Intel Core i3-7300T vs Intel Core i7-3632QM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a consistent and decisive advantage for the Intel Core i7-3632QM across every single head-to-head comparison. In the five shared Cinebench tests, the i7-3632QM wins all five, with the i3-7300T failing to take a single victory. The margins are remarkably uniform, hovering between 14.4% and 14.7% across all workloads, which suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-dependent.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i7-3632QM scores 4033 against the i3-7300T's 3519, a 14.6% advantage. The single-core R23 test shows a nearly identical story: 569 for the i7-3632QM versus 496 for the i3-7300T, a 14.7% lead. This near-parity between single-core and multi-core deltas is notable because it indicates the i7-3632QM's advantage comes not just from its extra cores and threads, but also from superior per-thread execution efficiency in these specific workloads.

The older Cinebench R15 and R20 suites reinforce the pattern. In R15 multi-core, the i7-3632QM posts 406 against 354 for the i3-7300T, a 14.7% margin. In R20 multi-core, the scores are 1693 versus 1477, a 14.6% difference. The single-core R20 test shows the i7-3632QM at 238 and the i3-7300T at 208, with the i7-3632QM ahead by 14.4%. The consistency of these deltas — all within 0.3 percentage points of each other — is striking and suggests that clock-for-clock and core-for-core, the i7-3632QM executes Cinebench workloads with roughly 14-15% higher efficiency than the i3-7300T.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the two CPUs are nearly inseparable in aggregate. The i7-3632QM has an average benchmark score of 1219, while the i3-7300T sits at 1211 — a difference of just 0.7%. Both occupy the 34th percentile among all CPUs. The i7-3632QM's nearest rival list includes the i3-7300T with a deltaPct of 0.7%, meaning the i7-3632QM is only 0.7% ahead of the i3-7300T in the overall average. Conversely, the i3-7300T's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E5645 at a 0.0% delta, placing the i3-7300T statistically level with that Xeon part in aggregate performance.

The Cinebench results, however, tell a different story from the aggregate. While the overall averages are close, the Cinebench suite specifically favors the i7-3632QM by a solid margin. This discrepancy suggests that the i3-7300T may perform relatively better in other benchmark categories not captured in the head-to-head list, but within the Cinebench family — which is heavily weighted toward rendering and content creation — the i7-3632QM is clearly the stronger part.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins the most benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core i7-3632QM wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests (R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core variants). The i3-7300T wins zero head-to-head comparisons.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The i7-3632QM has an average benchmark score of 1219, while the i3-7300T averages 1211. This puts the i7-3632QM just 0.7% ahead in aggregate, with both CPUs sitting at the 34th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The i7-3632QM scores 4033 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 14.6% higher than the i3-7300T's score of 3519. This is the largest absolute point gap between the two across any shared test.

Q: Is there any test where the i3-7300T comes out ahead?

A: No. In the five head-to-head benchmarks available, the i3-7300T trails the i7-3632QM in every single test. The closest margin is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the i7-3632QM leads by 14.4%.

Q: How close are the two CPUs in overall percentile ranking?

A: Both CPUs are at the 34th percentile among all CPUs, meaning they perform better than approximately one-third of all processors in the database. Their aggregate averages differ by only 0.7%.

Q: What does the deltaPct between the two CPUs in the rival lists indicate?

A: In the i7-3632QM's nearest rival list, the i3-7300T appears with a deltaPct of 0.7%, meaning the i7-3632QM is 0.7% faster in average score. In the i3-7300T's list, the Intel Xeon E5645 appears at a 0.0% delta, indicating the i3-7300T is statistically tied with that Xeon.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-3632QM is the clear winner in all rendering and multi-threaded content creation workloads represented by the Cinebench suite. Its 14.6-14.7% lead in multi-core tests across R15, R20, and R23 makes it the stronger choice for tasks that scale with core count — video encoding, 3D rendering, batch image processing, and compilation workloads. The i7-3632QM's 4 cores and 8 threads provide twice the thread count of the i3-7300T, and the benchmark data confirms this translates into real performance advantages in threaded workloads.

Interestingly, the i7-3632QM also wins the single-core tests by 14.4-14.7%, which is unexpected given the i3-7300T's higher base clock of 3.50 GHz versus the i7-3632QM's 2.20 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. This suggests the i7-3632QM's Ivy Bridge architecture, despite being older, executes these floating-point heavy workloads more efficiently per clock than the newer Kaby Lake design. For single-threaded tasks like legacy applications, web browsing, or office productivity, the i7-3632QM remains competitive or ahead, based on the Cinebench single-core scores.

The i3-7300T, however, has its own advantages in scenarios not captured by the Cinebench head-to-head tests. Its aggregate average score of 1211 is only 0.7% behind the i7-3632QM, despite losing every Cinebench test by roughly 14%. This implies the i3-7300T performs relatively better in non-Cinebench workloads — likely integer-heavy tasks, memory-latency-sensitive applications, or workloads that favor its newer microarchitecture. The i3-7300T also supports DDR4 memory with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while the i7-3632QM's memory bandwidth is not listed in the data, suggesting the i3-7300T may have an edge in memory-throughput-bound scenarios.

For users prioritizing Cinebench-style rendering workloads, the i7-3632QM is the definitive choice. For users whose workloads fall outside that benchmark family, the two CPUs are far closer in aggregate performance, and the i3-7300T's newer platform features may tip the balance.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ fundamentally in core and thread configuration. The i7-3632QM has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i3-7300T has 2 cores and 4 threads. This 2x thread advantage is the most significant specification difference and directly contributes to the i7-3632QM's multi-core wins.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The i3-7300T has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and no boost clock listed, whereas the i7-3632QM has a base clock of 2.20 GHz with a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The i3-7300T's higher base clock gives it an apparent single-thread frequency advantage, but the benchmark data shows the i7-3632QM still wins single-core tests, indicating architectural efficiency differences outweigh raw clock speed.

Cache configurations differ as well. Both CPUs share the same per-core L1 cache at 64 KB and L2 cache at 256 KB, but the L3 cache differs: the i7-3632QM has 6 MB shared, while the i3-7300T has 4 MB shared. The i7-3632QM's larger L3 cache likely contributes to its per-thread efficiency advantage.

The socket and platform targets are entirely different. The i7-3632QM uses Intel Socket G2 (988B), a mobile socket, while the i3-7300T uses Intel Socket 1151, a desktop socket. The i7-3632QM is classified as a Mobile processor, while the i3-7300T is a Desktop processor. Both have a 35W TDP and dual-channel memory buses, but the i3-7300T lists DDR4 memory support and 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while the i7-3632QM's memory support and bandwidth are not specified in the data.

The i3-7300T also lists PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the i7-3632QM's PCIe configuration is not provided. The integrated graphics differ: the i7-3632QM has Intel HD 4000, and the i3-7300T has Intel HD 630. Neither CPU has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs represent two distinct Intel microarchitectures separated by roughly four years of design evolution. The i7-3632QM is built on the Ivy Bridge architecture, while the i3-7300T uses Kaby Lake. The process node shows this generational gap: the i7-3632QM uses 22 nm technology, while the i3-7300T uses 14 nm. Both are fabricated by Intel, but the i7-3632QM's transistor count is listed at 1,480 million with a die size of 160 mm², while the i3-7300T's transistor count and die size are not specified in the data.

The codename for the i7-3632QM is also Ivy Bridge, and its generation is listed as "Core i7 (Ivy Bridge)". The i3-7300T's codename is Kaby Lake, with the generation "Core i3 (Kaby Lake)". This places the i7-3632QM in Intel's third-generation Core lineup (2012 release date) and the i3-7300T in the seventh-generation Core lineup (2017 release date).

Despite the i3-7300T being the newer architecture on a smaller process node, the benchmark data shows the i7-3632QM outperforming it in Cinebench workloads. This can be attributed to the i7-3632QM's larger L3 cache (6 MB versus 4 MB) and its 4-core/8-thread configuration versus the i3-7300T's 2-core/4-thread setup. The i3-7300T's newer Kaby Lake architecture brings efficiency improvements and modern platform features like DDR4 support and PCIe Gen 3, but these do not translate into Cinebench performance wins against the older but more heavily threaded i7-3632QM.

The production status field indicates the i3-7300T is still Active, while the i7-3632QM's production status is not listed. The i3-7300T also has a part number (SR35M) listed, while the i7-3632QM does not. The i7-3632QM's release date is October 2012, and the i3-7300T's release date is January 2017, a gap of more than four years. Neither processor has a listed launch MSRP in the data.