Celeron M 743 vs i7-3612QE
Aggregate performance score
Core i7-3612QE outperforms Celeron M 743 by a whopping 1967% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i7-3612QE and Celeron M 743 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1630 | 3320 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 8.34 | 1.41 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Penryn (2008−2011) |
| Release date | 29 April 2012 (12 years ago) | 1 September 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $107 |
Detailed specifications
Core i7-3612QE and Celeron M 743 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 2.1 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 1.3 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 800 MHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64 KB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 6144 KB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 160 mm2 | 107 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 410 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core i7-3612QE and Celeron M 743 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 | no data |
| Socket | Intel BGA1023 | BGA965 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 10 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-3612QE and Celeron M 743. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
Security technologies
Core i7-3612QE and Celeron M 743 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-3612QE and Celeron M 743 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-3612QE and Celeron M 743. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | unknown Dual-channel | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD 4000 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.10 | 0.15 |
| Recency | 29 April 2012 | 1 September 2009 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 8 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 10 Watt |
i7-3612QE has a 1966.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 104.5% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron M 743, on the other hand, has 250% lower power consumption.
The Core i7-3612QE is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 743 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-3612QE and Celeron M 743, 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.
