Intel Core i3-4170 vs Intel Core i7-3632QM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database presents a striking asymmetry between these two processors. The Intel Core i7-3632QM wins six of the seven recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core i3-4170 manages only a single victory. The margins, however, tell a more nuanced story than the raw win count suggests.

In multi-threaded workloads, the i7-3632QM demonstrates overwhelming dominance. The Cinebench R15 multicore test shows the i7-3632QM scoring 406 against the i3-4170's 306, a 32.7% advantage. This pattern repeats across every Cinebench multicore iteration. The Cinebench R20 multicore result shows 1693 versus 1275, a 32.8% gap. The R23 multicore test continues the trend with 4033 against 3038, again a 32.8% difference. These consistent margins across different Cinebench versions indicate that the i7-3632QM's advantage scales uniformly with workload intensity, not just in a single benchmark generation.

What is more surprising is the single-core Cinebench results. The i7-3632QM leads in Cinebench R20 single-core with 238 points against 180 for the i3-4170, a 32.2% margin. In R23 single-core, the i7-3632QM scores 569 versus 429, a 32.6% advantage. This runs counter to expectations based on clock speeds alone, since the i3-4170 has a much higher base frequency. The data suggests that the i7-3632QM's architectural features, including its boost capabilities and larger cache hierarchy, compensate for the nominal clock disadvantage in these specific rendering workloads.

The Geekbench results introduce a different dynamic. In Geekbench multicore, the i7-3632QM scores 2142 against 2033 for the i3-4170, a modest 5.4% lead. This is the narrowest margin in the entire comparison, indicating that Geekbench's multicore test does not fully exploit the i7-3632QM's additional threads the way Cinebench does. The i7-3632QM's eight threads versus the i3-4170's four threads should theoretically provide more scaling headroom, yet the actual performance delta is far smaller than in Cinebench.

The single Geekbench test flips the entire narrative. The i3-4170 achieves 1090 points in Geekbench single-core, while the i7-3632QM manages only 613. This represents a 43.8% deficit for the i7-3632QM, the largest margin in either direction across all seven benchmarks. This is a dramatic reversal, and it highlights how differently these two processors behave depending on the workload characteristics. The i3-4170's high base clock of 3.70 GHz appears to be a decisive factor in lightly threaded integer and floating-point tasks that Geekbench emphasizes.

The average benchmark scores place these CPUs remarkably close overall. The i7-3632QM has an average score of 1219, while the i3-4170 averages 1193. The i7-3632QM sits at the 34th percentile of all CPUs, and the i3-4170 is at the 33rd percentile. The nearest rivals for the i7-3632QM include the Intel Core i5-2500 with an average score of 1220 (a 0.1% difference) and the Intel Pentium Silver N6005 at 1218 (0.1% ahead). The i3-4170's closest competitors are the AMD Athlon PRO 300U and Intel Core i7-8665UE, both at exactly 1193, representing a zero percent delta.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests overall?

A: The Intel Core i7-3632QM wins six out of seven head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The only test where the Intel Core i3-4170 prevails is Geekbench single-core.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in the comparison?

A: The widest margin is in Geekbench single-core, where the i3-4170 leads by 43.8%, scoring 1090 against the i7-3632QM's 613 points.

Q: How do the processors compare in multi-threaded Cinebench workloads?

A: The i7-3632QM holds a consistent advantage of approximately 32.7% to 32.8% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests. The actual scores are 406 versus 306 in R15, 1693 versus 1275 in R20, and 4033 versus 3038 in R23.

Q: Is the overall average benchmark score similar between the two?

A: Yes, the average benchmark scores are very close. The i7-3632QM averages 1219, and the i3-4170 averages 1193, a difference of only 26 points. Both processors rank near the 33rd to 34th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Does the i3-4170 have any advantage in single-core performance?

A: It depends on the benchmark. The i3-4170 wins decisively in Geekbench single-core with a 43.8% margin, but it loses in Cinebench R20 and R23 single-core tests by about 32% in each case.

Q: What does the Geekbench multicore result indicate about thread scaling?

A: The Geekbench multicore test shows only a 5.4% advantage for the i7-3632QM, which is much smaller than the roughly 33% lead seen in Cinebench multicore tests. This suggests Geekbench's multicore workload does not scale as effectively with additional threads.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for workload-specific purchasing decisions. For anyone running rendering applications, video encoding, or other heavily multi-threaded software that resembles Cinebench, the Intel Core i7-3632QM is the unequivocal choice. Its consistent 32.7% to 32.8% advantage across every Cinebench multicore test, combined with similar margins in single-core Cinebench tests, demonstrates that its eight threads and larger cache deliver tangible benefits in these scenarios.

However, the Geekbench single-core result is a cautionary data point. The i3-4170's 43.8% lead in that specific test suggests that for applications with minimal thread usage and high sensitivity to raw clock speed, the i3-4170 could provide better responsiveness. The i3-4170's 3.70 GHz base clock, which has no boost capability, appears to be its primary asset in this context.

The overall average scores are nearly identical: 1219 for the i7-3632QM and 1193 for the i3-4170. Both processors occupy the same percentile tier, with the i7-3632QM at the 34th percentile and the i3-4170 at the 33rd. This means that for general-purpose computing with mixed workloads, the choice between these two processors is unlikely to produce a dramatic difference in perceived performance.

The i7-3632QM's six benchmark victories should not be interpreted as universal superiority. The magnitude of its wins in Cinebench is substantial, but its Geekbench single-core loss is equally substantial in the opposite direction. A user who prioritizes single-threaded integer performance in applications like certain database operations, scripting, or older games might prefer the i3-4170 despite its fewer threads.

For content creators, developers compiling code, or anyone running parallelizable tasks, the i7-3632QM's consistent multi-threaded dominance makes it the safer recommendation. The fact that it also wins Cinebench single-core tests, despite the i3-4170's higher base clock, indicates that its boost clock of 3.20 GHz combined with its architecture provides sufficient single-thread capability for rendering workloads.

Specification Differences

The most fundamental difference lies in core and thread counts. The i7-3632QM has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i3-4170 has 2 cores and 4 threads. This doubling of execution resources directly explains the multi-threaded benchmark results.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The i7-3632QM has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The i3-4170 has a base clock of 3.70 GHz with no boost clock listed. This means the i3-4170 runs at a fixed frequency that is higher than the i7-3632QM's base clock but also higher than its boost clock. The i7-3632QM can dynamically increase its frequency under load, while the i3-4170 operates at a constant rate.

Thermal design power differs by 19 watts. The i7-3632QM is rated at 35 watts, while the i3-4170 consumes 54 watts. This makes the i7-3632QM more power-efficient despite its higher core count, a notable achievement for a mobile-oriented processor.

The sockets are entirely different. The i7-3632QM uses Intel Socket G2 (988B), which is a mobile socket, while the i3-4170 uses Intel Socket 1150, a desktop platform. This means they are not interchangeable in any system.

Integrated graphics also differ. The i7-3632QM includes Intel HD 4000, while the i3-4170 has Intel HD 4400. The i3-4170's integrated GPU is from a newer generation.

Memory specifications differ in several ways. The i3-4170 explicitly supports DDR3 memory with a bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s and dual-channel configuration. The i7-3632QM's memory support is listed as null, though it does have a dual-channel memory bus. The i3-4170 also lists PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the i7-3632QM has no PCIe information listed.

The i3-4170 has a launch MSRP of $117, while the i7-3632QM has no launch MSRP recorded. The i3-4170 is marked as end-of-life production status, and its part number is SR1PL. The i7-3632QM's production status is not specified.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel's 22 nm process node, and both are manufactured by Intel. The transistor counts are similar but not identical: the i7-3632QM has 1,480 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, while the i3-4170 has 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. The i7-3632QM achieves a higher transistor density on a smaller die.

The architectural families differ. The i7-3632QM uses the Ivy Bridge architecture, while the i3-4170 uses Haswell. Both are listed as their respective codenames. The i7-3632QM belongs to the Core i7 (Ivy Bridge) generation, and the i3-4170 belongs to the Core i3 (Haswell) generation. Haswell represents a newer microarchitecture with various improvements over Ivy Bridge, though the benchmark data shows that the i7-3632QM's advantages in core count and cache often outweigh architectural generational differences.

Cache configurations differ substantially. Both processors have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The critical difference is in L3 cache: the i7-3632QM has 6 MB shared, while the i3-4170 has only 3 MB shared. This doubles the last-level cache for the i7-3632QM, which helps with multi-threaded workloads that repeatedly access shared data.

The i7-3632QM's market segment is Mobile, while the i3-4170 is a Desktop processor. This explains the socket differences and the power envelope. The i7-3632QM's 35 watt TDP is designed for laptops and portable systems, whereas the i3-4170's 54 watt TDP suits desktop motherboards with more robust cooling.

Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. The i3-4170's release date is April 2014, while the i7-3632QM was released in October 2012, making the i3-4170 roughly a year and a half newer.

Where Each One Wins

The i7-3632QM is the clear winner in rendering and heavily threaded workloads. Its Cinebench R15 multicore score of 406 versus 306, R20 multicore of 1693 versus 1275, and R23 multicore of 4033 versus 3038 all demonstrate roughly a third more performance. This translates directly to faster video encoding, 3D rendering, photo batch processing, and compilation tasks that can utilize eight threads.

The i7-3632QM also wins in Cinebench single-core tests, which is counterintuitive given its lower clock speeds. The R20 single-core score of 238 against 180 and R23 single-core of 569 against 429 suggest that the newer Cinebench versions reward the i7-3632QM's architecture despite its frequency disadvantage. This could be due to the larger 6 MB L3 cache reducing memory latency for the active thread.

The i7-3632QM's narrow 5.4% Geekbench multicore win (2142 versus 2033) indicates that it also performs adequately in general-purpose multi-threaded scenarios, though without the dramatic margins seen in Cinebench. This makes it a reasonable choice for users who run a mix of productivity applications that occasionally use multiple threads.

The i3-4170's sole victory is in Geekbench single-core, where it scores 1090 against 613. This 43.8% margin is enormous and suggests that the i3-4170 excels in tasks that are strictly single-threaded and sensitive to clock speed. Applications like legacy single-threaded games, some spreadsheet calculations, or lightweight scripting would likely feel snappier on the i3-4170.

The i3-4170's advantage in this test likely stems from its 3.70 GHz fixed clock, which is substantially higher than the i7-3632QM's 2.20 GHz base and even its 3.20 GHz boost. For workloads that do not benefit from additional threads and where every clock cycle matters, the i3-4170 would be the preferred choice.

For power-sensitive mobile users, the i7-3632QM's 35 watt TDP versus the i3-4170's 54 watt TDP makes it the more efficient option for battery-powered systems. The i7-3632QM's mobile socket and lower power draw are designed for laptop integration, while the i3-4170 targets desktop environments where power consumption is less critical.

Users who need the i3-4170's specific features, such as DDR3 memory support with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth or PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, should consider those platform-level capabilities. The i7-3632QM lacks listed memory bandwidth and PCIe specifications, making the i3-4170 more suitable for desktop builds that require those modern connectivity options.

In summary, the i7-3632QM dominates multi-threaded and rendering workloads with margins around 33%, and it also holds an edge in Cinebench single-core tests. The i3-4170 wins only in Geekbench single-core but by an overwhelming margin. The choice between these processors should hinge on whether the user's primary applications resemble Cinebench (favoring the i7-3632QM) or Geekbench single-core (favoring the i3-4170).