Intel Atom C5315 vs Intel Core i7-930 Comparison

The Intel Core i7-930 and the Intel Atom C5315 occupy opposite ends of Intel’s design philosophy. One is a 2010 desktop flagship built for raw compute, the other is a 2022 server-oriented part built for efficiency. Yet the benchmark data shows something surprising: these two processors land within a hair of each other in every recorded test. The i7-930 wins all five head-to-head comparisons, but the margins are so small that they raise questions about what each architecture actually prioritizes. This analysis digs into those numbers, the architectural choices behind them, and which processor makes sense for which workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded Cinebench results tell a remarkably consistent story. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core i7-930 scores 258 points while the Atom C5315 scores 255, a margin of 1.2% in favor of the older chip. That gap repeats almost exactly in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the i7-930 posts 1076 points against 1063 for the Atom, again a 1.2% lead. The pattern holds in Cinebench R23 multicore, with the i7-930 at 2563 and the Atom at 2533, another 1.2% difference. None of these multicore gaps are large enough to call one chip decisively faster in rendering workloads, but the consistency across three different test versions suggests a stable underlying performance relationship.

Single-core results mirror the multicore picture. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i7-930 scores 151 against the Atom’s 149, a 1.3% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i7-930 hits 361 while the Atom manages 357, a 1.1% edge. The i7-930 wins every single head-to-head benchmark, five wins to zero, yet the largest margin across all tests is just 1.3%. This is not a dominance story; it is a story of two very different engineering approaches converging on nearly identical output.

The average benchmark scores in the database reinforce this. The i7-930 carries an average benchmark score of 882, placing it in the 23rd percentile of all CPUs tracked. The Atom C5315 averages 871, also in the 23rd percentile. Their nearest rivals tell the same tale. The i7-930 sits within 0.1% of the AMD Athlon Silver 7120U and the AMD Phenom II X6 1035T, and within 0.2% of the AMD PRO A12-8870E. The Atom C5315 trades blows with the AMD Athlon PRO 3045B at -0.1%, the Intel Core i7-3540M at 0.5%, and the Intel Xeon X3460 at 0.5%. Both chips live in the same performance neighborhood, surrounded by a mix of old desktop parts and low-power modern silicon.

What is curious here is the source of the near-identical scores. The i7-930 uses four cores with eight threads, while the Atom C5315 uses four cores with four threads. The i7-930 boosts to 3.07 GHz from a 2.80 GHz base, while the Atom runs at a fixed 2.40 GHz with no boost clock recorded. Despite the i7-930’s thread advantage and higher clock speeds, the Atom’s newer 10 nm Tremont architecture nearly erases the gap. The data suggests that per-clock efficiency gains in the Atom core design compensate for its lower frequency and lack of simultaneous multithreading.

The Verdict

From the recorded data alone, the Intel Core i7-930 is the faster processor in every measured benchmark. It wins all five Cinebench tests, both single-core and multicore, with margins ranging from 1.1% to 1.3%. For any workload represented by Cinebench, which stresses both single-threaded and multi-threaded integer and floating-point performance, the i7-930 is the safer choice for raw speed. However, the margins are so thin that they fall within normal run-to-run variation for most modern systems, meaning real-world differences would be hard to notice without controlled testing.

The Atom C5315, despite losing every head-to-head test, offers attributes that the i7-930 cannot match. Its thermal design power is 38 watts compared to 130 watts for the i7-930, a massive efficiency gap. It supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the desktop part. It is an active production part with a recorded launch MSRP of $213, while the i7-930 is end-of-life. For server and workstation deployments where reliability, memory error correction, and power envelopes matter more than a 1.2% Cinebench margin, the Atom C5315 is the logical pick.

The verdict depends entirely on priorities. If the only question is which chip scores higher in a benchmark, the i7-930 wins. If the question is which chip should go into a new system today, the Atom C5315’s active status, ECC support, and dramatically lower power draw make it the more sensible choice. The data shows two chips that perform almost identically but serve completely different markets. The i7-930 is a relic of an era where desktop performance came with high power costs; the Atom C5315 is a modern efficiency-first design that happens to land in the same performance class.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is wide. The Core i7-930 uses the Nehalem architecture on the Bloomfield codename, built on a 45 nm process node. The Atom C5315 uses the Tremont architecture on the Parker Ridge codename, built on a 10 nm process node. That process shrink, from 45 nm to 10 nm, is fundamental to understanding why the Atom’s efficiency advantage, though transistor counts and die size measurements for the Atom are not recorded in the database.

The i7-930 packs 731 million transistors onto a die size of 3.3 mm², a comparatively large and power-hungry design from Intel’s foundry. The Atom C5315 transistor count is not listed, reflecting its status as a smaller low-power core design. The i7-930’s large die size explains its 130 watt thermal design power, while the Atom’s 38 watt TDP indicates a far more frugal layout.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. Both chips share a per-core L1 cache of 64 KB and per-core L2 of 256 KB, but the i7-930 has an L3 cache of 8 MB shared across all cores. The Atom C5315 flips the hierarchy, with an L2 cache of 4.5 MB per module and no L3 cache recorded. This means the Atom relies on a larger L2 per module instead of a shared L3, a design choice suited to its lower memory latency requirements in server workloads.

Memory support also diverges. The i7-930 uses DDR3 memory over a triple-channel memory bus, while the Atom C5315 uses DDR4 over a dual-channel bus. The Atom’s memory bandwidth is explicitly recorded at 38.4 GB/s, while the i7-930’s bandwidth is not listed. ECC memory support is a key differentiator: the Atom supports it, the i7-930 does not. PCIe generations differ too, with the i7-930 offering Gen 2 and the Atom offering Gen 3 with 8 lanes on the CPU. The Atom also lists integrated graphics as N/A, while the i7-930 has no integrated graphics recorded at all.

The i7-930 represents the tail end of Intel’s high-power desktop era, where performance was achieved through large dies, high transistor counts, and aggressive power draw. The Atom C5315 represents Intel’s modern efficiency push, where a small 10 nm core achieves comparable results at a fraction of the power. The near-identical benchmark scores suggest that architectural efficiency has advanced enough to let a low-power Atom core match a flagship desktop chip from twelve years earlier.

Specification Differences

Cores and threads: The i7-930 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Atom C5315 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The i7-930’s Hyper-Threading support doubles its thread count.

Clock speeds: The i7-930 has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.07 GHz. The Atom C5315 has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and no boost clock recorded.

Thermal design power: The i7-930 draws 130 watts. The Atom C5315 draws 38 watts.

Socket: The i7-930 uses Intel Socket 1366. The Atom C5315 uses Intel BGA 2106.

Process node: The i7-930 is built on 45 nm. The Atom C5315 is built on 10 nm.

Cache: The i7-930 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Atom C5315 has 4.5 MB of L2 cache per module and no L3.

Memory: The i7-930 supports DDR3 over a triple-channel bus. The Atom C5315 supports DDR4 over a dual-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth.

ECC: The i7-930 does not support ECC memory. The Atom C5315 does.

PCIe: The i7-930 offers Gen 2. The Atom C5315 offers Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics: Neither chip has integrated graphics recorded; the Atom lists N/A explicitly.

Production status: The i7-930 is end-of-life. The Atom C5315 is active.

Release date: The i7-930 was released in February 2010. The Atom C5315 was released in June 2022. That is a twelve-year gap between launch dates.

Part numbers: The i7-930 is SLBKP. The Atom C5315 is SRL3Y.

Multiplier: Both chips have locked multipliers.

Market segment: The i7-930 targets desktop. The Atom C5315 targets server and workstation.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core i7-930 scores 2563 points, while the Intel Atom C5315 scores 2533 points. The i7-930 wins by 1.2%.

Q: Does the Atom C5315 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Atom C5315 supports ECC memory. The Core i7-930 does not.

Q: What is the power draw difference between these two chips?

A: The Core i7-930 has a thermal design power of 130 watts, while the Atom C5315 has a TDP of 38 watts. The Atom draws about one-third the power of the i7-930.

Q: How many threads does each processor handle?

A: The Core i7-930 handles 8 threads from its 4 cores, while the Atom C5315 handles 4 threads from its 4 cores.

Q: Which processor is still in production?

A: The Atom C5315 is active, while the Core i7-930 is end-of-life.

Q: What memory types do these chips support?

A: The Core i7-930 supports DDR3 over a triple-channel bus. The Atom C5315 supports DDR4 over a dual-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-930 wins in every recorded benchmark, so any workload measured by Cinebench belongs to it. That includes single-core tests, where it scores 151 in Cinebench R20 and 361 in Cinebench R23, and multicore tests, where it scores 1076 in Cinebench R20 and 2563 in Cinebench R23. For users running rendering or compute tasks that resemble Cinebench’s workload, the i7-930’s 8 threads give it a small but consistent edge. Its 2.80 GHz base and 3.07 GHz boost clocks are higher than the Atom’s fixed 2.40 GHz, and its larger 8 MB L3 cache likely helps in workloads that benefit from shared cache.

The Intel Atom C5315 wins in areas not captured by benchmark scores. Its 38 watt TDP makes it suitable for power-constrained server environments where the i7-930’s 130 watt draw would be impractical. ECC memory support makes it the only choice here for memory error correction in critical systems. Its active production status means it can be sourced for new builds, while the i7-930 is end-of-life. The Atom’s DDR4 support and Gen 3 PCIe with 8 lanes also make it more compatible with modern platforms, despite its lower raw benchmark scores. Its 4.5 MB L2 cache per module and lack of L3 might suit workloads that fit within that cache layout, though the database does not record such tests.

The broader picture is one of convergence. The i7-930, a 45 nm desktop flagship from 2010, and the Atom C5315, a 10 nm server part from 2022, produce nearly identical Cinebench results. The i7-930 ekes out wins in all five tests, but the Atom matches it within 1.3% while using a fraction of the power and supporting server-grade features. Buyers choosing between these two should base their decision on the full context: the i7-930 for absolute benchmark supremacy, the Atom C5315 for efficiency, ECC, and long-term availability. The data leaves no room for a clear overall winner, only a clear split by use case.