Intel Core i3-6320 vs Intel Core i7-4610M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data divides these two processors along clear lines. The Intel Core i3-6320 wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark, five in total, while the Intel Core i7-4610M does not win a single comparison. This is not a close contest; the desktop i3-6320 dominates across all Cinebench versions tested, both single-core and multi-core workloads.

The i7-4610M holds its own only in the context of its mobility class. It is a mobile processor with a 37 W TDP, designed for laptops and compact systems where power constraints matter. Its average benchmark score of 1094 places it at the 30th percentile of all CPUs in the database, essentially tied with its nearest rivals: the i5-3470S (1095, delta -0.1%), the i7-4600M (1093, delta 0.1%), and the i7-2670QM (1096, delta -0.1%). The i7-4610M is not a slow chip for its era, but it competes against other mobile and older desktop parts, not against modern desktop silicon.

The i3-6320, by contrast, is a desktop processor with a 51 W TDP and a higher base clock. Its average benchmark score is 1085, also at the 30th percentile, with nearest rivals including the i5-2450P (1086, delta -0.1%), the i5-2320 (1083, delta 0.2%), the i5-3335S (1083, delta 0.2%), and the i5-3350P (1088, delta -0.2%). Both chips sit in the same percentile band, but the i3-6320 achieves that standing with a much higher absolute performance in every direct test.

For use-case selection: the i7-4610M is the choice for legacy mobile platforms, where its 37 W TDP and Socket G3 compatibility matter more than raw throughput. The i3-6320 is the choice for desktop builds where performance per watt is secondary to getting work done quickly. If the workload is rendering, encoding, or any multi-threaded task, the i3-6320 wins outright. The i7-4610M only makes sense if the system must be portable and the software is undemanding.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel microarchitectures and manufacturing nodes. The i7-4610M uses Haswell architecture built on a 22 nm process, with 960 million transistors on a 131 mm² die. The i3-6320 uses Skylake architecture built on a 14 nm process, packing 1,400 million transistors on a 150 mm² die. The newer Skylake node allows for higher transistor density and better efficiency per clock, which directly explains the i3-6320's performance advantage despite having the same core and thread counts.

Both chips share identical core configurations: 2 cores and 4 threads. Cache hierarchies are also identical in structure: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The architectural advantage of the i3-6320 comes from clock speed and IPC improvements in Skylake. The i7-4610M has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The i3-6320 has a base clock of 3.90 GHz and no boost clock, meaning it runs at a fixed frequency. That fixed 3.90 GHz is higher than the i7-4610M's maximum boost, so the i3-6320 wins on raw clock alone.

Memory support differs significantly. The i7-4610M uses DDR3 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. The i3-6320 uses DDR4 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. That is a 33% higher memory bandwidth for the i3-6320, which helps in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, and neither supports ECC memory.

Integrated graphics also differ. The i7-4610M has Intel HD 4600, while the i3-6320 has Intel HD 530. The newer Skylake graphics solution is more capable, though the benchmark data does not include graphics tests. The i7-4610M is locked (multiplier locked), as is the i3-6320, so neither offers overclocking headroom.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are unambiguous. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3-6320 scores 378 against the i7-4610M's 277, a delta of -26.7% from the i7-4610M's perspective. That means the i3-6320 is roughly 36% faster in absolute terms (378/277 = 1.36). The same delta repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core: 1576 versus 1155, again -26.7%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the margin is identical in percentage terms: 3753 versus 2750, a -26.7% delta. The consistency of this delta across three different Cinebench versions suggests the performance gap is structural, not workload-specific.

Single-core results tell the same story, though the delta is slightly larger in one case. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i3-6320 scores 222 against 162, a -27% delta. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the scores are 529 versus 388, again -26.7%. The i3-6320 leads by roughly 36-37% in single-threaded tests, which is a substantial margin for two chips with the same core and thread counts.

The i7-4610M has a Geekbench multi-core score of 1903 and a single-core score of 1024, but the i3-6320 has no Geekbench results in the head-to-head data. The Cinebench results alone establish the winner: the i3-6320 takes all five head-to-head benchmarks. The i7-4610M's best performance is its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 388, which is still 26.7% below the i3-6320's 529.

These numbers indicate that the i3-6320 is not merely faster, it is faster by a consistent, repeatable margin across every rendering workload measured. The i7-4610M cannot close the gap in any test, even single-threaded, where older architectures often perform relatively better.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The i7-4610M has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The i3-6320 has a base clock of 3.90 GHz and no boost clock. The i3-6320's fixed clock is higher than the i7-4610M's maximum boost, so the i3-6320 wins on frequency in every scenario.

Thermal design power differs substantially. The i7-4610M is rated at 37 W, while the i3-6320 is rated at 51 W. The i7-4610M's lower TDP reflects its mobile design and limited cooling envelope. The i3-6320's higher TDP allows for sustained high-frequency operation on desktop platforms.

The sockets are incompatible. The i7-4610M uses Intel Socket G3, a mobile socket. The i3-6320 uses Intel Socket 1151, the mainstream desktop socket. A user cannot swap one for the other without changing the motherboard.

Memory support differs: the i7-4610M uses DDR3, while the i3-6320 uses DDR4. Memory bandwidth is 25.6 GB/s for the i7-4610M and 34.1 GB/s for the i3-6320. Integrated graphics are Intel HD 4600 versus Intel HD 530. The i7-4610M is an End-of-life product released on 2014-01-31, with a launch MSRP of $346. The i3-6320 is an Active product released on 2015-08-31, with no launch MSRP recorded. Transistor count is 960 million versus 1,400 million, and die size is 131 mm² versus 150 mm². Process node is 22 nm versus 14 nm.

Both have 2 cores, 4 threads, 4 MB shared L3 cache, dual-channel memory, PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, no ECC support, and locked multipliers. The core and cache configuration is identical, so all performance differences stem from architecture, clock, process node, and memory bandwidth.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core i3-6320 wins every multi-core benchmark recorded. In Cinebench R15 multi-core it scores 378 versus the i7-4610M's 277, a -26.7% delta. The same margin applies in Cinebench R20 (1576 vs 1155) and Cinebench R23 (3753 vs 2750).

Q: Is the i7-4610M better in single-core performance because it has a boost clock?

A: No. The i7-4610M boosts to 3.70 GHz, but the i3-6320 runs at a fixed 3.90 GHz. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i3-6320 scores 222 versus 162, a -27% delta. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 529 versus 388, a -26.7% delta.

Q: Can I use these two processors in the same motherboard?

A: No. The i7-4610M uses Intel Socket G3, a mobile socket, while the i3-6320 uses Intel Socket 1151, a desktop socket. They are physically and electrically incompatible.

Q: Which processor has better memory bandwidth?

A: The i3-6320 supports DDR4 with a bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. The i7-4610M supports DDR3 with a bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. The i3-6320 offers roughly 33% higher memory bandwidth.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both have 2 cores and 4 threads. They also share the same cache layout: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 4 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has a lower power draw?

A: The i7-4610M has a TDP of 37 W, while the i3-6320 has a TDP of 51 W. The mobile i7-4610M uses significantly less power, reflecting its portable design.

The Verdict

The data is decisive. The Intel Core i3-6320 wins all five head-to-head benchmarks, with a consistent -26.7% to -27% delta in favor of the i3-6320 across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multi-core modes. The i3-6320 is the faster processor in every measurable rendering workload.

The i7-4610M's only advantages are its lower TDP of 37 W, its mobile socket compatibility, and its older platform support. For anyone building or upgrading a desktop system, the i3-6320 is the clear choice. It delivers 36% higher multi-core performance and 36% higher single-core performance, based on the Cinebench scores, while using DDR4 memory with higher bandwidth.

For laptop or mobile systems, the i7-4610M remains a functional part, but its 30th percentile standing and 2014 release date put it firmly in legacy territory. Its nearest rivals are all similar or slightly older processors, and it does not approach the performance level of the i3-6320.

The verdict: choose the i3-6320 for any task where performance matters. Choose the i7-4610M only if the system must be mobile and the socket dictates the choice. There is no benchmark scenario in the recorded data where the i7-4610M wins.