Intel Core i3-7320 vs Intel Core i7-3635QM Comparison

Intel Core i3-7320 vs Intel Core i7-3635QM: a desktop dual-core from 2017 taking on a mobile quad-core from 2012. The benchmark database shows these two land within a hair of each other in average score — the i3-7320 posts a 1173 average against the i7-3635QM’s 1170, a 0.3% gap that places both at the 33rd percentile among all CPUs. Despite six years of architectural separation, the data reveals a statistical dead heat across every shared Cinebench test, with the i3-7320 claiming the nominal win in all six head-to-head matchups by identical scores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite tells a story of absolute parity. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, both chips score 408; in the single-core run, both score 57. The i3-7320 is credited with the win in each case, but the deltaPct is 0 — a tie in every measurable sense. Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds: multi-core scores are 1703 for both, single-core scores are 240 for both. Cinebench R23 repeats the identical outcome, with both parts delivering 4057 in multi-core and 572 in single-core.

The i3-7320’s six wins are all by 0% delta, meaning the head-to-head table shows no actual performance advantage for either processor. The only differentiator comes from additional data: the i7-3635QM also has Geekbench results in the pack — 1790 multi-core and 532 single-core — while the i3-7320 lacks any Geekbench entry. That absence doesn’t change the Cinebench parity, but it does mean the i7-3635QM has broader benchmark coverage.

Average benchmark scores reinforce the tie. The i3-7320’s 1173 average places it 0.3% ahead of the i7-3635QM’s 1170. Rival comparisons show both chips clustered with the same peers: the i7-2960XM (1169) and i5-3570S (1169) sit just behind, while the i5-3550 (1178) edges ahead of the i3-7320 by 0.4%. The i7-3635QM’s nearest rivals list the AMD Opteron 6220 (1168) at 0.2% behind, and the i3-7320 itself at 0.2% ahead. In practical terms, the data shows neither chip pulls away from the other in any Cinebench workload.

Architecture Differences

The i3-7320 is a Kaby Lake part built on Intel’s 14 nm process, while the i7-3635QM uses Ivy Bridge on 22 nm. That process gap gives the newer chip a significant transistor-density advantage, though the i7-3635QM’s larger physical design compensates with more cores. The i3-7320 offers 2 cores and 4 threads, while the i7-3635QM doubles that to 4 cores and 8 threads. Clock speeds tell the opposite story: the i3-7320 runs at a fixed 4.10 GHz base with no boost, while the i7-3635QM starts at 2.40 GHz and boosts to 3.40 GHz.

Cache allocation differs notably. Both share 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the i3-7320 has 4 MB of shared L3, whereas the i7-3635QM packs 6 MB of shared L3. That extra 2 MB of last-level cache benefits the quad-core part, which also carries a larger transistor count — 1,480 million on a 160 mm² die for the i7-3635QM, versus no disclosed transistor or die size for the i3-7320.

Platform support diverges sharply. The i3-7320 uses Intel Socket 1151 and supports DDR4 memory with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The i7-3635QM uses Intel BGA 1224, a soldered mobile socket, and has no listed memory type or bandwidth figure. Both run dual-channel memory buses, and neither supports ECC. Integrated graphics differ: the i3-7320 includes Intel HD 630, while the i7-3635QM ships with Intel HD 4000. The i3-7320 also lists PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only); the i7-3635QM has no PCIe data in the pack.

Power envelopes favor the mobile chip. The i7-3635QM is rated at 45 W TDP, while the i3-7320 draws 51 W — a 6 W difference that likely reflects the desktop part’s higher fixed clock. The i3-7320 is marked as Active production status and was released on 2017-01-02, while the i7-3635QM has no production status and launched on 2012-08-31. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, and neither lists a launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The i3-7320 wins on clock speed and modern platform features. Its 4.10 GHz base clock is 1.70 GHz higher than the i7-3635QM’s base, and it never needs to boost to reach that frequency. For single-threaded responsiveness, the higher clock plus newer Kaby Lake architecture gives it an edge in lightly threaded tasks, even if the Cinebench single-core scores are identical at 57 (R15), 240 (R20), and 572 (R23). The i3-7320 also brings DDR4 memory support and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, which enables faster memory subsystem performance in memory-sensitive applications. Its PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes provides modern connectivity for discrete GPUs and NVMe storage, though the pack does not quantify these benefits.

The i7-3635QM wins on core count, thread count, and cache. With 4 cores and 8 threads versus the i3-7320’s 2 cores and 4 threads, the mobile part has double the parallel execution resources. Its 6 MB shared L3 cache is 2 MB larger, which can help in workloads with larger working sets. The 45 W TDP also means it achieves that multicore capability at lower power draw, a meaningful advantage in thermally constrained systems. The i7-3635QM’s Geekbench results — 1790 multi-core and 532 single-core — provide additional data points that the i3-7320 lacks, though no direct comparison is possible.

Benchmark wins favor the i3-7320 nominally, with all six head-to-head Cinebench tests going its way at 0% delta. But the practical split is clear: the i3-7320 is built for high-frequency desktop workloads on a modern platform, while the i7-3635QM targets multithreaded mobile productivity with lower power consumption. Neither chip demonstrates a measurable performance lead in the shared Cinebench data, so the choice hinges on platform needs rather than raw scores.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-7320 posts an average benchmark score of 1173, which is 0.3% higher than the Intel Core i7-3635QM’s 1170.

Q: Are the Cinebench scores different between the two?

A: No. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core scores are identical — 408/57, 1703/240, and 4057/572 respectively. The i3-7320 is listed as the winner in each test, but with a 0% delta.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The i3-7320 has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the i7-3635QM has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The i3-7320 runs at a fixed 4.10 GHz base clock with no boost. The i7-3635QM has a 2.40 GHz base clock and boosts up to 3.40 GHz.

Q: Do both CPUs support the same memory type?

A: No. The i3-7320 supports DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The i7-3635QM has no memory type or bandwidth listed in the data.

Q: Which CPU has a lower TDP?

A: The i7-3635QM has a 45 W TDP, which is 6 W lower than the i3-7320’s 51 W TDP.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on use case. For a desktop build with modern connectivity, the i3-7320 is the logical pick: its 4.10 GHz fixed clock, DDR4 support, 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, and PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes make it suitable for current motherboards and peripherals. Its 2 cores and 4 threads are sufficient for single-threaded tasks, and the 14 nm Kaby Lake process gives it a manufacturing advantage. The 33rd percentile ranking shows it sits in the lower-middle of the CPU field, but its competition here is limited.

For a mobile or low-power system, the i7-3635QM makes more sense. Its 4 cores and 8 threads provide double the parallel throughput, and the 6 MB L3 cache is 2 MB larger than the i3-7320’s. The 45 W TDP is 6 W lower, which matters in laptops or compact builds. Its BGA 1224 socket means it is soldered to the motherboard, so it is only viable in systems that already use it. The lack of DDR4 support and PCIe data limits its modern usability, but the Geekbench scores (1790 multi-core, 532 single-core) offer evidence of competent performance.

Neither chip wins the Cinebench comparison — every shared test is a dead tie. The i3-7320 gets the nominal 6-0 win count, but those wins are all at 0% delta. The verdict comes down to platform: choose the i3-7320 for a 2017-era desktop with DDR4 and PCIe Gen 3, or choose the i7-3635QM for a 2012-era mobile system needing more cores and lower power. The benchmark data does not distinguish them in raw performance, so socket and feature compatibility should drive the decision.