Name: Intel Core i7 3537U
Brand: Intel

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i7 3537U

3.7

Hide

Platform

6.5

Hide

Brand name

Intel

Processor type

CPU socket

Chipset

CPU architecture

Performance

3.0

Hide

N. of physical cores

CPU threads

Threads per core

CPU boost clock speed

CPU base clock speed

Cache & Architecture

4.3

Hide

Semiconductor size

Foundry

L3 cache

L2 cache

L1 cache

Memory & PCIe

3.7

Hide

DDR memory version

Maximum memory speed

Max memory speed (JEDEC)

Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)

N/A

Maximum memory capacity

Integrated Graphics

6.1

Hide

Integrated graphics

Integrated GPU model

Integrated GPU execution units

Integrated GPU base frequency

Integrated media encoders/decoders

Power & Thermal

6.9

Hide

TDP (Thermal design power)

Base power (PL1)

Boost power (PL2)

Tau (power duration limit)

Configurable TDP

Intel Core i7 3537U vs the average processor

Why is Intel Core i7 3537U better than the average processor?

Hide

4.57x faster Blender rendering
Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
1,770.02
★ Better than 96% of models
Market range: <97 – >1.3k
This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,770 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
1,770.02 vs 387.66
62.2% lower base power
Base power (PL1)
17 W
▲ Better than 76% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (17 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
17 W vs 45 W
33.3% smaller die size
Die size
118 mm²
▲ Better than 83% of models
Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (118 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
118 mm² vs 177 mm²
5 °C higher TJ Max
Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
105 °C
▲ Better than 84% of models
Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
105 °C vs 100 °C
62.2% lower TDP
TDP (Thermal design power)
17 W
▲ Better than 76% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (17 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
17 W vs 45 W
16.7% more L3 per core
L3 per core
2 MB/core
▲ Better than 52% of models
Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core

4.57x faster Blender rendering
Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
1,770.02
★ Better than 96% of models
Market range: <97 – >1.3k
This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,770 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
1,770.02 vs 387.66

33.3% smaller die size
Die size
118 mm²
▲ Better than 83% of models
Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (118 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
118 mm² vs 177 mm²
16.7% more L3 per core
L3 per core
2 MB/core
▲ Better than 52% of models
Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core

62.2% lower base power
Base power (PL1)
17 W
▲ Better than 76% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (17 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
17 W vs 45 W
5 °C higher TJ Max
Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
105 °C
▲ Better than 84% of models
Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
105 °C vs 100 °C
62.2% lower TDP
TDP (Thermal design power)
17 W
▲ Better than 76% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (17 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
17 W vs 45 W

Why is Intel Core i7 3537U worse than the average processor?

Hide

89.9% lower multi-core score
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
486
▼ Worse than 97% of models
Market range: <763 – >14k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (486 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
486 vs 4,829
77.8% lower PassMark score
PassMark benchmark result
2,349
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,349 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
2,349 vs 10,572.5
4 fewer CPU cores
N. of physical cores
2
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
2 vs 6
67.1% lower single-core score
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
484
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Market range: <561 – >2.7k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (484 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
484 vs 1,471
42.5% weaker single-core performance
PassMark single-core benchmark score
1,438
▼ Worse than 90% of models
Market range: <1.4k – >4k
This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,438 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
1,438 vs 2,500
27.9% lower boost clock
CPU boost clock speed
3.1 GHz
▼ Worse than 92% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
3.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
83.3% larger process node
Semiconductor size
22 nm
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (22 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
22 nm vs 12 nm
No configurable TDP
Configurable TDP
no
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.

23.7% worse value for money
Intel Core i7 3537U has worse value for money than the average processor (5.3 vs 6.6).
5.3 vs 6.56

7 years older release date
Release date
2013
▼ Worse than 89% of models
Market range: <2k – >2k
This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2013 vs 2020).
January 2013
2013 vs 2020
Narrower instruction support
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, AES
▼ Worse than 69% of models
This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
Older CPU socket
CPU socket
FCBGA1023
▼ Worse than 98% of models
This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1023 vs FP4).
FCBGA1023 vs FP4
No crypto acceleration
Cryptographic acceleration
AES
▼ Worse than 65% of models
This processor does not include crypto acceleration, the average processor does. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
AES vs AES, SHA

89.9% lower multi-core score
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
486
▼ Worse than 97% of models
Market range: <763 – >14k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (486 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
486 vs 4,829
77.8% lower PassMark score
PassMark benchmark result
2,349
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,349 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
2,349 vs 10,572.5
4 fewer CPU cores
N. of physical cores
2
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
2 vs 6
67.1% lower single-core score
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
484
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Market range: <561 – >2.7k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (484 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
484 vs 1,471
42.5% weaker single-core performance
PassMark single-core benchmark score
1,438
▼ Worse than 90% of models
Market range: <1.4k – >4k
This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,438 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
1,438 vs 2,500
27.9% lower boost clock
CPU boost clock speed
3.1 GHz
▼ Worse than 92% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
3.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
Lower base clock
CPU base clock speed
2 x 2.0 GHz
▼ Worse than 93% of models
This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
2x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
4 fewer CPU threads
CPU threads
4
▼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
4 vs 8
37.5% lower bus speed
Bus speed
5 GT/s
▼ Worse than 56% of models
Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
37.5% lower bus transfer rate
Bus transfer rate
5 GT/s
▼ Worse than 62% of models
Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
8 lower clock multiplier
Clock multiplier
20
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <16 – >38
This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (20 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
20 vs 28

83.3% larger process node
Semiconductor size
22 nm
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (22 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
22 nm vs 12 nm
Less advanced microarchitecture
Microarchitecture codename
Ivy Bridge
▼ Worse than 75% of models
This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Ivy Bridge vs Kaby Lake).
Ivy Bridge vs Kaby Lake
80% smaller L2 cache
L2 cache
0.5 MB
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
50% less L2 per core
L2 per core
0.25 MB/core
▼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
66.7% smaller L1 cache
L1 cache
128 KB
▼ Worse than 83% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (128 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
128 KB vs 384 KB
50% smaller L3 cache
L3 cache
4 MB
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
4 MB vs 8 MB
Less advanced foundry
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
▼ Worse than 85% of models
This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 22 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
Intel 22 nm vs Intel 14 nm

Older DDR support
DDR memory version
DDR3
▼ Worse than 86% of models
This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
DDR3 vs DDR4
44.1% lower memory bandwidth
Maximum memory bandwidth
25.6 GB/s
▼ Worse than 86% of models
Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (25.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
25.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
45.4% lower memory speed
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
▼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1600 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
1,600 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
Older PCIe version
PCIe version
2.0
▼ Worse than 92% of models
This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
2.0 vs 3.0
Lower JEDEC memory speed
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1600 MHz
▼ Worse than 89% of models
This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-1600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
DDR3-1,600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
50% less memory capacity
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
▼ Worse than 72% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
32 GB vs 64 GB
Limited PCIe bifurcation
PCIe bifurcation modes
x16, x8/x8
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4

Narrower media codec support
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
▼ Worse than 58% of models
This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
Inferior integrated GPU
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 4000
▼ Worse than 69% of models
This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 4000 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
Intel HD Graphics 4,000 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630

No configurable TDP
Configurable TDP
no
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
5 °C higher CPU temperature
CPU temperature
105 °C
▼ Worse than 84% of models
Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
105 °C vs 100 °C

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

openbenchmarking.org

29/03/2026

Summary of the review

Intel Core I7-3537U Benchmarks, Linux Performance

The Intel Core i7-3537U is a 2013 "Ivy Bridge" dual-core mobile processor designed for thin laptops, featuring a 2.0 GHz base frequency, 3.1 GHz turbo boost, and integrated HD Graphics 4000. It offers notable efficiency with a 17W TDP and supports Hyper-Threading for improved multitasking in its era. However, its performance is limited by only two physical cores and a locked multiplier, placing it behind modern processors and causing it to struggle with intensive tasks. Review full benchmark results at OpenBenchmarking.org.

browser.geekbench.com

29/03/2026

Summary of the review

Intel Core i7-3537U Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser

The Intel Core i7-3537U is a dual-core, 22nm Ivy Bridge mobile processor launched in early 2013, designed for thin-and-light laptops with a 17W TDP. Operating at 2.0 GHz to 3.1 GHz with Hyper-Threading, it excels in energy efficiency and provides capable performance for everyday office tasks and light professional workloads. However, its dual-core configuration is limited for modern, heavily threaded tasks, and the locked multiplier prevents overclocking. Based on Geekbench data, the i7-3537U shows its age against modern CPUs, though it offers a roughly 12% to 17% performance boost over the i5-3337U. While integrated Intel HD Graphics 4000 serves basic needs, it is outclassed by contemporary standards. For detailed benchmarks and technical specifications, visit Geekbench browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-core-i7-3537u.

cpubenchmark.net

29/03/2026

Summary of the review

Intel Core i7-3537U @ 2.00GHz - CPU Benchmarks

The Intel Core i7-3537U is a 2013-era Ivy Bridge, 22nm dual-core mobile processor designed for thin-and-light laptops, featuring a 2.00 GHz base frequency, 3.10 GHz turbo boost, and a low 17W TDP. Primarily suited for basic computing today, the processor boasts good energy efficiency and Hyper-Threading capabilities for multitasking, while offering integrated Intel HD Graphics 4000 for standard multimedia tasks. However, its limitations include only two physical cores, outdated DDR3 RAM support, and lack of support for modern operating systems like Windows 11. Detailed benchmarks are available on the PassMark website. Copy

connect-living.de

30/10/2013

Summary of the review

Lenovo IdeaCentre Horizon Review

The Lenovo IdeaCentre Horizon is a 27-inch "Table PC" designed for shared family interaction, featuring a specialized hinge that allows it to lie flat for the "Aura" multi-user interface. Its key advantages include a high-quality 1080p display, robust build quality, and roughly two hours of cordless battery life. However, the device is hindered by sluggish performance due to a slow 5,400rpm hard drive and limited port selection. While offering a unique, interactive experience for gaming and media, the high price and average hardware specifications position it as a niche device.

valid.x86.fr

29/03/2026

Summary of the review

CPU-Z Benchmark for Intel Core i7-3537U (Single-Thread)

The CPU-Z benchmark for the Intel Core i7-3537U, a third-generation Ivy Bridge chip, shows a single-thread score of 239 and a multi-thread score of 663, indicating its role as legacy mobile hardware. While offering energy efficiency and capable handling of basic tasks via hyper-threading, the processor's performance is limited by its age and low core count compared to modern, entry-level CPUs, which often boast significantly higher scores, as seen in comparison benchmarks. This data underscores the performance gap developed over a decade, highlighting that while once a premium ultrabook choice, this hardware is now best suited for light, everyday computing rather than demanding applications. For more details, visit Valid.x86.fr.

tomshardware.fr

05/02/2014

Summary of the review

Comparison: seven mini-PCs, small but powerful

Tom's Hardware evaluates seven mini-PCs, ranging from budget-friendly Intel NUCs to the potent ASRock VisionX 420D, testing if compact designs can deliver true desktop-class performance. The units, featuring mobile Core i3/i5/i7 processors and some dedicated graphics, show significant improvements over older, underpowered models in handling daily productivity, media, and light gaming. While offering excellent space-saving advantages and versatility, these systems often face compromises, including thermal management issues, increased fan noise, and higher costs relative to performance compared to larger, more upgradeable alternatives.

geeknetic.es

27/08/2014

Summary of the review

Zotac Zbox Nano ID65: One Year Later

The Zotac ZBOX Nano ID65 is an ultra-compact mini-PC featuring an Intel Core i7-3537U processor, offering impressive CPU performance for productivity tasks and 1080p video within a small 5-inch form factor. It stands out for its extensive connectivity, including four USB 3.0 ports, and tool-free internal access for easy upgrades. However, the device is limited by high pricing, a noisy fan under load, and single-channel memory that restricts graphics performance. For more details, visit Geeknetic.

geeknetic.es

16/07/2013

Summary of the review

Zotac Zbox Nano ID65 [Full Review]

The Zotac Zbox Nano ID65, as reviewed by Geeknetic, features a 5-inch square design with a powerful 3rd-gen Intel Core i7-3537U processor, offering "nippy" performance for productivity and HD video. Key connectivity includes six USB ports, HDMI, DisplayPort, eSATA, and Gigabit Ethernet, along with a unique nanoRAID adapter for dual mSATA SSD setups. While praised for its compact size, build quality, and rich I/O, the unit faces limitations from single-channel memory, slow HDD speeds in the "Plus" model, and underwhelming Intel HD 4000 graphics performance. Despite its power, the high cost of the barebones kit makes it a niche option, with the 5,400rpm drive potentially bottlenecking the system, according to the review.

tomshw.it

30/11/2013

Summary of the review

Fujitsu Lifebook U904: The First Ultrabook with an IGZO Display

The Fujitsu Lifebook U904 is a premium, 15.5mm-thick magnesium alloy business ultrabook featuring a 14-inch IGZO display with a 3200 x 1800 WQHD+ resolution. While providing high clarity for professionals, the screen's Windows 8.1 scaling issues often render text too small, and the touchscreen version is highly reflective. Powered by Intel Haswell processors, the device delivers responsive performance for productivity, though it lacks 3D gaming capability, with battery life averaging 7–8 hours. Despite having an Ethernet port and strong security, it is hindered by a shallow, unsatisfactory keyboard and poor speakers. Copy

tomshw.it

17/11/2013

Summary of the review

Asus Zenbook UX301: high-speed ultrathin for the sharp-eyed

The Asus Zenbook UX301 is a premium Ultrabook featuring a high-resolution 13.3-inch WQHD (2560 x 1440) touch display and a durable, scratch-resistant Gorilla Glass 3 lid. Key performance pros include a powerful Core i7-4558U processor and fast storage, although the high-resolution screen can lead to Windows scaling issues and acts as a fingerprint magnet. While offering excellent input devices and solid connectivity options, the notebook is hampered by underwhelming battery life, high cost, and a non-upgradeable design.

forum.tomshw.it

23/07/2013

Summary of the review

Asus S56CB-XX173H Review (Official Forum)

The Asus S56CB-XX173H, reviewed on the Tom's Hardware Italy forum, is positioned as a versatile 2013 "Ultrabook" featuring an Intel Core i7-3537U, 8GB of RAM, and a 21mm chassis that includes an optical drive. Performance is highlighted as a pro, with the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M handling gaming and high-definition tasks efficiently, complemented by a robust "built like a tank" design. However, notable cons include an average 1366x768 display, limited battery life of around 3.5 hours, and pre-installed bloatware.

tomshw.it

16/10/2013

Summary of the review

HP Envy Touchsmart 15: A desktop replacement with great battery life

The HP Envy TouchSmart 15 operates as a robust, premium-built desktop replacement featuring a quad-core Intel Core i7-4700MQ processor, 16GB of RAM, and a dedicated Nvidia GeForce GT 740M GPU, ideal for demanding tasks. It boasts a high-quality Beats Audio system and a 15.6-inch Full HD touchscreen, offering a solid 15-inch metal frame. However, the laptop suffers from very poor battery life, typically under two hours, and utilizes a slow 5,400 RPM hard drive without an SSD, resulting in high heat and noise output under load.

tweakers.net

15/07/2014

Summary of the review

Asus R510C Laptop Review - Tweakers

The Asus R510C is a compact laptop featuring an older but capable Core i7-3537U processor, offering quiet operation and easy component upgrades via a bottom hatch. While performance is snappy for daily tasks and light gaming, the laptop suffers from high energy consumption and short battery life. The 15.6-inch, 1366x768 glossy display is considered the main drawback due to poor viewing angles and low brightness, making the device best suited for users prioritizing upgradability over screen quality. For more details, visit Tweakers.net.

be.hardware.info

27/03/2013

Summary of the review

Dell XPS 13 review: now with Full HD IPS - Conclusion

The Hardware.info review of the Dell XPS 13 highlights a crucial display upgrade to a 1920x1080 IPS panel, which drastically improves color accuracy and viewing angles compared to earlier TN-panel models [20, 23]. This, combined with the premium machined aluminum and carbon fiber chassis, finally aligns the laptop's display quality with its high-end competitors [20, 38]. Performance remains strong, driven by 3rd Gen Intel Core (Ivy Bridge) processors and a fast Samsung SSD that ensure a snappy user experience and quick wake times [23, 27]. The device continues to feature an excellent, comfortable backlit keyboard and maintains its status as a highly portable, well-built ultrabook [14, 23]. Despite the improvements, the review notes limited port selection—missing an SD card reader—and average battery life of around 7 hours, which falls short of the market leaders [23, 27]. Other drawbacks include occasionally erratic touchpad drivers and a glossy screen that struggles with reflections [19, 23]. Ultimately, the IPS panel upgrade makes this the best version of the XPS 13 to date [20, 23].

tweakers.net

15/09/2014

Summary of the review

Budget Laptop Round-up

a little longerThinking a little longer This 2014 Tweakers review evaluates seven laptops under €600, finding that while performance was uniform, screen quality and build materials were the key differentiators. The HP Pavilion 15-p035nd was named the "Best Buy" for its balanced performance and Full HD screen, despite a plastic chassis and average battery life. Other models, such as the Acer Aspire E5 and Lenovo IdeaPad Z50, offered strong specs but were limited by poor touchpads or reflective screens, leading to the conclusion that prioritizing display quality offers the best value in this price bracket. For more details, visit Tweakers.

techzine.nl

25/09/2013

Summary of the review

Lenovo Yoga 13 IdeaPad Review - Page 4 of 10 - Techzine.nl

The Techzine.nl review highlights the Lenovo Yoga 13 IdeaPad as a versatile Windows 8 laptop featuring an innovative 360-degree hinge that allows it to transition between four modes. Performance is a key pro, driven by third-generation Intel Core processors, fast SSD storage, and a high-quality 1600 x 900 IPS display, complemented by a comfortable keyboard. However, the device is considered too heavy and unwieldy for comfortable tablet use, with an exposed keyboard on the back, limited connectivity, and a battery life that falls short of claims.

id.nl

21/07/2013

Summary of the review

Dell XPS 13 Developer Edition Review - ID.nl

The 2013 ID.nl review highlights the Dell XPS 13 Developer Edition as a premium, highly portable Ultrabook featuring an 18mm carbon-fiber chassis and a vibrant 1,920×1,080 display, though the screen's glossy finish causes reflections. It offers strong performance with Intel HD Graphics 4000 for light gaming, but suffers from limited port selection (only two USB 3.0 ports) and battery life that falls short of the Windows version. Primarily for Linux users, it runs Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, yet the review notes disappointing details like a Windows-keyed keyboard and suggests it is better suited for mobile staff than heavy-coding developers.

Intel Core i7 3537U Review | 78 Data compared

Best prices

Best rankings

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i7 3537U

Intel Core i7 3537U vs the average processor

Why is Intel Core i7 3537U better than the average processor?

Why is Intel Core i7 3537U worse than the average processor?

Expert reviews

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i7 3537U

What we don't like about Intel Core i7 3537U

Verdict

Best alternatives

Compare Intel Core i7 3537U with other processors

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i7 3537U and other processors