CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3630QM vs 5750M among laptop CPUs (over 15W)


Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Face detection and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Overall Performance and TDP


Are you paying a premium for performance?

Overall Performance and System Price (adjusted)


CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Intel Core i7 3630QM 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 3630QM  based on its performance, single-core performance and value.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i7 3630QM

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 3630QM

Report a correction
More advanced architecture x86-64 vs ARM A 64-bit architecture allows more RAM to be installed and accessed by the processor
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
More threads 8 vs 4 Twice as many threads
Much better turbo clock speed 1,150 MHz vs 720 MHz Around 60% better turbo clock speed
Much better CompuBench 1.5 T-Rex score 1.31 fps vs 0.62 fps Around 2.2x better CompuBench 1.5 T-Rex score
Significantly better geekbench 2 (64-bit) score 10,844 vs 4,225 More than 2.5x better geekbench 2 (64-bit) score
Significantly better 3DMark06 CPU score 6,392 vs 3,238 More than 95% better 3DMark06 CPU score
Significantly better geekbench 3 single core score 2,775 vs 1,699 Around 65% better geekbench 3 single core score
Significantly better cloud gate score 5,570 vs 3,700 More than 50% better cloud gate score
Higher GPU clock speed 650 MHz vs 533 MHz More than 20% higher GPU clock speed
Better performance per dollar 2.17 pt/$ vs 1.19 pt/$ Around 85% better performance per dollar
Better PCMark 8 home 3.0 accelerated score 2,869 vs 2,734 Around 5% better PCMark 8 home 3.0 accelerated score
Front view of AMD A10 5750M

Reasons to consider the
AMD A10 5750M

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 4 MB vs 1 MB 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
Slightly higher turbo clock speed 3.5 GHz vs 3.4 GHz Around 5% higher turbo clock speed
Lower typical power consumption 28.44W vs 36.56W More than 20% lower typical power consumption
Newer Mar, 2013 vs Sep, 2012 Release date 5 months later
Lower annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year vs 10.84 $/year More than 20% lower annual home energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 3630QM vs A10 5750M

CompuBench 1.5 (Face detection) Data courtesy CompuBench

Core i7 3630QM
6.75 mPixels/s
A10 5750M
4.1 mPixels/s

CompuBench 1.5 (T-Rex) Data courtesy CompuBench

Core i7 3630QM
1.31 fps
A10 5750M
0.62 fps

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated Data courtesy FutureMark

Sky Diver Data courtesy FutureMark

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

A10 5750M

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

3D Mark 06 (CPU)

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Core i7 3630QM  vs
A10 5750M 
Clock speed 2.4 GHz 2.5 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.4 GHz 3.5 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Is unlocked No No


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 45W 35W
Annual home energy cost 10.84 $/year 8.43 $/year
Performance per watt 13.98 pt/W 16.34 pt/W
Typical power consumption 36.56W 28.44W


Core i7 3630QM  vs
A10 5750M 
Architecture x86-64 ARM
Threads 8 4
L2 cache 1 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 105°C Unknown - 105°C


Overclocked clock speed 3.14 GHz 3.21 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.4 GHz 2.5 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.14 GHz 3.21 GHz

integrated graphics

Label Intel® HD Graphics 4000 Radeon™ HD 8650G
GPU clock speed 650 MHz 533 MHz
Turbo clock speed 1,150 MHz 720 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
Intel Core i7 3630QM
Report a correction
AMD A10 5750M
Report a correction


Showing 3 comments.
AMD cores are not very efficient (in terms of instructions per cycle and picowatts per instruction). In fact, if you look at the CPU architecture, the so-called 4-core AMD CPU is really more akin to a 2-core Intel CPU, since the A10 only has 2 integer units and 1 floating point unit shared among all 4 cores. I don't know about you, but integer units = cores in my book. Anyway, an Intel CPU is something like 50% more efficient per clock at getting things done. The A10 5750M is already running at almost 3 Ghz which is a miracle for a mobile CPU without blowing the power budget. AMD probably cannot get enough yield for a 3.4 Ghz ~ A12 CPU without having to charge so much (maybe $400 per chip) that nobody would buy it (not competitive with Intel's offerings which only have to run at 2.2 Ghz to match its speed.) The GPU of the AMD is marginally better than the HD 4200 and HD 4400. But it is not better than an HD 4600, or Iris (HD 5100) or Iris Pro (HD 5200).
Really depends on what you are looking for. Graphics performance is completely overlooked on this site. Compare the A10 to i7 on graphics is completely lopsided in AMDs favor, works extremely well for me too!
Why does AMD not offer laptop CPUs above the A10 5750M? Even the entry-level 3rd and 4th gen i7s perform more than double as well on passmark than AMD's Finest. Shame, really, was looking into whether Intel really is the only way to go with nice laptops. Looks like it is indeed.
comments powered by Disqus