Intel Core i5-7400T vs Intel Core i7-3740QM Comparison

The recorded data delivers a split verdict: the Intel Core i7-3740QM wins every Cinebench test in the database, while the Intel Core i5-7400T dominates Geekbench by enormous margins. Which chip comes out ahead depends entirely on the workload profile, and the split is unusually clean for two processors that sit at the same overall percentile. Both CPUs land at percentile 36 versus all processors in the database, with average benchmark scores of 1348 for the i5-7400T and 1378 for the i7-3740QM, a near-dead heat in aggregate terms. Digging into individual tests, however, reveals two completely different performance characters shaped by thread count, clock speeds, and memory subsystem behavior.

The Verdict

The data shows a straightforward rule for choosing between these two. Pick the Intel Core i5-7400T if the workload behaves like Geekbench: modern application-style workloads that reward memory bandwidth, DDR4 support, and newer architecture. It scores 1014 in Geekbench single-core against 599 for the i7-3740QM, a 69.3 percent advantage, and 2864 against 1993 in multi-core, a 43.7 percent advantage. Those are landslide wins.

Pick the Intel Core i7-3740QM if the workload behaves like Cinebench: sustained, heavily threaded rendering where eight threads run at once. It wins all six Cinebench entries, leading by roughly 18 percent in every one, from 489 versus 401 in Cinebench R15 multi-core up to 4859 versus 3981 in Cinebench R23 multi-core. Interestingly, the i7-3740QM also wins every Cinebench single-core test, leading 69 to 56 in R15 and 686 to 562 in R23, which points to thermal and power behavior rather than raw architecture: the 45-watt mobile part sustains higher clocks under load than the 35-watt desktop T-series chip.

Buyers should also weigh platform factors recorded in the database. The i5-7400T is a desktop Socket 1151 part with DDR4 support and 38.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the i7-3740QM is a soldered BGA 1224 mobile part. For anyone building or upgrading a system, the i5-7400T is the only practical choice of the two.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster overall?

A: Neither has a clear aggregate lead. The average benchmark scores are 1348 for the i5-7400T and 1378 for the i7-3740QM, and both sit at percentile 36 against all CPUs in the database. The split is workload-dependent: the i7-3740QM takes six of eight head-to-head tests, all in Cinebench, while the i5-7400T takes the two Geekbench tests by much larger margins.

Q: Which CPU wins in Geekbench?

A: The i5-7400T, decisively. It scores 1014 versus 599 single-core (69.3 percent ahead) and 2864 versus 1993 multi-core (43.7 percent ahead).

Q: Which CPU wins in Cinebench?

A: The i7-3740QM, across every version tested. It leads by 18 percent in R15 multi-core (489 to 401), 18 percent in R20 multi-core (2040 to 1672), and 18.1 percent in R23 multi-core (4859 to 3981). It also wins the single-core tests in each version.

Q: How do their core and thread counts differ?

A: Both have four physical cores, but the i7-3740QM supports eight threads via Hyper-Threading while the i5-7400T runs four threads. That thread advantage drives the Cinebench results.

Q: Which CPU is newer, and on what process node?

A: The i5-7400T is a Kaby Lake design on a 14 nm process, released 2017-01-02. The i7-3740QM is an Ivy Bridge design on a 22 nm process, released 2012-09-02.

Q: Which CPU has the higher clock speeds?

A: The i7-3740QM on paper: 2.70 base and 3.70 boost, versus 2.40 base and 3.00 boost for the i5-7400T.

Architecture Differences

These two chips are separated by two Intel architecture generations, and the data shows the trade clearly. The i5-7400T is built on the Kaby Lake architecture at 14 nm, while the i7-3740QM uses Ivy Bridge at 22 nm. Kaby Lake brings the newer platform features recorded in the database: DDR4 memory support with 38.4 GB/s of dual-channel bandwidth, and PCIe Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes. The i7-3740QM predates DDR4 in this dataset; its memory support and PCIe fields are not recorded, and its memory bandwidth is not listed.

The silicon itself is described more fully for the mobile part. The i7-3740QM packs 1,400 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. Equivalent figures for the i5-7400T are not recorded in the database.

The cache story is a wash. Both chips carry 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 6 MB L3. Identical core counts, identical cache hierarchy, so the performance gaps trace back to threading, clocks, node, and memory platform rather than cache configuration.

Integrated graphics differ notably: the Kaby Lake chip pairs with Intel HD 630, while the Ivy Bridge mobile part uses Intel HD 4000. Neither CPU has an unlocked multiplier, so neither offers recorded overclocking headroom.

Specification Differences

The meaningful specification differences recorded in the database:

• Threads: 4 on the i5-7400T versus 8 on the i7-3740QM
• Base clock: 2.40 GHz versus 2.70 GHz
• Boost clock: 3.00 GHz versus 3.70 GHz
• TDP: 35 watts versus 45 watts
• Process node: 14 nm versus 22 nm
• Architecture: Kaby Lake versus Ivy Bridge
• Socket: Intel Socket 1151 versus Intel BGA 1224
• Memory support: DDR4 versus not recorded
• Memory bandwidth: 38.4 GB/s versus not recorded
• PCIe: Gen 3, 16 CPU lanes versus not recorded
• Integrated graphics: HD 630 versus HD 4000
• Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile
• Transistors and die size: recorded only for the i7-3740QM (1,400 million, 160 mm²)
• Part number: SR332 recorded only for the i5-7400T
• Release dates: 2017-01-02 versus 2012-09-02

Everything else in the recorded data is shared: four cores, identical cache structure, dual-channel memory bus, no ECC support, and locked multipliers. Note that the i5-7400T's higher TDP-efficiency positioning comes with much lower clocks, and the benchmark section shows the cost of that trade.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The i7-3740QM sweeps Cinebench, and the margins are remarkably consistent. In Cinebench R15 multi-core it posts 489 against 401, an 18 percent win. In R20 multi-core the score is 2040 to 1672, again 18 percent. In R23 multi-core it reaches 4859 versus 3981, 18.1 percent ahead. The consistency across three Cinebench generations indicates the eight-thread advantage scales predictably with rendering load. The single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern: 69 to 56 in R15 (18.8 percent), 288 to 236 in R20 (18.1 percent), and 686 to 562 in R23 (18.1 percent). The i7-3740QM's 3.70 boost clock clearly holds up better under Cinebench load than the i5-7400T's 3.00 boost.

Geekbench flips the table completely. The i5-7400T scores 1014 in single-core against 599, a 69.3 percent lead, the largest gap in the entire dataset. Its 2864 multi-core score beats 1993 by 43.7 percent. Even though the i7-3740QM has twice the threads and higher listed clocks, the Kaby Lake chip's DDR4 platform with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth and newer 14 nm architecture overwhelm the older design in this test family. Benchmark results indicate that Geekbench's mixed application workload simply favors what Kaby Lake and DDR4 bring.

The final tally: six wins for the i7-3740QM, two for the i5-7400T. But the two i5 wins are the two biggest margins on the page. That is the essence of this matchup.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-3740QM wins sustained rendering and heavy multi-threaded compute. Any workload resembling Cinebench, meaning long-running, all-core loads like 3D rendering and batch media encoding, favors it by about 18 percent across the board. Its eight threads fully occupy all four cores, and the recorded data shows it holding higher effective speed under sustained load despite its age. It also wins every Cinebench single-core test, so even lightly threaded rendering work benefits from its stronger sustained clocks.

The Intel Core i5-7400T wins modern application workloads. Geekbench's profile, which mixes real-world tasks rather than pure rendering, shows it 69.3 percent ahead single-threaded and 43.7 percent ahead multi-threaded. DDR4 memory at 38.4 GB/s, the Kaby Lake architecture, and the 14 nm node drive those results. For general desktop responsiveness, office and productivity software, web workloads, and anything sensitive to memory throughput, the data clearly favors the newer chip.

Platform considerations reinforce the split. The i5-7400T is an Active-production desktop Socket 1151 processor, meaning standard socketed installation and upgrade paths. The i7-3740QM is a BGA 1224 mobile part, soldered to its laptop board, which limits it to the machine it shipped in. Buyers choosing between systems rather than benchmarks should weigh that practical reality alongside the scores: the i7-3740QM for rendering-class throughput within an existing mobile platform, the i5-7400T for everything else, with the backing of a newer and more efficient platform.