 vs 3236, 18%). The i7’s 4 cores and 8 threads provide a decisive advantage when all cores are fully utilized, as in video encoding, 3D rendering, and batch photo processing. Interestingly, the i7 also wins the Cinebench R20 and R23 single-core tests, scoring 233 and 556 respectively, compared to the i3’s 191 and 456, an 18% margin in both. This is counterintuitive given the i3’s higher boost clock, but the benchmark data is unambiguous. The i7-3612QM’s wins in 5 of the 8 head-to-head benchmarks make it the more versatile choice for professional content creation, provided the software can leverage multiple threads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different silicon. The i3-10110U uses Intel’s 14 nm Comet Lake-U process, while the i7-3612QM uses the older 22 nm Ivy Bridge node. This process gap explains the i3’s lower 25 W TDP despite its higher clock speeds, versus the i7’s 35 W TDP. The i7-3612QM’s larger 160 mm² die contains 1,400 million transistors, whereas the i3-10110U’s die size and transistor count are not specified. Cache hierarchies also differ: both share 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the i7 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache versus the i3’s 4 MB. The i7’s 50% larger L3 cache helps feed its four cores, though the i3’s smaller cache is paired with a more efficient memory controller supporting both DDR3 and DDR4, while the i7’s memory support is unspecified but uses a dual-channel memory bus.

The integrated graphics differ as well: the i3-10110U ships with UHD Graphics, while the i7-3612QM has Intel HD 4000. Socket compatibility is completely separate, with the i3 using Intel BGA 1440 and the i7 using Intel Socket G2 (988B), meaning they cannot be swapped into the same motherboard. The i3 is designated as end-of-life, while the i7’s production status is not listed. Both have locked multipliers, so neither supports overclocking. The i7’s part number is SR0MQ, and its release date is 2012-04-28, while the i3 launched 2019-08-20, a gap of over seven years that highlights the architectural leap between them.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock, and how does that affect real-world performance?

A: The Intel Core i3-10110U has a 4.10 GHz boost clock versus the i7-3612QM’s 3.10 GHz. This 1 GHz advantage directly contributes to the i3’s 194.5% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core and 134.3% lead in Geekbench single-core, making it significantly faster for tasks that rely on a single thread.

Q: Why does the i7-3612QM win in Cinebench multicore despite having a lower clock speed?

A: The i7-3612QM has double the cores (4 vs 2) and double the threads (8 vs 4) of the i3-10110U. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the i7 scores 3944 versus the i3’s 3236, an 18% advantage, because rendering workloads scale well with core count, overcoming the i7’s clock speed disadvantage.

Q: Which processor is better for Geekbench multicore?

A: The i3-10110U wins Geekbench multicore with a score of 2143 against the i7-3612QM’s 1691, a 26.7% margin. This indicates that the i3’s modern architecture and high clocks are more effective in Geekbench’s mixed workload, which may not fully utilize all eight threads of the i7.

Q: Are these processors interchangeable in the same laptop?

A: No. The i3-10110U uses the Intel BGA 1440 socket, while the i7-3612QM uses Intel Socket G2 (988B). These are physically incompatible, and they also use different memory types and have different integrated graphics, so they cannot be swapped between systems.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The i3-10110U has a 25 W TDP, while the i7-3612QM has a 35 W TDP. The i3’s lower power draw is a result of its 14 nm process node, which is more efficient than the i7’s 22 nm node, despite the i3 having a higher boost clock.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: The i7-3612QM has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i3-10110U has 4 MB. Both have 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core. The i7’s larger L3 helps manage data for its four cores, though the i3’s smaller cache is paired with faster individual cores.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-10110U | Intel Core i7-3612QM |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 2 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Boost Clock | 4.10 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| TDP | 25 W | 35 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1440 | Intel Socket G2 (988B) |

| Architecture | Comet Lake | Ivy Bridge |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 22 nm |

| Transistors | Not specified | 1,400 million |

| Die Size | Not specified | 160 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 4 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3, DDR4 | Not specified |

| Memory Bus | Not specified | Dual-channel |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics | Intel HD 4000 |

| Release Date | 2019-08-20 | 2012-04-28 |

| Part Number | Not specified | SR0MQ |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single-core Cinebench R15 result is the most dramatic divergence. The i3-10110U scores 162, while the i7-3612QM manages only 55, giving the i3 a 194.5% advantage. This is the largest delta in any benchmark, reflecting the i3’s much higher boost clock and superior IPC. Geekbench single-core follows a similar pattern, with the i3 at 1174 and the i7 at 501, a 134.3% lead. These results make the i3-10110U the obvious choice for older or single-threaded software that cannot utilize multiple cores.

The multicore results flip the script. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the i7-3612QM scores 1656 against the i3’s 1359, an 17.9% win. The R23 multicore test shows a nearly identical margin, with the i7 at 3944 and the i3 at 3236, an 18% difference. The i7 also wins the single-core versions of these newer Cinebench tests by 18% (R20: 233 vs 191; R23: 556 vs 456), which is anomalous compared to the R15 single-core result. This inconsistency suggests that the newer Cinebench versions may be more sensitive to the i7’s larger L3 cache or memory subsystem.

Geekbench multicore is the outlier, where the i3-10110U wins decisively at 2143 versus 1691, a 26.7% margin. This is the only multicore test the i3 wins, and it shows that the i3’s high single-thread performance can dominate in workloads that are not perfectly parallelized. Overall, the i7-3612QM wins 5 of 8 benchmarks, but the i3-10110U’s wins are larger in magnitude. The data suggests that for users running modern, well-threaded applications, the i7’s extra cores provide a steady advantage, while for general responsiveness and legacy software, the i3 is superior.