Intel Core i3-10300 vs Intel Core i7-3930K Comparison

The recorded data paints an unusual picture: a Sandy Bridge-E flagship from late 2011 still edging out a Comet Lake Core i3 from 2020 across every Cinebench test in the database. The margins are small, consistently around 4%, but the sweep is complete. What follows unpacks how a six-core 32 nm design holds off a 14 nm successor, where the i3 claws back relevance, and what the specification sheet reveals that the benchmarks alone do not.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i7-3930K wins all six recorded Cinebench tests, six wins to zero. Its leads range from 3.2% in Cinebench R15 single-core to 4.2% in R15 multi-core.

Q: How close are the two in overall terms?

A: Very close. Average benchmark scores are 1960 for the i7-3930K and 1934 for the i3-10300, and their percentile positions against all CPUs in the database are 44 and 43 respectively, a single percentile point apart.

Q: Does the newer Core i3-10300 win anything?

A: Not in the recorded head-to-head benchmark set. Its case rests on platform features instead: a lower TDP of 62 W versus 130 W, integrated UHD Graphics 630, DDR4 support, and active production status.

Q: How do their multi-core results compare in Cinebench R23?

A: The i7-3930K scores 6955 against 6687 for the i3-10300, a 4% advantage despite the i3 running fewer physical cores but far higher clocks.

Q: Is either processor unlocked for overclocking?

A: Only the i7-3930K, which has an unlocked multiplier. The i3-10300 does not.

Q: Which CPUs are their closest rivals in the database?

A: The i7-3930K sits neck-and-neck with the Intel Xeon D-2712T, AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3400GE, AMD Ryzen 5 2600H, and AMD Ryzen 3 2300X, all within roughly half a percent of its average score. The i3-10300 matches the Intel Core i7-1180G7, AMD Opteron 6348, Intel Core i7-7820HQ, and Intel Core i7-9850HL within a similar band.

Architecture Differences

These two chips embody very different Intel eras. The i7-3930K is Sandy Bridge-E, built on a 32 nm Intel process, carrying 2,270 million transistors on a 435 mm² die. The i3-10300 is Comet Lake on a much denser 14 nm Intel process; the database records no transistor count or die size for it.

The core counts favor the older chip: 6 cores and 12 threads against 4 cores and 8 threads. Clock behavior reverses that picture. The i3-10300 runs a 3.70 base and 4.40 boost, comfortably above the i7's 3.20 base and 3.80 boost. That combination, more cores at lower clocks versus fewer cores at higher clocks, is precisely why the benchmark results land so close together.

Cache also favors the i7: 12 MB of shared L3 versus 8 MB on the i3, with identical per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (256 KB) allocations. The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The i7 pairs DDR3 with a quad-channel bus delivering 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth; the i3 uses DDR4 on a dual-channel bus at 42.7 GB/s. Platform connectivity splits the difference: the i7 offers PCIe Gen 3 with 40 CPU lanes, the i3 Gen 3 with only 16 lanes. The i3 carries integrated UHD Graphics 630 while the i7 has none. TDP is perhaps the starkest gap: 130 W against 62 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The i7-3930K sweeps the entire recorded set, and the pattern is remarkably uniform. In Cinebench R15 multi-core it posts 701 against 673, a 4.2% lead, the largest gap in the database. R15 single-core goes 98 to 95, 3.2% in the i7's favor and the smallest gap.

Cinebench R20 tells the same story at slightly larger margins: 2921 to 2808 in multi-core and 412 to 396 in single-core, both exactly 4%. R23 repeats it, 6955 to 6687 multi-core and 981 to 944 single-core, leads of 4% and 3.9%.

The interesting question is why the margins are so narrow. The i7 has 50% more cores and threads, a 50% larger L3 pool, and 20% more memory bandwidth, yet clears the i3 by only about 4% in throughput tests. The answer lies in the i3's clock advantage: 4.40 GHz boost versus 3.80 GHz, a substantial per-core speed edge that nearly erases the i7's parallelism advantage. Single-core results confirm this, because a chip from a much older architecture staying 3-4% ahead in lightly threaded work, despite the newer chip's higher clocks, indicates how much the i7's per-clock throughput and memory bandwidth still contribute.

Database context reinforces the parity. Their average scores differ by just 26 points (1960 versus 1934), and their percentile placements differ by one point. Both effectively occupy the same performance tier.

The Verdict

On pure benchmark performance, the data gives the i7-3930K the edge, six wins from six tests. But the sweep is narrow, roughly 3-4% everywhere, and the surrounding data complicates the choice.

The i3-10300 argues for itself on everything outside the benchmark table. It is an active product; the i7 is end-of-life. It fits the current Socket 1200 platform with DDR4 memory, while the i7 requires the long-retired Socket 2011 and DDR3. It carries integrated graphics, halving the TDP at 62 W versus 130 W, and lifts boost clocks to 4.40 GHz for responsive lightly threaded use. Buyers prioritizing efficiency, platform availability, or a graphics-free-build option lean i3 despite the lost benchmark points.

The i7-3930K remains the choice where the recorded numbers matter most: sustained multi-core throughput, workstation-era expansion via 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, quad-channel bandwidth, and an unlocked multiplier for tuning. The launch MSRP was $583.

For anyone weighing these two against the wider field, both sit in a crowded middle band, separated from their respective nearest rivals by less than half a percent on average score.

Specification Differences

• Cores/threads: i7-3930K has 6 cores, 12 threads; i3-10300 has 4 cores, 8 threads
• Base clock: 3.20 GHz versus 3.70 GHz
• Boost clock: 3.80 GHz versus 4.40 GHz
• TDP: 130 W versus 62 W
• Socket: Intel Socket 2011 versus Intel Socket 1200
• Architecture/codename: Sandy Bridge (Sandy Bridge-E) versus Comet Lake
• Process node: 32 nm versus 14 nm
• L3 cache: 12 MB shared versus 8 MB shared
• Memory: DDR3 quad-channel at 51.2 GB/s versus DDR4 dual-channel at 42.7 GB/s
• PCIe: Gen 3, 40 CPU lanes versus Gen 3, 16 CPU lanes
• Integrated graphics: none versus UHD Graphics 630
• Multiplier unlocked: yes versus no
• Production status: end-of-life versus active
• Release date: November 2011 versus April 2020
• Launch MSRP: $583 for the i7-3930K; no figure recorded for the i3-10300
• Transistors/die size: 2,270 million on 435 mm² for the i7; not recorded for the i3

Where Each One Wins

The i7-3930K wins on throughput and platform bandwidth. Every Cinebench result favors it: multi-core leads of 4.2% (R15), 4% (R20), and 4% (R23), plus single-core leads of 3.2% to 4%. Its 12 threads and 12 MB L3 suit rendering, batch encoding, and other sustained parallel workloads. Its 40 PCIe lanes and quad-channel 51.2 GB/s memory path favor expansion-heavy builds with multiple add-in cards. The unlocked multiplier adds tuning headroom the i3 cannot match.

The i3-10300 wins on efficiency and everyday responsiveness. Its 4.40 GHz boost and 3.70 GHz base deliver stronger per-thread clock speed, and the recorded single-core gaps of only 3-4% show it stays competitive in lightly threaded applications despite the architecture age difference. The 62 W TDP, integrated UHD Graphics 630, DDR4 support, and active production status make it the practical pick for compact or general-purpose desktops where sustained multi-core throughput is not the priority.

The database verdict in one line: identical performance tier, six benchmark wins for the old flagship, and a feature-and-efficiency ledger that tilts squarely toward the newer chip.