Intel Core i3-6100 vs Intel Core i7-940 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a remarkably consistent picture: the Intel Core i7-940 wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, and it does so by a nearly uniform margin. Across five Cinebench tests, the older Nehalem processor maintains a lead that hovers between 17.8% and 18.3% over the Core i3-6100. This consistency is striking because the two chips were released roughly seven years apart and represent fundamentally different design philosophies.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i7-940 scores 264 against the i3-6100's 224, a 17.9% advantage. The R20 multicore test shows a similar gap: 1102 versus 934, an 18% difference. The R23 multicore result repeats the pattern with 2626 against 2226, again 18% ahead. What is more surprising is the single-core performance. The i7-940 wins Cinebench R20 single-core with 155 points versus 131, an 18.3% margin, and R23 single-core with 370 versus 314, a 17.8% margin. Even in tests that typically favor newer architectures with higher clock speeds, the i7-940's 2.93 GHz base clock and 3.20 GHz boost clock outperform the i3-6100's 3.70 GHz fixed clock.

The data suggests the i7-940's extra cores and threads are not the only factor. The i3-6100 has only 2 cores and 4 threads, while the i7-940 has 4 cores and 8 threads. But the single-core results indicate that the older chip's per-thread performance is also superior in these specific workloads, despite the i3-6100's higher base clock. This could point to differences in how the two architectures handle the Cinebench workload, or it could reflect the i7-940's larger 8 MB shared L3 cache versus the i3-6100's 4 MB. Either way, the benchmark data is unambiguous: the i7-940 is faster across the board in this comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-940 averages 903 across all recorded benchmarks, while the Intel Core i3-6100 averages 888. The i7-940 also sits at the 24th percentile among all CPUs, the same percentile as the i3-6100, which also sits at the 24th percentile.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The i7-940 scores 2626 in Cinebench R23 multicore, which is 18% higher than the i3-6100's 2226. This is one of five head-to-head tests where the i7-940 wins.

Q: Does the i3-6100 have any benchmark where it wins?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the i7-940 winning all five recorded tests. The i3-6100 does have additional Geekbench scores in its own benchmark list (1605 multicore and 785 single-core), but no Geekbench result is recorded for the i7-940, so no direct comparison is possible for that test.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The i7-940 has a TDP of 130 watts, while the i3-6100 has a TDP of 51 watts. This means the i3-6100 draws substantially less power under load, a difference of 79 watts according to the recorded specifications.

Q: How do their single-core scores compare specifically?

A: In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i7-940 scores 155 versus the i3-6100's 131, a 18.3% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i7-940 scores 370 versus 314, a 17.8% advantage. The i7-940 wins both single-core tests despite the i3-6100's higher 3.70 GHz base clock.

Q: What memory technologies do they support?

A: The i7-940 supports DDR3 memory with a triple-channel memory bus. The i3-6100 supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and has a recorded memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. The i7-940 does not have a recorded memory bandwidth figure in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from opposite ends of Intel's architectural timeline. The i7-940 is built on Nehalem, specifically the Bloomfield die, using a 45 nm process node. It packs 731 million transistors onto a 263 mm² die. The i3-6100 uses Skylake architecture on a 14 nm process node, with 1,400 million transistors on a much smaller 150 mm² die. The transistor density difference is dramatic: Skylake crams nearly twice the transistors into roughly 57% of the physical area.

The core configurations diverge sharply. The i7-940 offers 4 physical cores and 8 threads through Hyper-Threading, while the i3-6100 offers 2 physical cores and 4 threads. Both processors have the same L1 cache structure at 64 KB per core and the same L2 cache at 256 KB per core, but the L3 cache differs significantly: the i7-940 has 8 MB shared, the i3-6100 has 4 MB shared. This means the i7-940 has double the last-level cache, which likely contributes to its consistent benchmark wins.

Clock behavior also differs. The i7-940 has a base clock of 2.93 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz, meaning it can dynamically raise its frequency when thermal and power headroom allow. The i3-6100 has a single recorded clock speed of 3.70 GHz with no boost clock listed, suggesting it runs at a fixed frequency. Despite the i3-6100's higher clock, the i7-940 wins in single-core tests, which suggests architectural efficiency or cache size plays a larger role than raw clock speed in these workloads.

Memory support is another major split. The i7-940 uses DDR3 with a triple-channel memory bus, a configuration that was common for high-end desktop platforms of its era. The i3-6100 uses DDR4 with a dual-channel bus, and the database records its memory bandwidth at 34.1 GB/s. The i7-940 has no memory bandwidth figure recorded. The i3-6100 also includes integrated graphics in the form of Intel HD 530, while the i7-940 has no integrated graphics listed. PCIe support differs as well: the i7-940 uses PCIe Gen 2, while the i3-6100 uses PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes for the CPU only.

Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The i7-940 uses the Intel Socket 1366 platform, while the i3-6100 uses Intel Socket 1151. The i7-940 is marked end-of-life in the database, while the i3-6100 is listed as active. The i7-940 was released in November 2008, and the i3-6100 was released in August 2015. The i7-940 carries part number SLBCK, and the i3-6100 carries SR2HG.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is decisive. The Intel Core i7-940 outperforms the Intel Core i3-6100 in every recorded head-to-head test, with margins ranging from 17.8% to 18.3%. This is not a narrow victory; it is a consistent, repeatable gap across multiple Cinebench versions and both multicore and single-core workloads. The i7-940 wins 5 out of 5 recorded comparisons, and its average benchmark score of 903 exceeds the i3-6100's 888.

However, the i3-6100 has clear advantages in efficiency and platform modernity. Its 51 watt TDP is dramatically lower than the i7-940's 130 watts. It supports DDR4 memory, includes integrated graphics, and uses a much newer 14 nm process. But the database does not record any performance test where these advantages translate into a benchmark win against the i7-940.

For users prioritizing raw computational throughput in Cinebench-style workloads, the data points squarely at the i7-940. For users prioritizing power efficiency, modern memory support, or integrated graphics, the i3-6100 has structural advantages, but those advantages do not appear in the recorded performance scores. The percentile rankings are identical at 24, and the average scores are close, but the head-to-head results tell a different story: the i7-940 is the faster processor in this matchup.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The i7-940 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i3-6100 has 2 cores and 4 threads. The i7-940's base clock is 2.93 GHz with a boost clock of 3.20 GHz; the i3-6100's base clock is 3.70 GHz with no boost clock recorded. TDP differs substantially: 130 watts for the i7-940 versus 51 watts for the i3-6100.

The sockets are incompatible: the i7-940 uses Intel Socket 1366, the i3-6100 uses Intel Socket 1151. The architectures are different generations, Nehalem (Bloomfield) versus Skylake. The process nodes are 45 nm versus 14 nm. Transistor counts are 731 million versus 1,400 million. Die sizes are 263 mm² versus 150 mm². L3 cache is 8 MB shared versus 4 MB shared. Memory support is DDR3 with triple-channel bus versus DDR4 with dual-channel bus and a recorded 34.1 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe is Gen 2 versus Gen 3 with 16 lanes for the CPU only. The i7-940 has no integrated graphics; the i3-6100 has Intel HD 530. Production status is end-of-life versus active. Release dates are November 2008 versus August 2015. Part numbers are SLBCK versus SR2HG. Both lack ECC support and unlocked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The i7-940 wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its largest margin is 18.3% in Cinebench R20 single-core, and its smallest is 17.8% in Cinebench R23 single-core. It wins multicore tests by 17.9% in R15, 18% in R20, and 18% in R23. This makes it the clear choice for multi-threaded rendering workloads and even for single-threaded Cinebench tasks, according to the data.

The i3-6100 does not win any recorded benchmark, but it wins in areas the benchmark scores do not capture. Its 51 watt TDP makes it far more power-efficient, which matters for systems with limited cooling or power budgets. Its DDR4 memory support and 34.1 GB/s memory bandwidth represent a more modern memory platform. Its integrated Intel HD 530 graphics eliminate the need for a separate GPU in basic display scenarios. Its 14 nm process node and active production status suggest a longer availability horizon. The i7-940, by contrast, is end-of-life and built on a 45 nm process.

The database also places both processors at the same 24th percentile among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are within 15 points of each other (903 versus 888). The i3-6100's nearest rival is the Intel Xeon X5550 with an identical average score, while the i7-940's nearest rival is the Intel Core i5-5350U, also with an identical average score. These close rankings suggest that in the broader CPU landscape, the two chips occupy similar performance tiers, even though the head-to-head data shows a clear winner. The practical takeaway from the recorded data is straightforward: for raw Cinebench performance, the i7-940 is the stronger part, while the i3-6100 offers efficiency and platform features that the benchmarks do not measure.