OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Core i7 3610QM Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£35PassMark benchmark result:5146N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.3 GHzCPU socket:FCPGA988TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

Intel Core i7 3610QM Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

3.9

Overall score

Score
3.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components

90%

4.0

Technical score

10%

3.4

User score

â–¼Worse than 90% of processors
4.0

Technical score

Technical score
4.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Score components

60%

3.5

Performance

18%

4.1

Cache & Architecture

10%

3.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.2

Power & Thermal

4%

6.8

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 85% of processors
3.4

User score

User score
3.4/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

70%

4.0

User ratings

30%

1.9

Number of reviews

Based on 3 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
â–¼Worse than 99% of processors
  • intel-core-i7-3610qm
intel-core-i7-3610qm

Best prices

*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i7 3610QM

Technical score
Technical score
4.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Score components:

60%

3.5

Performance

18%

4.1

Cache & Architecture

10%

3.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.2

Power & Thermal

4%

6.8

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated Graphics

4.0
User score
User score
3.4/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

70%

4.0

User ratings

30%

1.9

Number of reviews

Based on 3 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
3.4
Popularity
Popularity
1.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 71% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core i7 3610QM has a popularity score of 1.9 points, which is higher than that of 70.5% of products in this category.
1.9
Value for money
Value for money
5.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components:

60%

3.9

Overall score

40%

10

Price

5.8
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FCPGA988
CPU socket
FCPGA988
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
This processor uses the FCPGA988 CPU socket, which is older than that of 62.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% of processors.
Chipset
QM77, HM77, HM76, HM75
Chipset
QM77, HM77, HM76, HM75
â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
This processor supports QM77, HM77, HM76, HM75 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 56% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
N. of physical cores
4
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 50.7% of processors and equal to 28.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
CPU threads
8
â–¼ Worse than 46% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 35.2% of processors and equal to 19.1% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
â–² Better than 30% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 2 threads per core, which is more than 30.3% of processors and equal to 69.7% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.3 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.3 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.3 GHz which is lower than that of 86.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.5% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.3 GHz & 4x 3.3 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.3 GHz & 4x 3.3 GHz
â–² Better than 73% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.3 GHz & 4x3.3 GHz which is higher than that of 72.5% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
22 nm
Semiconductor size
22 nm
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 22 nm process node, which is older than that of 84.6% of processors and equal to that of 10.1% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 22 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 84.6% of processors and equal to that of 10.1% of processors.
L3 cache
6 MB
L3 cache
6 MB
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 6 MB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
L2 cache
1 MB
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 66.9% of processors and equal to that of 17.7% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
L1 cache
256 KB
â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 59.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3
DDR memory version
DDR3
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR3, which is older than that of 86.3% of processors and equal to that of 13.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,600 MHz, which is lower than that of 87.2% of processors and equal to 11.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1600 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1600 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-1600 MHz, which is lower than that of 88.8% of processors and equal to 8.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 71.9% of processors and equal to 19.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 4000
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 4000
â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 4000 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 69.5% of processors and equal to that in 2.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
16
Integrated GPU execution units
16
â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 16 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 56.4% of processors and equal to 6.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
650 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
650 MHz
â–² Better than 80% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 650 MHz which is higher than that of 80.4% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode)
â–² Better than 51% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 51.5% of processors and equal to 0.9% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
â–¼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 45 W which is lower than that of 40.1% of processors and equal to that of 11.4% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
45 W
Base power (PL1)
45 W
â–¼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 45 W which is lower than that of 39.9% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
â–¼ Worse than 10% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 3.4% of processors and equal to that of 86.1% of processors.
Configurable TDP
no
Configurable TDP
no
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Core i7 3610QM vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 2.3 GHz & 4 x 3.3 GHz
    â–² Better than 73% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (4x2.3 GHz & 4x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x2.3 GHz & 4x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 5 °C higher TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    â–² 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
  • 7.14x cheaper
    Intel Core i7 3610QM is cheaper than the average processor (£35 vs £250).
    £35 vs £250
  • 90.9% more popular
    Intel Core i7 3610QM is more popular than the average processor (1.91 vs 1).
    1.91 vs 1
  • 85.7% higher GPU clock speed
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    650 MHz
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (650 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    650 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 7.14x cheaper
    Intel Core i7 3610QM is cheaper than the average processor (£35 vs £250).
    £35 vs £250
  • 90.9% more popular
    Intel Core i7 3610QM is more popular than the average processor (1.91 vs 1).
    1.91 vs 1
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 2.3 GHz & 4 x 3.3 GHz
    â–² Better than 73% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (4x2.3 GHz & 4x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x2.3 GHz & 4x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 85.7% higher GPU clock speed
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    650 MHz
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (650 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    650 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 5 °C higher TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    â–² 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
  • 88.9% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    538
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (538 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    538 vs 4,829
  • 63.4% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    538
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (538 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    538 vs 1,471
  • 23.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.3 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.3 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.3 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 33.4% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,666
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,666 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,666 vs 2,500
  • 51.3% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    5,146
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,146 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,146 vs 10,572.5
  • 83.3% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    22 nm
    â–¼ 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
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2.37x lower user score
    User score
    3.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
    When it matters
    When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    Intel Core i7 3610QM
    the average processor
    Intel Core i7 3610QM has a lower user score than the average processor (3.37 vs 8.000).
    3.37 vs 8
  • 13.9% worse value for money
    Intel Core i7 3610QM has worse value for money than the average processor (5.76 vs 6.6).
    5.76 vs 6.56
  • 8 years older release date
    Release date
    2012
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2012 vs 2020).
    April 2012
    2012 vs 2020
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, AES
    â–¼ 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
  • No crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES
    â–¼ 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
  • 88.9% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    538
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (538 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    538 vs 4,829
  • 63.4% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    538
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (538 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    538 vs 1,471
  • 23.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.3 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.3 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.3 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 33.4% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,666
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,666 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,666 vs 2,500
  • 51.3% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    5,146
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,146 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,146 vs 10,572.5
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 37.5% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    5 GT/s
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
  • 83.3% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    22 nm
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
  • 50% less L2 per core
    L2 per core
    0.25 MB/core
    â–¼ 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
  • 60% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    1 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    1 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 12.5% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.5 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    256 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 71.7% fewer transistors
    N. of transistors
    1.4 billion
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.4 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    1.4 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Less advanced foundry
    Foundry
    Intel 22 nm
    â–¼ 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
  • 25% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    6 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    6 MB vs 8 MB
  • Older DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR3
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR3-1600 MHz
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode)
    â–² Better than 51% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (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/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet

Third-party reviews

Based on 3 buyer reviews from online shops.
Reviews last updated: October 2026 · How we calculate this
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →

What we like about Intel Core i7 3610QM

  • High multi-core performance for its generation, capable of handling 8 threads simultaneously
  • Excellent 'bang-for-buck' value, often outperforming more expensive contemporary chips in benchmarks
  • Noticeable improvement in integrated graphics (HD 4000) compared to previous Sandy Bridge models
  • Reliable for everyday office tasks, web browsing, and 1080p video playback even years after release
  • Fast enough for light gaming and handles multitasking well

What we don't like about Intel Core i7 3610QM

  • High operating temperatures; users frequently report that it runs hot under load
  • Significant power draw (45W TDP) which can quickly drain laptop batteries during intensive tasks
  • Outdated by modern standards, struggling with current high-end gaming and demanding professional software
  • Lack of support for some advanced features like VT-d and vPro
  • Requires effective cooling and often a thermal paste re-application to maintain performance in older laptops

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-3610QM is a 3rd-generation quad-core mobile processor based on the 22nm Ivy Bridge architecture, featuring 4 physical cores, 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, and a 6MB L3 Smart Cache. It operates at a 2.3 GHz base frequency with a Max Turbo frequency of 3.3 GHz and integrates Intel HD Graphics 4000 (650–1100 MHz). Main pros include strong multi-threaded performance for its era, support for up to 32GB of DDR3/L-1600 memory, and improved energy efficiency through 3D transistors. However, it is hindered by a relatively high 45W TDP that requires robust cooling, a lack of official support for Windows 11 due to missing security features like TPM 2.0, and being limited to the older FCPGA988 socket.

Compare Intel Core i7 3610QM with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i7 3610QM and other processors

No results found