Celeron 827E vs Core i7-3635QM
Primary details
Comparing Core i7-3635QM and Celeron 827E processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1567 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Core i7 | Intel Celeron |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 30 September 2012 (11 years ago) | no data |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $89 |
Detailed specifications
Core i7-3635QM and Celeron 827E 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 | 2.4 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 1.4 GHz |
| Bus support | no data | 4 × 5 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | 64 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 256 KB |
| L3 cache | 6 MB | 1.5 MB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 160 mm2 | 131 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1400 Million | 504 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Core i7-3635QM and Celeron 827E 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 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | BGA | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 17 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-3635QM and Celeron 827E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | no data |
| FMA | no data | + |
| AVX | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
Security technologies
Core i7-3635QM and Celeron 827E technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-3635QM and Celeron 827E are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-3635QM and Celeron 827E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3-1066 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 21.335 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics 4000 | Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-3635QM and Celeron 827E.
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Core i7-3635QM outperforms Celeron 827E by 1189% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 8 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 17 Watt |
i7-3635QM has 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 45.5% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron 827E, on the other hand, has 164.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Core i7-3635QM and Celeron 827E. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-3635QM and Celeron 827E, 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.
