Intel Core i3-3250T vs Intel Core i7-3537U Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear, consistent pattern across every recorded workload: the Intel Core i3-3250T wins all five head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core i7-3537U. The margins are remarkably uniform, hovering in the 12% to 13% range across both single-threaded and multi-threaded tests.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i3-3250T scores 226 against the i7-3537U's 201, a 12.4% advantage. The Cinebench R20 multicore test shows a similar gap, with the i3-3250T at 945 and the i7-3537U at 839, a 12.6% delta. Moving to Cinebench R23 multicore, the i3-3250T posts 2252 versus 1998 for the i7-3537U, again a 12.7% lead. These results indicate that in heavily threaded workloads, the desktop-oriented i3 maintains a consistent edge over the mobile i7.

Single-core performance tells the same story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i3-3250T scores 133, while the i7-3537U manages 118, a 12.7% difference. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the i3-3250T at 318 versus 282 for the i7-3537U, a 12.8% margin. This consistency across both single and multi-threaded tests suggests the performance gap is rooted in fundamental clock and power characteristics rather than workload-specific scaling.

The i7-3537U does have additional benchmark entries in the database, including Geekbench scores of 1269 multicore and 658 single-core, but these tests have no corresponding i3-3250T results for direct comparison. The available head-to-head data remains entirely in favor of the i3-3250T, with five wins and zero losses. The average benchmark score for the i3-3250T is 775, compared to 766 for the i7-3537U, reinforcing the overall trend despite the i7 having more recorded tests.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, both processors sit at the 21st percentile among all CPUs in the database. The i3-3250T's nearest rivals include the Intel Celeron G5920 at an identical average score of 775, the Intel Pentium Silver J5005 at 776 (just 0.1% higher), and the AMD Athlon X4 760K at 777 (0.2% higher). The i7-3537U's nearest rivals are the AMD A8-6600K at 764 (0.3% lower), the Intel Core i3-3240 at 761 (0.7% lower), and the Intel Core i5-680 at 772 (0.8% higher). Both chips occupy a similar performance tier, but the i3-3250T sits marginally higher within that tier.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental architecture: Ivy Bridge on a 22 nm process node, built by Intel. They are both dual-core parts with Hyper-Threading, yielding 2 cores and 4 threads. The L1 cache is identical at 64 KB per core, as is the L2 cache at 256 KB per core. Both support DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The differences begin with the L3 cache. The i3-3250T has 3 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i7-3537U has 4 MB. This 1 MB difference is modest but could contribute to the i7's relatively competitive showing in certain cache-sensitive workloads, though the benchmark data does not isolate this effect.

The integrated graphics also differ. The i3-3250T pairs with Intel HD 2500, while the i7-3537U includes Intel HD 4000. This represents a meaningful upgrade for the mobile part, offering better integrated graphics performance for tasks like video playback or light gaming, though neither chip is designed for serious GPU workloads.

The physical packages are completely different. The i3-3250T uses Intel Socket 1155, a desktop platform, while the i7-3537U uses Intel BGA 1023, a soldered mobile package. This is reflected in the die sizes: the i3-3250T measures 94 mm², while the i7-3537U is larger at 118 mm². The larger die size for the i7-3537U likely accommodates the additional L3 cache and the more capable HD 4000 graphics engine.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The i3-3250T has a base clock of 3.00 GHz with no boost capability, meaning it runs at a fixed frequency. The i7-3537U has a much lower base clock of 2000.00 MHz but can boost up to 3.20 GHz when thermal headroom allows. In the benchmark results, the i3-3250T's constant 3.00 GHz appears to outperform the i7-3537U's turbo-boosted operation, suggesting that the mobile chip rarely sustains its maximum boost in these workloads.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The i3-3250T has a TDP of 35 watts, while the i7-3537U is rated at just 17 watts. This makes the i7-3537U significantly more power-efficient, which is expected given its mobile positioning. The i3-3250T uses more power to achieve higher performance, while the i7-3537U trades performance for efficiency.

PCIe support is another difference. The i3-3250T offers PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the i7-3537U has no listed PCIe information in the database. Memory bandwidth is listed for the i3-3250T at 25.6 GB/s, while the i7-3537U has no recorded memory bandwidth figure.

The market segments are clearly distinct: the i3-3250T is a desktop part, while the i7-3537U is a mobile processor. The i3-3250T is marked as end-of-life in production status, while the i7-3537U has no production status recorded. Release dates differ as well, with the i3-3250T launching on June 8, 2013, and the i7-3537U launching earlier on January 7, 2013.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Core i3-3250T consistently outperforms the Intel Core i7-3537U in multi-threaded tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i3-3250T scores 226 versus 201 for the i7-3537U, a 12.4% advantage. The margin grows slightly in Cinebench R20 multicore (945 versus 839, 12.6%) and Cinebench R23 multicore (2252 versus 1998, 12.7%).

Q: Does the i7-3537U's higher boost clock help it win any benchmarks?

A: No. Despite having a boost clock of 3.20 GHz, the i7-3537U loses every recorded head-to-head benchmark. The i3-3250T, running at a fixed 3.00 GHz with no boost, wins all five comparisons, including both single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i3-3250T scores 318 versus 282 for the i7-3537U, a 12.8% lead.

Q: How do these processors compare in terms of power consumption?

A: The i7-3537U is significantly more power-efficient, with a TDP of 17 watts compared to 35 watts for the i3-3250T. This makes the i7-3537U better suited for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and heat dissipation are critical, while the i3-3250T's higher power budget reflects its desktop orientation.

Q: Are these processors architecturally similar?

A: Yes, both are built on Intel's Ivy Bridge architecture using a 22 nm process node. They share the same core and thread counts (2 cores, 4 threads), identical L1 and L2 cache sizes, and both support dual-channel DDR3 memory. The main architectural differences are the L3 cache size (3 MB for the i3-3250T, 4 MB for the i7-3537U) and the integrated graphics (Intel HD 2500 versus Intel HD 4000).

Q: What performance tier do these chips occupy relative to other CPUs?

A: Both processors are at the 21st percentile among all CPUs in the database. The i3-3250T has an average benchmark score of 775, while the i7-3537U averages 766. Their nearest rivals are comparable mid-range parts from both Intel and AMD, with the i3-3250T matching the Intel Celeron G5920 exactly and the i7-3537U closely trailing the Intel Core i3-3240 by 0.7%.

Q: Can the i7-3537U be used in a desktop system?

A: The i7-3537U uses Intel BGA 1023, a soldered mobile socket, making it unsuitable for standard desktop motherboards. The i3-3250T uses Intel Socket 1155, which is a traditional desktop socket. This fundamental platform difference means the two chips are not interchangeable.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-3250T | Intel Core i7-3537U |

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

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 2000.00 MHz |

| Boost Clock | None | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 17 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1155 | Intel BGA 1023 |

| L3 Cache | 3 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |

| Die Size | 94 mm² | 118 mm² |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 2500 | Intel HD 4000 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Not listed |

| Memory Bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | Not listed |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2013-06-08 | 2013-01-07 |

| Part Number | SR0YW | SR0XG |

The two processors share several specifications: both are dual-core with 4 threads, both use 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 cache per core, both support DDR3 dual-channel memory, neither supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. Both are manufactured on Intel's 22 nm Ivy Bridge process.

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward choice depending on the use case. For raw performance in traditional desktop workloads, the Intel Core i3-3250T is the clear winner, taking every head-to-head benchmark by margins between 12.4% and 12.8%. Its higher fixed clock speed of 3.00 GHz proves more effective than the i7-3537U's boost strategy, which peaks at 3.20 GHz but cannot sustain that level in the recorded tests. The i3-3250T also benefits from a larger power envelope, drawing 35 watts compared to 17 watts, which allows it to maintain consistent performance.

However, the i7-3537U is not without its strengths. Its 17-watt TDP makes it substantially more power-efficient, and its mobile BGA package is designed for laptops where the i3-3250T's desktop socket cannot be used. The i7-3537U also offers 4 MB of L3 cache versus 3 MB, and its Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics are a significant step up from the i3-3250T's HD 2500. For a compact, power-sensitive mobile system, the i7-3537U is the only viable option between the two.

The benchmark database places both chips at the 21st percentile, indicating they occupy a similar performance class. The i3-3250T's average score of 775 edges out the i7-3537U's 766, and both sit near rivals like the Intel Celeron G5920 and AMD A8-6600K. The choice ultimately comes down to platform: desktop users should pick the i3-3250T for better performance, while mobile users have no option but the i7-3537U, accepting its lower benchmark scores in exchange for dramatically reduced power consumption. The i7-3537U's boost clock is a notable feature, but the data shows it does not translate into a performance win over the i3-3250T in any recorded workload.