Intel Core i3-7320 vs Intel Core i7-3612QE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core i3-7320 across every Cinebench iteration, though the margins are consistently narrow. The largest advantage appears in the multicore tests, where the i3-7320 leads by 2.3% in both Cinebench R15 (408 vs 399) and Cinebench R23 (4057 vs 3967). The R20 multicore run shows a 2.2% gap (1703 vs 1666), which aligns with the pattern seen in the other two multicore workloads.

Single-core results tell a similar story, but with slightly smaller deltas. The i3-7320 wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 1.8% (57 vs 56), while the R20 and R23 single-core tests both show a 2.1% advantage (240 vs 235, and 572 vs 560 respectively). Across all six head-to-head tests, the i3-7320 claims every victory, leaving the i7-3612QE with zero wins.

What makes these results intriguing is that the i7-3612QE has twice the physical cores and twice the thread count. The database shows the i3-7320 is a 2-core, 4-thread part, while the i7-3612QE is a 4-core, 8-thread processor. Despite that structural disadvantage, the i3-7320's higher clock speed appears to compensate fully in these Cinebench workloads. The i3-7320 runs at a base clock of 4.10 GHz, while the i7-3612QE has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.10 GHz. The clock advantage of the i3-7320 is substantial enough to overcome the core deficit in these specific rendering tasks.

The average benchmark scores reflect this overall balance. The i3-7320 posts an average score of 1173, while the i7-3612QE sits at 1147. Both processors land at the 33rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy a similar tier of overall performance despite their architectural differences. The nearest rivals for the i3-7320 include the Intel Core i7-3635QM (average 1170, delta 0.3%), the Intel Core i7-2960XM (average 1169, delta 0.4%), and the Intel Core i5-3550 (average 1178, delta -0.4%). For the i7-3612QE, the nearest rivals include the AMD Opteron 4284 (average 1146, delta 0.1%) and the Intel Core i7-2600S (average 1146, delta 0.1%). These proximity figures suggest that both chips operate in a performance band where small clock or core variations can flip the outcome.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and manufacturing nodes. The i3-7320 uses Kaby Lake architecture built on a 14 nm process, while the i7-3612QE uses Ivy Bridge architecture on a 22 nm process. This generational gap is significant: the 14 nm node is denser and more power-efficient than the 22 nm node, which helps explain how the i3-7320 achieves a higher clock speed while consuming more power.

The i7-3612QE does have a transistor count of 1,400 million and a die size of 160 mm², figures not recorded for the i3-7320. The i3-7320 is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1151, while the i7-3612QE is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 1023. This socket difference means they are not interchangeable in any system, and the mobile nature of the i7-3612QE likely explains its lower TDP of 35 watts versus the i3-7320's 51 watts. The i7-3612QE is designed for power-constrained environments, whereas the i3-7320 has more thermal headroom.

Cache configurations differ as well. Both share the same L1 cache of 64 KB per core and L2 cache of 256 KB per core, but the L3 cache tells a different story. The i3-7320 has 4 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i7-3612QE has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger L3 on the i7-3612QE is likely intended to serve its four physical cores, whereas the i3-7320's smaller L3 is sufficient for a dual-core design. Despite this cache disadvantage, the i3-7320 still manages to win every benchmark, suggesting that clock speed matters more than cache size in these Cinebench workloads.

Memory support also diverges. The i3-7320 supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The i7-3612QE's memory support is not recorded in the database, and its memory bandwidth is likewise absent. The i3-7320 also lists PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the i7-3612QE has no PCIe data recorded. Integrated graphics differ as well: the i3-7320 uses Intel HD 630, while the i7-3612QE uses Intel HD 4000. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both are multiplier-locked.

Where Each One Wins

The i3-7320 wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, so the question becomes where the i7-3612QE could still be preferred. The data suggests the i7-3612QE's advantage lies not in raw Cinebench scores, but in its physical core count and power efficiency. With four cores and eight threads, the i7-3612QE can handle more concurrent threads in workloads that scale beyond what Cinebench measures. The database does not include such tests, but the architectural data points to this possibility.

The i3-7320, by contrast, is the clear winner for single-threaded and lightly threaded tasks. Its 4.10 GHz base clock is nearly double the i7-3612QE's base clock, and even the i7-3612QE's 3.10 GHz boost clock falls far short. In any application that relies on clock speed, the i3-7320 should pull ahead. The benchmark scores confirm this: the single-core deltas are consistently around 2%, which is a meaningful advantage in real-world scenarios like web browsing, office productivity, or older games that use one or two threads.

For multicore rendering workloads, the i3-7320 still wins, but the margin is small. The multicore deltas range from 2.2% to 2.3%, which is within the range of run-to-run variation. The i7-3612QE's additional cores almost close the gap, but not quite. If a workload heavily favors core count over clock speed, the i7-3612QE could potentially outperform the i3-7320, but the recorded Cinebench data does not show that outcome.

The i7-3612QE also has a lower TDP of 35 watts versus 51 watts, making it the more power-efficient choice for mobile or fanless designs. The i3-7320's higher power consumption is a trade-off for its higher clock speed, but in a desktop context with adequate cooling, that trade-off is acceptable. The i7-3612QE's 22 nm process is older and less efficient, but its lower clock speed keeps power in check.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-7320 has an average benchmark score of 1173, while the Intel Core i7-3612QE has an average score of 1147. The i3-7320 leads by roughly 2.3% in this metric.

Q: How does the core count compare between the two?

A: The i3-7320 has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the i7-3612QE has 4 cores and 8 threads. Despite having half the cores, the i3-7320 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark gap between them?

A: The largest gap is 2.3%, seen in both Cinebench R15 multicore (408 vs 399) and Cinebench R23 multicore (4057 vs 3967). All other deltas are between 1.8% and 2.2%.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The i3-7320 runs at 4.10 GHz base clock, while the i7-3612QE has a 2.10 GHz base clock and a 3.10 GHz boost clock. The i3-7320 has no boost clock listed.

Q: Are these processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are at the 33rd percentile among all CPUs in the database. Their average scores are also close, with the nearest rival for each being within 0.4% of their respective averages.

Q: Which processor has a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The i3-7320 uses a 14 nm process, while the i7-3612QE uses a 22 nm process. The smaller node is a key factor in the i3-7320's higher clock speed.

Specification Differences

The following fields show where the two processors differ in the database:

| Specification | Intel Core i3-7320 | Intel Core i7-3612QE |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 2 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 4.10 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | None | 3.10 GHz |

| TDP | 51 W | 35 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1151 | Intel BGA 1023 |

| Architecture | Kaby Lake | Ivy Bridge |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 22 nm |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 1,400 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 160 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 4 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | Not recorded |

| Memory Bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | Not recorded |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Not recorded |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 630 | Intel HD 4000 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2017-01-02 | 2012-04-28 |

| Part Number | SR358 | SR0ND |

Both processors share the same L1 cache (64 KB per core), L2 cache (256 KB per core), dual-channel memory bus, non-ECC memory support, and multiplier-locked status. Both are manufactured by Intel.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for most users: the Intel Core i3-7320 wins every recorded benchmark, has a much higher clock speed, and uses a newer manufacturing process. Its 4.10 GHz base clock gives it a decisive edge in single-threaded workloads, and its multicore scores are still ahead despite having half the cores of the i7-3612QE. For desktop users who prioritize raw performance in Cinebench-style rendering tasks, the i3-7320 is the superior option.

The i7-3612QE is not without merit, but its strengths lie outside the recorded benchmarks. Its 4 cores and 8 threads could theoretically handle more concurrent threads, and its 35-watt TDP makes it more suitable for power-sensitive mobile applications. The 6 MB of L3 cache is also larger, which could help in certain cache-heavy workloads. However, the database shows no benchmark where the i7-3612QE wins, and its nearest rivals are all within 0.3% of its average score, suggesting it is tightly grouped with other mid-range processors.

The 33rd percentile ranking for both chips indicates they are mainstream performers, not high-end parts. The i3-7320's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-3635QM and i7-2960XM, both of which are older mobile chips, while the i7-3612QE's rivals include server-class AMD Opteron parts. This context suggests that the i3-7320 competes with older high-end mobile silicon, while the i7-3612QE sits closer to mid-range desktop and server territory.

For someone building a desktop system with an Intel Socket 1151 motherboard, the i3-7320 is the logical pick. For someone constrained by power or needing a mobile form factor with BGA 1023, the i7-3612QE is the only option that fits. The benchmark deltas are small, but they consistently favor the i3-7320, and the architectural advantages of a newer node and higher clock speed reinforce that conclusion. The i7-3612QE's extra cores do not translate into wins in the recorded data, making the i3-7320 the data-driven recommendation.