Intel Core i3-4360 vs Intel Core i5-6350HQ Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data leaves no ambiguity about the outcome of this comparison. The Intel Core i5-6350HQ wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, taking a clean 5-0 sweep over the Intel Core i3-4360. The margins are consistent and narrow, between roughly 15% and 17% in favor of the i5 in every single test.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i5-6350HQ scores 364 against 310 for the i3-4360, a 14.8% advantage. The same 14.8% gap appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the i5 reaches 1518 and the i3 posts 1294. Cinebench R23 multi-core follows the identical pattern: 3616 versus 3082, again a 14.8% difference. Across three generations of the Cinebench multi-core workload, the relative gap does not shift, which suggests the performance difference is structural rather than workload-dependent.

Single-core results tell a similar story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i5-6350HQ records 214 points against 182 for the i3-4360, a 15% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i5 scores 510 versus 435, a 14.7% advantage. These single-threaded gains are nearly as large as the multi-threaded ones, which points to a fundamental per-core efficiency advantage rather than a simple core-count scaling effect.

The only benchmark category where the i3-4360 does not appear in the head-to-head table is Cinebench R15 single-core; the i5-6350HQ has a recorded score of 51 there, while the i3-4360 has no corresponding entry in the data. That missing data point prevents a direct single-thread comparison for that specific test version, but the R20 and R23 single-core results both favor the i5 by roughly 15%.

Looking at the broader database averages, the two processors are far closer than their head-to-head scores suggest. The i3-4360 has an average benchmark score of 1061, while the i5-6350HQ sits at 1046. That puts the i3 roughly 1.4% ahead in the aggregate, despite losing every direct comparison. Both processors occupy the 29th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The gap between their average scores is within the noise of their nearest rivals: the i3-4360 sits beside the AMD Opteron 4376 HE at 1061 with a 0% delta, the Intel Core i5-4570TE at 1062 with a -0.1% delta, the AMD FX-8320E at 1059 with a 0.2% delta, and the Intel Core i5-2380P at 1063 with a -0.2% delta. The i5-6350HQ matches the AMD PRO A10-8770 at 1046, trails the AMD Athlon X4 950 by 0.1% (1047), and edges the AMD PRO A10-9700 and Intel Pentium Gold G5620, both at 1045, by 0.1%.

This creates an unusual profile: the i5-6350HQ beats the i3-4360 consistently in direct multi-core and single-core Cinebench runs, yet the two land at essentially the same tier in the overall database ranking. The explanation lies in the benchmark mix. The Cinebench suite rewards sustained multi-threaded throughput and raw single-core speed, both of which favor the i5. The average score across all workloads in the database, however, includes a broader set of tests where the i3's high base clock and desktop-oriented design keep it competitive.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design generations and target different market segments. The i3-4360 is a Haswell part, built on Intel's 22 nm process, while the i5-6350HQ is a Skylake-H part fabricated on the 14 nm node. The process shrink gives the i5 a smaller transistor geometry, though the die sizes are similar: 177 mm² for the i3 and 171 mm² for the i5. Transistor counts differ substantially, with the i5 carrying 2,300 million transistors versus 1,400 million for the i3.

Core and thread configurations explain part of the performance gap. The i3-4360 has 2 physical cores and 4 threads, relying on Hyper-Threading to reach the thread count. The i5-6350HQ has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, with no Hyper-Threading. In multi-threaded Cinebench workloads, the i5's four native cores outperform the i3's two cores with four logical threads. The i3 compensates with a much higher base clock of 3.70 GHz, while the i5 has a 2.30 GHz base clock that boosts to 3.20 GHz. The i3 has no boost clock at all; it runs at its fixed 3.70 GHz frequency. The i5's boost capability allows it to raise clocks under load, but its base frequency is substantially lower.

Cache hierarchies differ as well. Both processors have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The shared L3 cache, however, favors the i5: it has 6 MB shared, versus 4 MB shared for the i3. The larger L3 pool helps the i5 keep more working data on-chip, which contributes to its single-core and multi-core efficiency despite the lower clock speed.

Memory support also differs. The i3-4360 supports DDR3 only, while the i5-6350HQ supports both DDR3 and DDR4. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The i5 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s, while the i3 has no bandwidth figure in the data. The i5's support for DDR4 gives it access to newer memory technology, which can matter for bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

Integrated graphics separate the two as well. The i3-4360 pairs with Intel HD 4600, while the i5-6350HQ integrates Intel Iris Pro 580, a significantly more capable graphics solution. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, so both are locked for overclocking. The i5 carries the part number SR2QZ and is marked end-of-life in the database, while the i3 has no production status recorded.

The socket and packaging differ completely. The i3-4360 uses Intel Socket 1150, a desktop platform, while the i5-6350HQ uses Intel BGA 1440, a ball-grid-array package soldered to the board, typical of mobile designs. The i3's market segment is Desktop, and the i5's is Mobile. This distinction shapes their usable environments: the i3 can be swapped between Socket 1150 boards, while the i5 is fixed to its mobile platform. The i5 supports Gen 3 PCIe with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the i3 supports Gen 3 PCIe without a lane count specified in the data.

Where Each One Wins

The i5-6350HQ wins in every direct benchmark category recorded. It outperforms the i3-4360 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core. The margins are consistent, between 14.7% and 15% in all cases. This makes the i5 the clear choice for workloads that resemble Cinebench: rendering, video encoding, 3D modeling, and any task that scales with both core count and per-core efficiency. Its four physical cores provide a solid foundation for multi-threaded productivity, while its single-core wins indicate strong per-thread performance despite the lower base clock.

The i5's integrated Iris Pro 580 graphics give it an additional edge for systems relying on the iGPU, especially in mobile platforms where discrete graphics may not be present. The larger 6 MB L3 cache and DDR4 memory support further strengthen its position for memory-intensive tasks. Its lower TDP of 45 watts, compared to 54 watts for the i3, also makes it the more power-efficient choice on paper, which suits thin-and-light mobile designs.

The i3-4360 wins only in the aggregate database average, where its 1061 average score edges out the i5's 1046. That 1.4% difference is small and falls within the range of its nearest rivals, so it should not be read as a decisive overall victory. The i3's 3.70 GHz fixed clock gives it an advantage in lightly threaded workloads that are sensitive to raw frequency, particularly if the i5 cannot sustain its boost clock for long durations. In a desktop system with a Socket 1150 motherboard, the i3 offers an upgrade path and the ability to pair with a wide range of DDR3 memory. For users constrained to a specific platform, the i3's desktop socket makes it the only one of the two that can be installed in a standard desktop motherboard.

The practical split is clean: the i5-6350HQ is the better processor for raw throughput and modern mobile systems, while the i3-4360 holds a narrow edge in the overall average benchmark score and offers a desktop form factor with a higher base frequency. Neither processor is unlocked, so overclocking is not a differentiating factor. The i5's end-of-life status may matter for long-term availability, but the data does not record any production status for the i3.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i5-6350HQ wins all five recorded head-to-head Cinebench tests, giving it a 5-0 sweep over the Intel Core i3-4360.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core tests?

A: The i5-6350HQ leads by 14.8% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (364 versus 310), Cinebench R20 multi-core (1518 versus 1294), and Cinebench R23 multi-core (3616 versus 3082).

Q: Is the i3-4360 faster in single-core tests?

A: No. The i5-6350HQ wins both recorded single-core tests, leading by 15% in Cinebench R20 single-core (214 versus 182) and by 14.7% in Cinebench R23 single-core (510 versus 435).

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i3-4360 has an average benchmark score of 1061, while the i5-6350HQ has 1046, putting the i3 about 1.4% ahead in the aggregate. Both sit at the 29th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The i3-4360 has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the i5-6350HQ has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The i5-6350HQ has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i3-4360 has 4 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What memory types does each support?

A: The i3-4360 supports DDR3 only. The i5-6350HQ supports both DDR3 and DDR4, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s.

Q: What are their TDP ratings?

A: The i3-4360 has a TDP of 54 watts, and the i5-6350HQ has a TDP of 45 watts.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The i3-4360 is a 2-core, 4-thread desktop part with a fixed 3.70 GHz clock, while the i5-6350HQ is a 4-core, 4-thread mobile part with a 2.30 GHz base clock and a 3.20 GHz boost clock. The i3 has no boost capability, while the i5 relies on it to reach higher frequencies under load.

The process node shifts from 22 nm for the i3 to 14 nm for the i5. Transistor counts rise from 1,400 million to 2,300 million, while die size actually shrinks slightly, from 177 mm² to 171 mm². The i5's L3 cache doubles in practical terms, from 4 MB shared to 6 MB shared, while L1 and L2 per-core caches remain identical at 64 KB and 256 KB respectively.

Memory support expands for the i5, which handles both DDR3 and DDR4, while the i3 is limited to DDR3. The i5 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s; the i3 has no bandwidth figure. Both use dual-channel memory buses. Integrated graphics differ significantly: the i3 uses Intel HD 4600, while the i5 uses Intel Iris Pro 580.

The socket changes from Intel Socket 1150 on the i3 to Intel BGA 1440 on the i5, reflecting the desktop-to-mobile shift. The market segment switches from Desktop to Mobile. The i5 has an end-of-life production status, while the i3 has none recorded. The i5's launch MSRP is $306, and its part number is SR2QZ. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. PCIe support is Gen 3 for both, with the i5 specifying 16 lanes (CPU only) while the i3 lists no lane count. Release dates place the i3 in April 2014 and the i5 in January 2016.