CPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unequivocal picture: the Intel Core i3-1000NG4 wins every single head-to-head comparison in this suite, taking all 5 available tests. The Core i7-930, despite its higher core and thread count, fails to secure a single victory. This is not a narrow margin either; the deltas are remarkably consistent across every workload. In multi-core Cinebench tests, the i3-1000NG4 leads by precisely 14.3% in both Cinebench R15 (301 vs 258) and Cinebench R20 (1255 vs 1076). The pattern holds in the newer Cinebench R23 multi-core test, where the i3-1000NG4 scores 2989 against the i7-930’s 2563, again a 14.3% advantage.

The single-core results are even more decisive in percentage terms. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i3-1000NG4 posts 177 points versus the i7-930’s 151, a 14.7% gap. The Cinebench R23 single-core test shows the i3-1000NG4 at 422 points against 361 points for the i7-930, representing a 14.5% lead. It is notable that the older i7-930, which was designed for a completely different era of computing, is so thoroughly outpaced. The consistency of the 14.3% to 14.7% delta range across all tests suggests a fundamental per-clock efficiency advantage for the newer architecture, rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this near-parity in overall standing. The Core i7-930 has an average benchmark score of 882, while the Core i3-1000NG4 sits at 881. The delta between them is a mere 0.1% in the i7-930’s favor in its own rival list, and -0.1% from the i3’s perspective. Both processors occupy the 23rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. This means that while the i3-1000NG4 wins every single benchmark test, the aggregate score is essentially identical. The reason is clear: the i7-930’s extra cores and threads keep its overall average competitive, even though it loses in every individual measured scenario.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark results, the Intel Core i3-1000NG4 is the outright winner in every category measured. It takes the crown in both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads. For multi-core performance, the i3-1000NG4’s 1255 Cinebench R20 score and 2989 Cinebench R23 score demonstrate a clear advantage over the i7-930’s 1076 and 2563 scores, respectively. This is a significant result because the i7-930 has twice the physical cores (4 vs 2) and twice the threads (8 vs 4). The fact that the 2-core/4-thread i3-1000NG4 beats the 4-core/8-thread i7-930 in heavily threaded Cinebench workloads indicates that the architectural improvements between 2010 and 2020 more than compensate for the reduction in core count.

Single-core performance is also a clean sweep for the i3-1000NG4. Its Cinebench R20 single-core score of 177 eclipses the i7-930’s 151, and its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 422 beats the i7-930’s 361. There is no benchmark category in the FACT PACK where the i7-930 wins. The only metric where the i7-930 can claim any sort of statistical parity is the aggregate average benchmark score (882 vs 881), which is driven entirely by the i7-930’s raw core count keeping its multi-core average from falling further behind. However, since the i3-1000NG4 wins every individual benchmark, there is no use-case scenario in this data where the i7-930 is the recommended choice.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent radically different eras of Intel design. The Core i7-930 is built on the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Bloomfield, using a 45 nm process node. It features 4 cores and 8 threads with a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.07 GHz. Its thermal design power (TDP) is a hefty 130 watts, reflecting the desktop-oriented, power-hungry nature of the original Core i7 lineup. The i7-930 uses the Intel Socket 1366 platform and supports DDR3 memory in a triple-channel configuration. It has 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 8 MB L3 cache. It does not include integrated graphics and is a desktop market segment part with PCIe Gen 2 support.

In contrast, the Core i3-1000NG4 is a mobile-focused Ice Lake-Y part, built on the Sunny Cove architecture using a 10 nm process node. It has just 2 cores and 4 threads, but its base clock is listed at 1100.00 MHz with a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The most striking difference is the TDP: a mere 9 watts, which is over 14 times lower than the i7-930. This processor uses the Intel BGA 1044 socket, supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration, and has a smaller 123 mm² die size. The cache configuration is different as well: 80 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and only 4 MB of shared L3 cache. Critically, the i3-1000NG4 includes integrated Iris Plus graphics with 48 execution units, a feature entirely absent from the i7-930. It also supports PCIe Gen 3.

The transistor count for the i3-1000NG4 is not specified, but the architectural leap is evident. The i7-930 was released on February 27, 2010, while the i3-1000NG4 was released on March 17, 2020, making it a full decade newer. The 10 nm node versus 45 nm node, the integrated graphics, the much lower TDP, and the newer DDR4 memory support all contribute to the i3-1000NG4’s superior per-core performance. The i7-930 has a larger L3 cache (8 MB vs 4 MB) and more cores, but this does not translate into a performance win. The i7-930 also has a higher base clock (2.80 GHz vs 1.10 GHz), but the i3-1000NG4’s higher boost clock and architecture efficiency win the day.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The Intel Core i3-1000NG4 scores 2989, which is 14.3% higher than the Intel Core i7-930’s 2563.

Q: How does the single-core performance compare in Cinebench R20?

A: The i3-1000NG4 scores 177 points, while the i7-930 scores 151 points. This gives the i3-1000NG4 a 14.7% advantage.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The i7-930 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i3-1000NG4 has 2 cores and 4 threads. The i7-930 has double the core and thread count of the i3-1000NG4.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The i3-1000NG4 includes integrated Iris Plus graphics with 48 execution units, while the i7-930 has no integrated graphics capability listed.

Q: What are the process nodes and TDPs of each CPU?

A: The i7-930 uses a 45 nm process and has a TDP of 130 watts. The i3-1000NG4 uses a 10 nm process and has a TDP of 9 watts.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i7-930 has an average benchmark score of 882, and the i3-1000NG4 has an average score of 881. The delta is 0.1%, making them effectively tied in the aggregate.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The Intel Core i3-1000NG4 is the superior processor in every single benchmark test conducted. It wins all 5 head-to-head comparisons, with deltas ranging from 14.3% to 14.7% in its favor. The i7-930’s only claim to parity is its aggregate average benchmark score (882 vs 881), which is a statistical tie driven by its higher core count. But in terms of actual performance on the Cinebench suite, the i3-1000NG4 is faster in both single-core and multi-core workloads, despite having half the cores and threads.

Users should choose the Intel Core i3-1000NG4 if they prioritize raw performance in the tested workloads. Its 14.3% lead in multi-core Cinebench R23 and 14.5% lead in single-core Cinebench R23 are decisive. The i3-1000NG4 also offers integrated graphics, a dramatically lower 9-watt TDP versus 130 watts, and a much smaller die size, making it the clear choice for any scenario where the benchmark scores matter. The i7-930, however, might be relevant only in contexts where its greater core count (4 vs 2) and larger shared L3 cache (8 MB vs 4 MB) are considered theoretical advantages. Yet, the benchmark data shows these advantages do not materialize into performance wins. The i7-930 also supports triple-channel DDR3 memory, which is a different memory architecture than the i3-1000NG4’s dual-channel DDR4, but this does not translate into a benchmark victory.

Ultimately, the 10-year architectural gap is insurmountable. The i3-1000NG4’s 10 nm process, Sunny Cove architecture, and higher boost clock (3.20 GHz vs 3.07 GHz) allow it to outperform the older 45 nm Nehalem design in every measured category. The i7-930’s 2010 release date and end-of-life production status make it a legacy part, while the i3-1000NG4, despite also being end-of-life, represents a much more capable modern design. For anyone choosing between these two based on the benchmark data, the Intel Core i3-1000NG4 is the definitive winner. There is no benchmark category where the i7-930 wins, and its aggregate score parity is a statistical artifact, not a performance reality.