Intel Core i3-9100TE vs Intel Core i7-3840QM Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between these two processors is unusually clean, with each taking a distinct domain. The Intel Core i7-3840QM wins 6 of the 8 recorded head-to-head comparisons, all of them in the Cinebench family. The Intel Core i3-9100TE wins 2, both in Geekbench.

The i7-3840QM dominates multi-threaded rendering workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 4952 against 3900 for the i3-9100TE, a 27% advantage. That pattern repeats across every Cinebench version in the database: R15 multi-core shows 498 versus 393, R20 multi-core shows 2079 versus 1638, and each time the i7 wins by roughly 27%. The single-core Cinebench results tell the same story, with the i7-3840QM ahead by 27.3% in R15 single-core (70 versus 55) and 27.1% in R23 single-core (699 versus 550).

The i3-9100TE, however, owns the Geekbench tests. It posts 3214 in Geekbench multi-core versus 2111 for the i7, a 34.3% margin. In Geekbench single-core, it scores 1105 against 628, a 43.2% gap. This is a substantial reversal, not a narrow one.

The use-case split is therefore clear. The i7-3840QM is the choice for Cinebench-style rendering and heavily threaded workloads that resemble those tests. The i3-9100TE is the choice for Geekbench-style workloads, which tend to emphasize memory latency, branch prediction, and newer instruction set efficiency. The average benchmark scores are close, 1416 for the i7 versus 1386 for the i3, placing both at the 37th percentile of all CPUs in the database, but the distribution of wins is anything but even.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different Intel eras. The i7-3840QM is built on the Ivy Bridge architecture, a 22 nm process, and belongs to the Core i7 (Ivy Bridge) generation. It has 4 cores and 8 threads, with Hyper-Threading enabled. The i3-9100TE is Coffee Lake on a 14 nm node, from the Core i3 (Coffee Lake Refresh) generation, with 4 cores and 4 threads and no Hyper-Threading.

Clock speeds favor the older chip. The i7-3840QM has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The i3-9100TE runs at 2.20 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. The i7 is also the higher-power part at 45 W TDP versus 35 W for the i3, which is notable given that the i7 is a mobile processor and the i3 is a desktop part.

Cache configurations differ in L3 size. Both share 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the i7-3840QM has 8 MB of shared L3 while the i3-9100TE has 6 MB. Memory support also diverges: the i7 uses DDR3 in a dual-channel configuration, while the i3 uses DDR4, also dual-channel, with a rated memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The i3 supports ECC memory; the i7 does not. The i3 also exposes PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the i7 has no PCIe lane count recorded.

Transistor and die data only exist for one side. The i7-3840QM packs 1,400 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. The i3-9100TE has no transistor count recorded but a 126 mm² die. Integrated graphics differ as well: the i7 carries Intel HD 4000, the i3 carries UHD Graphics 630.

Sockets and market segments reinforce the generational gap. The i7-3840QM uses Intel BGA 1224 and is a mobile part, released in September 2012. The i3-9100TE uses Intel Socket 1151, is a desktop part, and was released in March 2019. The i3 is marked end-of-life in the database, with a launch MSRP of $122. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the i7-3840QM is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where its 4952 score beats the i3-9100TE's 3900 by 27%. That is consistent with the other Cinebench multi-core deltas: 26.7% in R15 (498 versus 393) and 26.9% in R20 (2079 versus 1638). The single-core Cinebench margins are nearly identical, 27.3% in R15 (70 versus 55), 26.8% in R20 (293 versus 231), and 27.1% in R23 (699 versus 550). Across all six Cinebench tests, the i7-3840QM wins by a tightly clustered 26.7% to 27.3% range.

The i3-9100TE's wins are larger in percentage terms. In Geekbench multi-core, it leads by 34.3%, scoring 3214 against 2111. In Geekbench single-core, it leads by 43.2%, scoring 1105 against 628. Both are the most decisive margins in the entire head-to-head set.

The average benchmark score comparison barely separates the two: 1416 for the i7 versus 1386 for the i3. The i7's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 2700U at an average score of 1415, the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2314 at 1415, and the Intel Core i5-4460 at 1415, each within 0.1% of the i7. The Intel Core i7-2700K sits at 1419, 0.2% above. The i3-9100TE's nearest rivals are older server parts: the AMD Opteron 6274 at 1387, the AMD Opteron 6238 at 1383, the Intel Core i7-3615QE at 1381, and the AMD Opteron 6366 HE at 1379. The i3 trails the Opteron 6274 by 0.1% and leads the other three by 0.3% to 0.5%.

What stands out is that the i7-3840QM's Cinebench dominance does not translate to Geekbench. Despite winning every rendering test by roughly 27%, it loses Geekbench by 34.3% and 43.2%. This suggests the two benchmarks are measuring very different aspects of performance. The i7's extra threads and higher clocks help in Cinebench's rendering pipeline, but the i3's newer architecture, DDR4 support, and higher memory bandwidth appear to drive its Geekbench advantage.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward selection depending on workload. For Cinebench rendering, the Intel Core i7-3840QM is clearly superior, winning all six Cinebench tests with margins between 26.7% and 27.3%. Its 8 threads and 8 MB of L3 cache give it a consistent edge in multi-threaded and even single-threaded rendering tasks. The i7 also has a higher base and boost clock, 2.80 GHz and 3.80 GHz respectively, which likely contributes to its Cinebench lead.

For Geekbench-style workloads, the Intel Core i3-9100TE is the better part. Its 43.2% single-core and 34.3% multi-core wins are the largest margins recorded in this comparison. The i3's Coffee Lake architecture, DDR4 memory with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, and UHD Graphics 630 make it a more modern platform, despite having only 4 threads and no Hyper-Threading.

The average scores are close enough that neither chip is a general-purpose winner. At the 37th percentile for both, they sit in the same performance tier overall. The i7-3840QM's edge in rendering is substantial, but the i3-9100TE's edge in Geekbench is even larger in percentage terms. A buyer or system designer should pick based on the specific application mix. Rendering and threaded compute favor the i7. Anything that behaves like the Geekbench suite, including memory-sensitive or latency-sensitive tasks, favors the i3.

The i3-9100TE's end-of-life status and desktop socket, Intel Socket 1151, make it a different class of product than the mobile BGA 1224 i7. The i7's 45 W TDP versus 35 W for the i3 also matters for thermal design, though the i7's mobile heritage means it was designed for laptops rather than desktops. Neither chip is unlocked, so overclocking headroom is not a factor in this comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in this comparison?

A: The Intel Core i7-3840QM wins 6 of the 8 head-to-head tests, all in Cinebench. The Intel Core i3-9100TE wins 2, both in Geekbench.

Q: How large is the i7-3840QM's lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The i7-3840QM scores 4952 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 3900 for the i3-9100TE, a 27% advantage.

Q: How large is the i3-9100TE's lead in Geekbench single-core?

A: The i3-9100TE scores 1105 in Geekbench single-core versus 628 for the i7-3840QM, a 43.2% margin, the largest win in the entire comparison.

Q: Do the two CPUs have the same core and thread counts?

A: No. Both have 4 cores, but the i7-3840QM has 8 threads while the i3-9100TE has 4 threads.

Q: What memory types do they support?

A: The i7-3840QM supports DDR3 in dual-channel configuration. The i3-9100TE supports DDR4 in dual-channel configuration with a rated bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s.

Q: What are their average benchmark scores and percentiles?

A: The i7-3840QM has an average benchmark score of 1416 and the i3-9100TE has 1386. Both sit at the 37th percentile of all CPUs in the database.