Intel Core i3-N300 vs Intel Core i7-3612QE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a split picture, with each processor taking victories in different test generations. The Intel Core i3-N300 wins four of the six recorded Cinebench comparisons, while the Intel Core i7-3612QE takes the remaining two, and the margins are substantial in both directions.

Starting with the older Cinebench R15 tests, the i3-N300 leads by a modest margin in multi-core, scoring 416 against 399, a 4.1% gap. That is a close result, but the single-core R15 test is not close at all: the i3-N300 scores 85 versus 56, a 34.1% advantage. That is a massive single-threaded deficit for the i7-3612QE, and it reflects the architectural gap between the two designs.

The Cinebench R20 results widen the multi-core gap dramatically. The i3-N300 scores 2849, while the i7-3612QE scores 1666, a 41.5% difference. The single-core R20 test shows a similar spread: 401 versus 235, a 41.4% margin. In these two tests, the i3-N300 is not just ahead, it is roughly 70% faster in multi-core and single-core alike. The data indicates the i3-N300 delivers more than double the throughput in R20 multi-core, 2849 versus 1666, which is a decisive win for the newer chip.

However, the Cinebench R23 results flip the narrative. The i7-3612QE scores 3967 in multi-core, against 2546 for the i3-N300, a 55.8% lead for the older part. That is a remarkable reversal given the R20 outcome. The single-core R23 test also favors the i7-3612QE, 560 versus 513, a 9.2% margin. So the i7-3612QE wins the two most recent benchmarks, while the i3-N300 wins the four older ones.

What explains this inconsistency? The recorded data shows the i7-3612QE has a 2.10 GHz base clock and 3.10 GHz boost, while the i3-N300 lists a 100.00 GHz base clock (likely a database artifact for a low-power base frequency) and a 3.70 GHz boost. The i3-N300 has 8 cores and 8 threads, all efficiency cores, whereas the i7-3612QE has 4 cores and 8 threads with Hyper-Threading. The R23 multi-core result, where the i7-3612QE leads by 55.8%, suggests that sustained multi-threaded workloads may favor the older Ivy Bridge design under certain conditions, possibly due to thermal or power behavior. The R23 single-core win for the i7-3612QE, 9.2% ahead, is notable because the i3-N300 has a higher boost clock, 3.70 GHz versus 3.10 GHz. That indicates the i3-N300's Gracemont efficiency cores do not scale as well in this particular test.

The average benchmark scores place the two chips close together: the i7-3612QE averages 1147, the i3-N300 averages 1135. The i7-3612QE sits in the 33rd percentile of all CPUs, the i3-N300 in the 32nd percentile. Their nearest rivals reflect this near-parity. The i7-3612QE is within 0.1% of the AMD Opteron 4284 and Intel Core i7-2600S, 0.2% behind the Intel Core i5-4430, and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Opteron 4332 HE. The i3-N300 is within 0.1% of the Intel Core i5-3570T and Intel Core i5-2550K, 0.1% behind the Intel Xeon E5640, and 0.3% behind the AMD Athlon Silver PRO 3125GE. In aggregate, they are essentially equivalent performers, despite the divergent per-test results.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The Intel Core i7-3612QE uses the Ivy Bridge architecture, built on a 22 nm process node with 1,400 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. It was released on 2012-04-28. The Intel Core i3-N300 uses the Gracemont architecture, built on a 10 nm process node, and was released on 2023-01-02. The i3-N300 has no transistor or die size figures recorded, but the process shrink is clear from the node designation.

Core counts differ significantly. The i7-3612QE has 4 cores and 8 threads, indicating Hyper-Threading support. The i3-N300 has 8 cores and 8 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading; each core is a single thread. The i3-N300's cores are Gracemont efficiency cores, designed for low power and high density, while the i7-3612QE uses Ivy Bridge performance cores from an era before Intel's hybrid architecture.

Cache layouts also differ. The i7-3612QE has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The i3-N300 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 6 MB of shared L3. The L3 cache is identical in capacity, 6 MB shared, but the L1 and L2 structures are different: the i3-N300 has larger L1 per core, and its L2 is organized per module rather than per core.

Power and packaging diverge sharply. The i7-3612QE has a 35 W TDP and uses the Intel BGA 1023 socket. The i3-N300 has a 7 W TDP and uses the Intel BGA 1264 socket. That is a fivefold difference in thermal design power, which has major implications for cooling and battery life in mobile devices.

Memory support is another clear divide. The i7-3612QE records no specific memory types, only dual-channel memory bus. The i3-N300 supports DDR4 and DDR5, but only with a single-channel memory bus, and it has a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The i3-N300 also lists PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only), while the i7-3612QE has no PCIe data recorded.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The i7-3612QE pairs with Intel HD 4000, while the i3-N300 includes UHD Graphics 770. Both are mobile segments, and neither supports ECC memory. The i7-3612QE has a part number of SR0ND, the i3-N300 is SRMDS. The i3-N300 has an active production status, while the i7-3612QE's status is not recorded. The i3-N300 has a launch MSRP of $309, which can be stated as a single data point.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results suggest a use-case split based on workload type and test generation. The i3-N300 wins decisively in Cinebench R15 and R20, both multi-core and single-core. Its single-core R15 lead of 34.1% and R20 lead of 41.4% indicate a strong advantage in lightly threaded tasks that rely on short bursts of performance, likely due to its higher boost clock of 3.70 GHz and newer architecture. The multi-core R20 win, 41.5% ahead, shows that for many modern rendering workloads, the 8 efficiency cores of the i3-N300 provide more aggregate throughput than the 4 Hyper-Threaded cores of the i7-3612QE.

The i7-3612QE wins in Cinebench R23, both multi-core and single-core. The multi-core margin is a substantial 55.8%, and the single-core margin is 9.2%. This suggests that in the most recent Cinebench version, the i7-3612QE's Ivy Bridge cores, with their lower base clock but higher sustained performance characteristics, outperform the Gracemont efficiency cores. The R23 results may indicate a workload that is more sensitive to sustained clock behavior or memory latency, where the i7-3612QE's dual-channel memory bus (versus the i3-N300's single-channel) could play a role.

For practical use, the i3-N300 is better suited to tasks that are short, bursty, and benefit from many cores at low power, such as light productivity, web browsing, and occasional rendering where the workload fits within its power envelope. The i7-3612QE, with its 35 W TDP, is better for sustained multi-threaded workloads that can use its 8 threads and larger thermal headroom, as evidenced by the R23 multi-core result. The i3-N300's 7 W TDP makes it far more attractive for fanless or battery-constrained designs, while the i7-3612QE requires more active cooling.

The average benchmark scores are nearly identical, 1147 versus 1135, so neither chip is a clear aggregate winner. The choice depends on which benchmark generation you trust for your target workload. If your software resembles R15 or R20, the i3-N300 is the pick. If it resembles R23, the i7-3612QE is ahead.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-core performance?

A: The i3-N300 wins in Cinebench R15 single-core (85 versus 56, a 34.1% lead) and R20 single-core (401 versus 235, a 41.4% lead). The i7-3612QE wins in R23 single-core (560 versus 513, a 9.2% lead).

Q: How do the multi-core scores compare?

A: The i3-N300 wins R15 multi-core (416 versus 399, a 4.1% lead) and R20 multi-core (2849 versus 1666, a 41.5% lead). The i7-3612QE wins R23 multi-core (3967 versus 2546, a 55.8% lead).

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The i7-3612QE has 4 cores and 8 threads. The i3-N300 has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How much power does each processor consume?

A: The i7-3612QE has a 35 W TDP. The i3-N300 has a 7 W TDP.

Q: What memory types does each support?

A: The i3-N300 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a single-channel memory bus and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The i7-3612QE has a dual-channel memory bus, but no specific memory types are recorded.

Q: What are the integrated graphics?

A: The i7-3612QE uses Intel HD 4000. The i3-N300 uses UHD Graphics 770.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i7-3612QE | Intel Core i3-N300 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 8 |

| Threads | 8 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.10 GHz | 100.00 GHz (recorded) |

| Boost Clock | 3.10 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 7 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1023 | Intel BGA 1264 |

| Architecture | Ivy Bridge | Gracemont |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 10 nm |

| Transistors | 1,400 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 160 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 2 MB (per module) |

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

| Memory Support | Not recorded | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

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

| PCIe | Not recorded | Gen 3, 9 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4000 | UHD Graphics 770 |

| Production Status | Not recorded | Active |

| Release Date | 2012-04-28 | 2023-01-02 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $309 |

| Part Number | SR0ND | SRMDS |

The Verdict

The data does not declare a single winner, because the two processors win different benchmark generations. The i3-N300 is the better choice for workloads that align with Cinebench R15 and R20 results, where it leads by 4.1% to 41.5% across multi-core and single-core tests. Its 7 W TDP, 8 efficiency cores, and higher boost clock make it an excellent candidate for low-power, fanless mobile devices where burst performance matters and sustained heavy loads are rare. The support for DDR4 and DDR5, plus the 38.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, gives it a modern memory interface, though the single-channel bus is a limitation.

The i7-3612QE is the better choice for workloads that resemble Cinebench R23, where it leads by 55.8% in multi-core and 9.2% in single-core. Its 35 W TDP allows for more sustained power draw, and its 8 threads with Hyper-Threading, plus dual-channel memory, may explain the R23 advantage. If your software is heavily threaded and runs for long periods, the i7-3612QE appears to handle that better, despite its older 22 nm Ivy Bridge architecture.

For aggregate performance, the average benchmark scores are nearly tied: 1147 for the i7-3612QE, 1135 for the i3-N300. The percentiles are similarly close, 33rd versus 32nd. The nearest rivals for each chip are within 0.3% in average score, confirming that both processors sit in the same performance tier.

The practical advice: pick the i3-N300 for efficiency and modern features, especially if your tasks are short and benefit from many cores at low power. Pick the i7-3612QE for sustained multi-threaded workloads, as its R23 multi-core score suggests it can maintain performance over longer sessions. The i3-N300 is actively produced, while the i7-3612QE's production status is not recorded, which may affect availability. Neither chip dominates the other in every test, so the decision should be driven by the specific benchmark profile of your intended software.