Intel Core i3-6320 vs Intel Core i7-4600M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher base clock speed?

A: The Intel Core i3-6320 runs at a base clock of 3.90 GHz, while the Intel Core i7-4600M has a base clock of 2.90 GHz. The i3-6320 also has no boost clock listed, whereas the i7-4600M can boost up to 3.60 GHz.

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i7-4600M and the Intel Core i3-6320 have 2 cores and 4 threads. This means the performance difference comes from clock speed, architecture, and memory support rather than core count.

Q: Which processor is more power efficient?

A: The Intel Core i7-4600M has a TDP of 37 watts, while the Intel Core i3-6320 has a TDP of 51 watts. The i7-4600M is the lower-power part, which aligns with its mobile market segment.

Q: Which processor supports faster memory?

A: The Intel Core i3-6320 supports DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s, while the Intel Core i7-4600M supports DDR3 with a bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. The i3-6320 has the higher memory bandwidth.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i3-6320 wins every recorded single-core test. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 222 versus 161 for the i7-4600M, a 27.5% difference. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 529 versus 385, a 27.2% difference.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The Intel Core i7-4600M is marked end-of-life, while the Intel Core i3-6320 is listed as active production. The i7-4600M was released in 2013, and the i3-6320 was released in 2015.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures and manufacturing nodes. The Intel Core i7-4600M is built on the Haswell architecture with a 22 nm process node, while the Intel Core i3-6320 uses the Skylake architecture on a 14 nm process node. This node difference is significant: the i3-6320 uses a newer manufacturing process, which typically allows for higher clock speeds at similar or lower power, though the recorded TDP tells a different story here.

Transistor counts differ substantially. The i7-4600M has 960 million transistors on a die size of 131 mm², while the i3-6320 has 1,400 million transistors on a 150 mm² die. The Skylake part packs more transistors into a slightly larger die, reflecting the architectural generation gap.

Cache layouts are identical in structure: both have 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 4 MB shared L3. The difference in cache capacity is none, so the performance gap must come from clock speed, memory bandwidth, and architectural efficiency.

Memory support marks another clear divide. The i7-4600M supports DDR3 with dual-channel memory and 25.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the i3-6320 supports DDR4 with dual-channel memory and 34.1 GB/s bandwidth. The newer memory standard gives the i3-6320 a 33% bandwidth advantage, which can matter in memory-sensitive workloads.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The i7-4600M includes Intel HD 4600, while the i3-6320 includes Intel HD 530. Both are integrated solutions, but the Skylake generation part is the newer design.

Socket and market segment separate the two fundamentally. The i7-4600M uses Intel Socket G3 and is a mobile part, while the i3-6320 uses Intel Socket 1151 and is a desktop part. The i7-4600M carries a launch MSRP of $346, while the i3-6320 has no recorded launch MSRP. Both have locked multipliers, so neither is intended for overclocking.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i3-6320 wins all five recorded head-to-head tests. The i7-4600M does not win a single benchmark in the comparison.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i3-6320 scores 378 against 275 for the i7-4600M, a 27.2% margin. The same 27.2% delta appears in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the i3-6320 scores 1576 and the i7-4600M scores 1147. Cinebench R23 multicore follows the same pattern: 3753 for the i3-6320 versus 2732 for the i7-4600M, again a 27.2% difference.

Single-core results show a similar gap. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i3-6320 scores 222 versus 161, a 27.5% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 529 versus 385, a 27.2% margin. The consistency of these deltas across both multicore and single-core tests suggests the advantage is not workload-specific but rather a general clock-for-clock and architecture-level lead.

The Geekbench tests only appear for the i7-4600M in the database, with a multicore score of 1930 and a singlecore score of 1018. No corresponding Geekbench result is recorded for the i3-6320, so a direct comparison in that suite is not possible from the available data.

Average benchmark scores place the two very close overall. The i7-4600M has an average benchmark score of 1093, while the i3-6320 has 1085. The nearest rivals for the i7-4600M include the Intel Core i7-4610M at 1094 (0.1% ahead), the Intel Core i7-10510Y at 1092 (0.1% behind), and the Intel Core i5-3475S at 1091 (0.1% behind). The i3-6320's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-2450P at 1086 (0.1% ahead), the Intel Core i5-3350P at 1088 (0.2% ahead), and the Intel Core i5-2320 at 1083 (0.2% behind). Both processors sit at the 30th percentile versus all CPUs, meaning they occupy a similar overall performance tier despite the i3-6320's clear win in the head-to-head Cinebench tests.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Base clock: 2.90 GHz (i7-4600M) versus 3.90 GHz (i3-6320)
• Boost clock: 3.60 GHz (i7-4600M) versus none recorded (i3-6320)
• TDP: 37 watts (i7-4600M) versus 51 watts (i3-6320)
• Socket: Intel Socket G3 (i7-4600M) versus Intel Socket 1151 (i3-6320)
• Architecture: Haswell (i7-4600M) versus Skylake (i3-6320)
• Process node: 22 nm (i7-4600M) versus 14 nm (i3-6320)
• Transistors: 960 million (i7-4600M) versus 1,400 million (i3-6320)
• Die size: 131 mm² (i7-4600M) versus 150 mm² (i3-6320)
• Memory support: DDR3 (i7-4600M) versus DDR4 (i3-6320)
• Memory bandwidth: 25.6 GB/s (i7-4600M) versus 34.1 GB/s (i3-6320)
• Integrated graphics: Intel HD 4600 (i7-4600M) versus Intel HD 530 (i3-6320)
• Market segment: Mobile (i7-4600M) versus Desktop (i3-6320)
• Production status: End-of-life (i7-4600M) versus Active (i3-6320)
• Release date: 2013 (i7-4600M) versus 2015 (i3-6320)
• Launch MSRP: $346 (i7-4600M) versus none recorded (i3-6320)
• Part number: SR1H7 (i7-4600M) versus SR2H9 (i3-6320)

Identical fields include cores (2), threads (4), L1 cache (64 KB per core), L2 cache (256 KB per core), L3 cache (4 MB shared), ECC support (false for both), PCIe configuration (Gen 3, 16 lanes CPU only for both), and multiplier unlock status (false for both).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner in raw performance. The Intel Core i3-6320 beats the Intel Core i7-4600M in every recorded Cinebench test, with deltas consistently around 27.2%. The i3-6320's higher base clock of 3.90 GHz versus 2.90 GHz, combined with its newer Skylake architecture and wider memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s, explains the consistent lead.

The i7-4600M is not without its own merits. It draws less power at 37 watts versus 51 watts, which matters for mobile applications. Its average benchmark score of 1093 is actually slightly higher than the i3-6320's 1085, and it has Geekbench results recorded while the i3-6320 does not. But in the head-to-head tests that both processors share, the i3-6320 dominates.

The percentile ranking tells a nuanced story. Both sit at the 30th percentile versus all CPUs, and their nearest rivals are similar in average score. The i7-4600M's rivals are close at 1091 to 1094, and the i3-6320's rivals are close at 1083 to 1088. This suggests that while the i3-6320 wins the head-to-head, neither processor is far from its peers in overall standing.

For a desktop user looking at these two parts, the i3-6320 is the stronger choice based on recorded performance. It delivers higher scores in every shared benchmark, supports faster DDR4 memory, and remains in active production. For a mobile scenario, the i7-4600M is the only realistic option by form factor, and its lower TDP suits that role, but its performance is measurably behind.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core i3-6320 wins on: all five recorded Cinebench head-to-head tests. It is ahead by 27.2% in Cinebench R15 multicore, R20 multicore, and R23 multicore, and by 27.5% in Cinebench R20 single-core. It also has the higher base clock (3.90 GHz), the newer 14 nm process node, more transistors (1,400 million), higher memory bandwidth (34.1 GB/s), DDR4 support, and active production status. For pure compute throughput, desktop use, and memory-heavy workloads, the i3-6320 is the clear winner.

Intel Core i7-4600M wins on: power efficiency with a 37 watt TDP versus 51 watts, and it has a recorded Geekbench multicore score of 1930 and singlecore score of 1018, which the i3-6320 does not have in the database. It also has a boost clock of 3.60 GHz, while the i3-6320 has no boost clock recorded. Its average benchmark score of 1093 edges out the i3-6320's 1085. For mobile platforms, lower power draw, or scenarios where Geekbench performance matters, the i7-4600M has the advantage, though it loses every shared benchmark.

The pattern is simple: the i3-6320 is the faster processor in every comparable test, while the i7-4600M retains advantages in power consumption and form factor suitability. The i7-4600M's higher average benchmark score despite losing all head-to-head tests points to its Geekbench results as a significant contributor, but the lack of a matching Geekbench run for the i3-6320 leaves that comparison incomplete.