CPU Comparison
Intel Core i3-4330T
Core i7-940
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core i3-4330T vs Intel Core i7-940
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more physical cores?
A: The Intel Core i7-940 has 4 physical cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i3-4330T has 2 physical cores and 4 threads.
Q: How do the two compare in multi-core Cinebench R23 performance?
A: The Core i3-4330T scores 2639 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, edging out the Core i7-940’s 2626 by a 0.5% margin.
Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?
A: The Core i3-4330T has an average benchmark score of 908, while the Core i7-940 averages 903, a gap of roughly 0.6% in favor of the newer chip.
Q: Which processor has a smaller manufacturing process node?
A: The Core i3-4330T is built on a 22 nm process, whereas the Core i7-940 uses a 45 nm process. The i3-4330T also integrates graphics (Intel HD 4600), while the i7-940 has no integrated GPU.
Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?
A: No, neither the Core i3-4330T nor the Core i7-940 supports ECC memory.
Q: Which CPU has a higher base clock speed?
A: The Core i3-4330T has a base clock of 3.00 GHz, slightly higher than the Core i7-940’s 2.93 GHz. However, the i7-940 has a boost clock of 3.20 GHz, which the i3-4330T lacks entirely.
Where Each One Wins
The benchmark data is remarkably one-sided: the Core i3-4330T wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests. Its largest victory comes in Cinebench R20 single-core, where it scores 156 against the i7-940’s 155, a 0.6% edge. In multi-core workloads, the i3-4330T leads by 0.5% in both Cinebench R20 (1108 vs 1102) and Cinebench R23 (2639 vs 2626). The narrowest margin is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the i3-4330T’s 265 barely surpasses 264.
The Core i7-940 does not win any benchmark category. Its advantages lie elsewhere: it has double the physical cores (4 vs 2), double the L3 cache (8 MB vs 4 MB), and a triple-channel memory bus compared to the i3-4330T’s dual-channel. Those architectural strengths, however, do not translate into a single test victory. The i3-4330T also holds a slight edge in single-threaded performance, which is notable given that the i7-940 can boost to 3.20 GHz while the i3-4330T is locked at 3.00 GHz.
For users prioritizing raw multi-threaded throughput, the i7-940’s extra cores might seem appealing, but the data shows otherwise, the i3-4330T matches or exceeds it in every measured workload. The i7-940’s triple-channel memory support could benefit memory-bandwidth-sensitive applications, but no benchmark in this dataset captures that advantage.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from entirely different Intel design eras. The Core i3-4330T is a Haswell part on a 22 nm process, packing 1,400 million transistors into a 177 mm² die. The Core i7-940 is a Nehalem (Bloomfield) chip on a 45 nm process, with 731 million transistors across a 263 mm² die. The process shrink gives the i3-4330T a significant transistor density advantage, roughly double the transistors in a smaller physical area.
Cache hierarchies differ meaningfully. Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, but the i3-4330T has 4 MB shared L3, while the i7-940 has 8 MB shared L3. The larger L3 on the older chip partially compensates for its older architecture, but the benchmark results suggest it does not close the performance gap.
Platform features diverge sharply. The i3-4330T uses PCIe Gen 3 and integrates Intel HD 4600 graphics; the i7-940 uses PCIe Gen 2 and has no integrated graphics. The i3-4330T is also a locked multiplier part on Socket 1150, whereas the i7-940 is locked on Socket 1366. The i7-940 is marked end-of-life, while the i3-4330T has no production status listed. Memory support differs too: both use DDR3, but the i3-4330T runs dual-channel, and the i7-940 runs triple-channel.
The TDP difference is stark. The i3-4330T draws 35 W, while the i7-940 draws 130 W, a 95 W gap that makes the i3-4330T far more power-efficient per unit of performance. Release dates are also far apart: the i7-940 launched in November 2008, and the i3-4330T arrived in August 2013, nearly five years later.
Specification Differences
| Specification | Intel Core i3-4330T | Intel Core i7-940 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 4 | 4 / 8 |
| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 2.93 GHz |
| Boost Clock | None | 3.20 GHz |
| TDP | 35 W | 130 W |
| Socket | Intel Socket 1150 | Intel Socket 1366 |
| Architecture | Haswell | Nehalem (Bloomfield) |
| Process Node | 22 nm | 45 nm |
| Transistors | 1,400 million | 731 million |
| Die Size | 177 mm² | 263 mm² |
| L3 Cache | 4 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |
| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Triple-channel |
| PCIe | Gen 3 | Gen 2 |
| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4600 | None |
| Release Date | 2013-08-31 | 2008-11-16 |
| Part Number | SR1NK | SLBCK |
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
Every benchmark in the head-to-head dataset favors the Core i3-4330T, but the margins are thin. The largest delta is 0.6% in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the i3-4330T scores 156 to the i7-940’s 155. That single-core lead persists across all tests, reinforcing that the newer Haswell core has better instructions-per-clock efficiency than the older Nehalem design.
In multi-core tests, the i3-4330T’s 2-core/4-thread configuration somehow edges out the i7-940’s 4-core/8-thread setup. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 265 vs 264 (0.4% delta). Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 1108 vs 1102 (0.5% delta). Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 2639 vs 2626 (0.5% delta). The consistency is striking, across three different Cinebench versions, the i3-4330T wins by roughly half a percent every time.
The single-core results follow the same pattern. Cinebench R20 single-core: 156 vs 155 (0.6%). Cinebench R23 single-core: 372 vs 370 (0.5%). The i7-940’s boost clock of 3.20 GHz is 200 MHz higher than the i3-4330T’s fixed 3.00 GHz, yet it still loses. This suggests the architectural improvements in Haswell outweigh the clock speed deficit.
The average benchmark scores corroborate the head-to-head data. The i3-4330T averages 908, placing it at the 24th percentile of all CPUs. The i7-940 averages 903, also at the 24th percentile. Their nearest rivals are telling: the i3-4330T matches the AMD Ryzen 3 3250U (908, 0% delta) and trails the AMD PRO A12-9800E by 0.3%. The i7-940 matches the Intel Core i5-5350U (903, 0% delta) and trails the AMD A10-7860K by 0.1%.
The Verdict
The data delivers a clear verdict: the Intel Core i3-4330T outperforms the Intel Core i7-940 in every benchmark recorded. It wins all five head-to-head tests, holds a higher average benchmark score (908 vs 903), and does so with dramatically lower power consumption (35 W vs 130 W) and a modern 22 nm process. For anyone choosing between these two, the i3-4330T is the superior processor on performance and efficiency metrics.
The i7-940’s case rests on specifications that do not translate into measured wins. Its 4 cores and 8 threads should theoretically give it a multi-threaded advantage, but the i3-4330T’s superior architecture nullifies that. The 8 MB L3 cache and triple-channel memory bus are real advantages on paper, but no benchmark in this dataset captures a benefit. The i7-940 is also end-of-life, while the i3-4330T has no such status.
The i3-4330T’s integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics make it a more complete package for systems without a discrete GPU. The i7-940 requires a separate graphics card. The i3-4330T also supports PCIe Gen 3, offering twice the bandwidth of the i7-940’s Gen 2 interface.
For a new build, the i3-4330T is the only rational choice. For an existing Socket 1366 system, the i7-940 might be a drop-in upgrade, but the benchmark data shows it would not outperform the i3-4330T even in multi-threaded workloads.
The verdict is unambiguous: choose the Intel Core i3-4330T. It wins every benchmark, uses a fraction of the power, and comes from a newer, more efficient architecture. The i7-940’s additional cores and cache do not overcome the fundamental performance gap.