CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3630QM vs 5750M


Benchmark performance using all cores

3DMark06 (CPU), Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and GeekBench (64-bit)

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Passmark (Single Core)

Power Consumption

How much power does the processor require?



How does CPUBoss rank the features of each product?

Features and specifications that differ between products

No winner declared

Too close to call

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
Is hyperthreaded Yes vs No Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core
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
Significantly better turbo clock speed 1,150 MHz vs 720 MHz Around 60% better turbo clock speed
Much better 3DMark11 physics score 5,720 vs 2,510 More than 2.2x better 3DMark11 physics score
Significantly better geekbench (64-bit) score 10,942 vs 4,327 More than 2.5x better geekbench (64-bit) score
Significantly better 3DMark06 CPU score 6,392 vs 3,238 More than 95% better 3DMark06 CPU score
Significantly better PassMark score 7,766 vs 3,814 More than 2x better PassMark score
Higher GPU clock speed 650 MHz vs 533 MHz More than 20% higher GPU clock speed
Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,709 vs 1,230 Around 40% better PassMark (Single core) score
Better performance per watt 19.66 pt/W vs 12.18 pt/W More than 60% better performance per watt
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
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

GeekBench (32-bit)

A10 5750M

GeekBench (64-bit)

A10 5750M

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

Core i7 3630QM A10 5750M @ community.futuremark.com

3D Mark 06 (CPU)


Core i7 3630QM A10 5750M @ cpubenchmark.net

Passmark (Single Core)

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
Is hyperthreaded Yes 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 19.66 pt/W 12.18 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 3.13 GHz 3.21 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.4 GHz 2.5 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.13 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