i5-7442EQ vs i7-3610QM
Aggregate performance score
Core i7-3610QM outperforms Core i5-7442EQ by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i7-3610QM and Core i5-7442EQ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1609 | 1640 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.48 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Core i7 | Intel Core i5 |
| Power efficiency | 6.79 | 11.51 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Kaby Lake (2016−2019) |
| Release date | 29 April 2012 (12 years ago) | 3 January 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $378 | $250 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core i7-3610QM and Core i5-7442EQ basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.3 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 21 |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 6 MB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 160 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core i7-3610QM and Core i5-7442EQ compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCPGA988 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 25 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-3610QM and Core i5-7442EQ. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| My WiFi | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FDI | + | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
Security technologies
Core i7-3610QM and Core i5-7442EQ technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
| Anti-Theft | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-3610QM and Core i5-7442EQ are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | - | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-3610QM and Core i5-7442EQ. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3L-1600 |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 34.134 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics 4000 | Intel HD Graphics 630 |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.1 GHz | no data |
| InTru 3D | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i7-3610QM and Core i5-7442EQ integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
| eDP | + | no data |
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| SDVO | + | no data |
| CRT | + | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-3610QM and Core i5-7442EQ.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 16 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.23 | 3.04 |
| Integrated graphics card | 1.18 | 3.11 |
| Recency | 29 April 2012 | 3 January 2017 |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 25 Watt |
i7-3610QM has a 6.3% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more threads.
i5-7442EQ, on the other hand, has 163.6% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 4 years, a 57.1% more advanced lithography process, and 80% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core i7-3610QM and Core i5-7442EQ.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-3610QM and Core i5-7442EQ, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
