CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i3-6100 and Intel Core i7-930 occupy different corners of the desktop processor landscape, yet they land remarkably close in overall benchmark averages. The i3-6100, a Skylake dual-core with Hyper-Threading, posts an average benchmark score of 888, while the i7-930, a Nehalem quad-core with eight threads, sits at 882. That difference is less than one percent. However, the head-to-head benchmark data tells a different story, with the older i7-930 winning all five direct comparisons. Despite the i3’s modern architecture, the i7-930’s raw thread count gives it a consistent edge in every measured workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core i7-930 across all five shared benchmark tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i7-930 scores 258 against the i3-6100’s 224, a delta of -13.2% from the i3’s perspective. The same margin repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the i7-930 hits 1076 while the i3-6100 manages 934, again a 13.2% gap. These results indicate that the i7-930’s four physical cores and eight threads are decisively more capable in heavily threaded rendering workloads.

Single-core performance also favors the older chip, though the margin is identical. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i7-930 scores 151 versus the i3-6100’s 131, a 13.2% difference. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the i7-930 at 361 and the i3-6100 at 314, a 13% delta. This is notable because modern architectures typically dominate older ones in single-threaded tasks, but here the i7-930’s higher boost clock of 3.07 GHz compared to the i3-6100’s fixed 3.70 GHz does not translate into a win for the newer chip. The i7-930’s single-core advantage suggests that its per-core efficiency, despite the older 45 nm process, is sufficient to overcome the clock speed deficit.

The largest numerical gap appears in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the i7-930 scores 2563 against the i3-6100’s 2226, a 13.1% margin. Across all tests, the delta stays tightly clustered between 13% and 13.2%, indicating a consistent performance differential rather than workload-specific spikes. The i3-6100 wins zero head-to-head benchmarks, while the i7-930 wins all five. For a builder comparing these two, the i7-930 is the clear performance leader in every measured category, even though it is older and draws significantly more power.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-930 wins every benchmark in the comparison, so any workload represented by these tests favors it. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests all involve rendering and heavily threaded compute, and the i7-930’s eight threads deliver a consistent 13% advantage. The same applies to single-core tests, where the i7-930 surprisingly beats the i3-6100 despite its lower base clock. If the task is video rendering, 3D modeling, or any multi-threaded productivity application, the i7-930 is the stronger choice based on the data.

The Intel Core i3-6100 does not win a single benchmark in this comparison, so there is no workload in the the benchmark database where it comes out ahead. However, its advantages are structural rather than performance-based. It uses DDR4 memory, has a smaller 14 nm process node, includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 530), and carries a much lower TDP of 51 watts compared to the i7-930’s 130 watts. For a system that does not require maximum multi-threaded throughput and prioritizes lower power draw, the i3-6100 is the more practical daily driver. Yet in raw benchmark scores, the i7-930 is ahead everywhere.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent vastly different eras of Intel design. The i3-6100 uses the Skylake architecture on a 14 nm process node, with 1,400 million transistors packed into a 150 mm² die. The i7-930 uses the Nehalem architecture (codename Bloomfield) on a 45 nm process, with 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The newer process node gives the i3-6100 a significant efficiency advantage, but the i7-930 compensates with more physical hardware: four cores and eight threads versus the i3-6100’s two cores and four threads.

Cache configurations also differ markedly. Both chips have 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the i7-930’s shared L3 cache is 8 MB, double the i3-6100’s 4 MB. That larger cache pool, combined with double the cores and threads, explains why the i7-930 holds a performance lead despite its older manufacturing process. The i3-6100 features integrated Intel HD 530 graphics, while the i7-930 has no integrated graphics at all, meaning the latter requires a discrete GPU. The i3-6100 also supports DDR4 memory over a dual-channel bus with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth, while the i7-930 uses DDR3 over a triple-channel bus with no bandwidth figure listed in the data.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification difference is core and thread counts: the i3-6100 has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the i7-930 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks differ as well, with the i3-6100 running at 3.70 GHz and the i7-930 at 2.80 GHz, though the i7-930 has a boost clock of 3.07 GHz while the i3-6100 has none. The i7-930’s TDP is 130 watts, more than double the i3-6100’s 51 watts. Sockets are incompatible: the i3-6100 uses Intel Socket 1151, while the i7-930 uses Intel Socket 1366.

Memory support separates them further. The i3-6100 uses DDR4 with dual-channel memory, while the i7-930 uses DDR3 with triple-channel memory. The i3-6100’s PCIe interface is Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), whereas the i7-930’s is Gen 2. The i3-6100 includes integrated graphics, the i7-930 does not. Process node is 14 nm for the i3-6100 versus 45 nm for the i7-930. The i3-6100 is marked as Active production status with a release date of 2015-08-31, while the i7-930 is End-of-life with a release date of 2010-02-27. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, and both lack ECC memory support. Neither has a launch MSRP listed in the data.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i7-930 wins every multi-core benchmark. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 2563 versus the i3-6100’s 2226, a 13.1% advantage. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R15 (258 vs 224) and R20 (1076 vs 934).

Q: Does the newer i3-6100 win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the i7-930 winning all five tests, including single-core tests. The i3-6100’s best showing is a 13% deficit in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 314 against the i7-930’s 361.

Q: What explains the i7-930’s lead despite being older?

A: The i7-930 has double the cores and threads (4 cores, 8 threads versus 2 cores, 4 threads) and double the shared L3 cache (8 MB versus 4 MB). These structural advantages overcome the i3-6100’s newer 14 nm process and higher 3.70 GHz base clock.

Q: Which CPU requires a discrete graphics card?

A: The Intel Core i7-930 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a separate GPU. The i3-6100 includes Intel HD 530 integrated graphics, allowing basic display output without a discrete card.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The i7-930 has a TDP of 130 watts, while the i3-6100 is rated at 51 watts. The i7-930 draws more than double the power, making the i3-6100 the more efficient choice for low-power builds.

Q: Are these CPUs compatible with the same motherboards?

A: No. The i3-6100 uses Intel Socket 1151, while the i7-930 uses Intel Socket 1366. They also use different memory types, DDR4 for the i3-6100 and DDR3 for the i7-930, so motherboards are not interchangeable.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i7-930 outperforms the Intel Core i3-6100 in every benchmark test included in this comparison. With a 13% or greater lead in all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, the i7-930 is the faster processor for rendering and multi-threaded workloads. Its four cores, eight threads, and 8 MB of L3 cache provide a structural advantage that the i3-6100’s newer architecture cannot overcome. The i7-930 also wins single-core tests, which is surprising given its lower base clock and older process node.

However, the i3-6100 is not without merit. It draws 51 watts versus the i7-930’s 130 watts, includes integrated graphics, supports DDR4 memory, and uses a modern 14 nm process. It is also listed as Active production status, while the i7-930 is End-of-life. For a builder prioritizing low power consumption, modern memory support, or integrated graphics, the i3-6100 is the practical pick. For anyone who needs maximum benchmark performance in multi-threaded tasks, the i7-930 is the clear winner, despite its age and higher power draw. The choice depends on whether raw compute or platform efficiency matters more, the data supports the i7-930 for the former and the i3-6100 for the latter.