Intel Core i7-3612QE vs Intel Core i7-3635QM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core i7-3635QM across all six shared Cinebench tests, though the margins are consistently narrow. In the multicore Cinebench R15 run, the i7-3635QM scores 408 against 399 for the i7-3612QE, a 2.3% advantage. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 57 versus 56, a 1.8% lead.

Moving to the more demanding Cinebench R20 workload, the i7-3635QM posts 1703 multicore points, while the i7-3612QE manages 1666, translating to a 2.2% gap. Single-core R20 shows 240 against 235, a 2.1% difference. The newest stress test in the database, Cinebench R23, repeats the trend: the i7-3635QM reaches 4057 multicore and 572 single-core, whereas the i7-3612QE scores 3967 and 560 respectively, again a 2.3% and 2.1% edge.

The overall win count stands at six for the i7-3635QM and zero for the i7-3612QE, but the average benchmark score tells a slightly broader story. The i7-3635QM averages 1170 points across all recorded tests, while the i7-3612QE averages 1147. That is a 2.0% aggregate difference, which is meaningful for sustained workloads but not transformative for everyday use.

Geekbench data is only available for the i7-3635QM, with 1790 multicore and 532 single-core. The i7-3612QE has no recorded Geekbench results in the database, so direct comparison there is impossible. The percentile ranking against all CPUs is identical for both processors at 33, placing them in the same performance tier despite the slight score gaps.

Where Each One Wins

The i7-3635QM wins every benchmark category where both are measured. Its advantages are consistent across multicore and single-threaded tests, which points to a uniform clock-speed benefit rather than workload-specific behavior. The multicore deltas (2.3% in R15, 2.2% in R20, 2.3% in R23) are all slightly larger than the single-core deltas (1.8% in R15, 2.1% in R20, 2.1% in R23), suggesting the extra performance scales marginally better when all cores are engaged.

For users running heavily threaded applications such as video encoding, 3D rendering, or scientific simulations, the i7-3635QM offers a small but repeatable lead in every Cinebench iteration. The single-core wins are smaller in relative terms but still consistent, meaning lightly threaded tasks like older games or legacy productivity software will favor the i7-3635QM by a similar margin.

There is no benchmark category in the recorded data where the i7-3612QE comes out ahead. Its only distinguishing advantage is a lower TDP, which is a power envelope rather than a performance trait. The database shows no wins for the i7-3612QE in any test.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same Ivy Bridge architecture, codename, and 22 nm process node. The die size is identical at 160 mm², and both are fabricated by Intel. The transistor counts differ slightly: the i7-3635QM packs 1,480 million transistors, while the i7-3612QE has 1,400 million. That 80 million transistor difference is the only architectural divergence at the silicon level.

Cache layouts are identical. Both chips feature 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The memory bus is dual-channel for both, and neither supports ECC memory. Integrated graphics are the same Intel HD 4000 unit.

The generation field lists both as "Core i7 (Ivy Bridge)", and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The i7-3612QE carries the part number SR0ND, while the i7-3635QM has no recorded part number. The release dates differ: the i7-3612QE launched on 2012-04-28, while the i7-3635QM arrived later on 2012-08-31. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

The real architectural story is clock tuning. The i7-3635QM runs at 2.40 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost, while the i7-3612QE operates at 2.10 GHz base and 3.10 GHz boost. That 0.30 GHz advantage at both ends explains the consistent, if modest, benchmark superiority of the i7-3635QM. The i7-3612QE compensates with a 35 W TDP against 45 W for the i7-3635QM, which is the trade-off for its lower clocks.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in exactly four recorded specification fields. Base clock: the i7-3635QM runs at 2.40 GHz, the i7-3612QE at 2.10 GHz. Boost clock: 3.40 GHz versus 3.10 GHz. TDP: 45 W for the i7-3635QM, 35 W for the i7-3612QE. Socket: the i7-3635QM uses Intel BGA 1224, while the i7-3612QE uses Intel BGA 1023. These are physically incompatible mounting points, so the socket difference alone determines which laptops can accept which chip.

Transistor count is also different, with 1,480 million for the i7-3635QM and 1,400 million for the i7-3612QE, though this does not change the functional specifications. Every other field matches: 4 cores, 8 threads, 22 nm process, 160 mm² die size, 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, 6 MB shared L3, dual-channel memory bus, no ECC, Intel HD 4000 graphics, mobile market segment, and locked multiplier.

The part number SR0ND is recorded for the i7-3612QE but not for the i7-3635QM. Release dates differ by roughly four months, with the i7-3612QE appearing earlier in the product stack. Neither chip has a recorded launch MSRP, so pricing cannot be stated.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multicore workloads?

A: The Intel Core i7-3635QM wins all three recorded multicore Cinebench tests. It scores 408 in R15 versus 399, 1703 in R20 versus 1666, and 4057 in R23 versus 3967. The deltas range from 2.2% to 2.3%.

Q: Is the single-core performance difference large?

A: No, the gap is small but consistent. The i7-3635QM leads by 1.8% in R15 (57 versus 56), 2.1% in R20 (240 versus 235), and 2.1% in R23 (572 versus 560).

Q: Do these processors have the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use Ivy Bridge architecture on a 22 nm process with a 160 mm² die. The transistor counts differ slightly: 1,480 million for the i7-3635QM versus 1,400 million for the i7-3612QE.

Q: Are the sockets interchangeable?

A: No. The i7-3635QM uses Intel BGA 1224, while the i7-3612QE uses Intel BGA 1023. They cannot be swapped between systems.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The i7-3612QE has a 35 W TDP, while the i7-3635QM has a 45 W TDP. The i7-3612QE consumes less power but also runs at lower clocks (2.10 GHz base, 3.10 GHz boost versus 2.40 GHz and 3.40 GHz).

Q: How do these compare to nearby CPUs in the database?

A: The i7-3635QM averages 1170 points, nearly matching the Intel Core i7-2960XM at 1169 (0.1% delta) and the Intel Core i5-3570S at 1169 (0.1% delta). The i7-3612QE averages 1147, sitting close to the AMD Opteron 4284 at 1146 (0.1% delta) and the Intel Core i7-2600S at 1146 (0.1% delta).

The Verdict

The data makes the choice straightforward for pure performance: the Intel Core i7-3635QM wins every benchmark where both are measured. Its consistent 2% to 2.3% advantage across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multicore tests, comes directly from its higher base and boost clocks. Anyone prioritizing raw throughput in rendering, encoding, or compilation workloads should select the i7-3635QM without hesitation.

The i7-3612QE exists for a different reason. Its 35 W TDP versus 45 W makes it the lower-power option, which matters for thin-and-light laptops, fanless designs, or systems where thermal headroom is tight. The performance penalty is real but modest: roughly 2% across the board. For workloads that are intermittent or lightly threaded, that difference will be imperceptible.

Socket compatibility is the deciding factor in practice. The i7-3635QM uses BGA 1224, the i7-3612QE uses BGA 1023, and no adapter can bridge that gap. If the motherboard already has one socket, the other chip is not an option. Benchmark results only matter when the physical platform allows a choice.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the hierarchy: 1170 for the i7-3635QM versus 1147 for the i7-3612QE. Both rank at the 33rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they sit in the same performance class. The i7-3635QM is the faster part, the i7-3612QE is the more efficient part, and the correct pick depends entirely on whether the system can tolerate 45 W of heat or needs to stay at 35 W.