Intel Core i3-6300 vs Intel Core i7-960 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a clear outcome: the Intel Core i3-6300 wins every single head-to-head benchmark against the Intel Core i7-960. Across five Cinebench tests, the i3-6300 leads by margins between 14.6% and 15%. The i7-960 does not secure a single win in the head-to-head comparisons.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this gap. The i7-960 posts an average score of 993, while the i3-6300 records 978. Despite being older and more power-hungry, the i7-960 has nearly identical average performance, but the distribution of wins matters more. The i3-6300 dominates all measured workloads, making it the stronger choice for anyone running Cinebench-based tasks.

For buyers, the data points in one direction: the i3-6300 is the better processor for modern workloads. It wins in multi-core and single-core tests alike, despite having fewer cores and threads. The i7-960, with its four cores and eight threads, cannot overcome the architectural advantage of the newer Skylake design.

The i7-960 holds value only for legacy platform owners. Those already on Socket 1366 with DDR3 memory may find the chip adequate for older software. But for new builds, the i3-6300 offers superior measured performance across every benchmark in the database. The 27th versus 26th percentile ranking against all CPUs shows they sit nearly identically in the overall pool, but the i3-6300 achieves that with two fewer cores and much lower power consumption.

Where Each One Wins

The i3-6300 wins everywhere in the recorded benchmarks. In multi-core tests, it beats the i7-960 by 14.7% in Cinebench R15, 14.7% in R20, and 14.6% in R23. The single-core results are even more decisive: 15% ahead in R20 single-core and 14.7% ahead in R23 single-core.

The i7-960 has no benchmark wins to claim. Its only advantages appear in the specification sheet, not in measured performance. It has four cores and eight threads versus the i3-6300's two cores and four threads, and it has 8 MB of shared L3 cache versus 4 MB. Yet these hardware advantages do not translate into any performance lead in the recorded data.

For single-threaded tasks, the i3-6300's higher 3.80 GHz base clock (the i7-960 runs at 3.20 GHz base, 3.47 GHz boost) gives it a decisive edge. The i3-6300 has no boost clock listed, but its base clock alone surpasses the i7-960's boosted frequency. In multi-threaded workloads, the i3-6300 still wins despite having four fewer threads, indicating that its newer architecture and higher clock speed more than compensate.

For users running Cinebench R15, R20, or R23, the i3-6300 is the clear winner. Those who rely on older software that was optimized for few cores might also prefer the i3-6300 for its single-core performance. The i7-960 has no application category where it leads based on the data.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from vastly different eras. The i7-960 uses Intel's Nehalem architecture, codenamed Bloomfield, while the i3-6300 uses Skylake. The process node difference is stark: 45 nm for the i7-960 versus 14 nm for the i3-6300. The i3-6300 packs 1,400 million transistors on a 150 mm² die, while the i7-960 uses 731 million on a larger 263 mm² die.

Core counts differ: the i7-960 has four physical cores and eight threads, the i3-6300 has two cores and four threads. Cache sizes also differ. Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, but the i7-960 has 8 MB shared L3 versus 4 MB on the i3-6300.

Memory support sets them apart. The i7-960 uses DDR3 with triple-channel memory, while the i3-6300 uses DDR4 with dual-channel memory. The i3-6300 lists a memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. PCIe support differs too: the i7-960 has Gen 2, while the i3-6300 has Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics are exclusive to the i3-6300, which includes Intel HD 530. The i7-960 has none. The i3-6300 also has a lower TDP of 51 watts versus the i7-960's 130 watts, reflecting the efficiency of the newer process.

The sockets are incompatible: the i7-960 uses Intel Socket 1366, the i3-6300 uses Intel Socket 1151. Release dates confirm the generation gap: the i7-960 launched in 2009, the i3-6300 in 2015. The i3-6300 is still active in production, while the i7-960 is end-of-life.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores?

A: The Intel Core i7-960 has four cores and eight threads, while the Intel Core i3-6300 has two cores and four threads.

Q: Does the i3-6300 beat the i7-960 in all benchmarks?

A: Yes, the i3-6300 wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, with margins ranging from 14.6% to 15%.

Q: Which processor has a higher clock speed?

A: The i3-6300 runs at 3.80 GHz base clock, while the i7-960 runs at 3.20 GHz base and boosts to 3.47 GHz.

Q: What memory types do they support?

A: The i7-960 supports DDR3 with triple-channel memory, while the i3-6300 supports DDR4 with dual-channel memory and lists a 34.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: Only the i3-6300 has integrated graphics, specifically Intel HD 530. The i7-960 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What are their power consumption levels?

A: The i7-960 has a TDP of 130 W, while the i3-6300 has a TDP of 51 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The five recorded head-to-head benchmarks all favor the i3-6300. The largest single gap is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the i3-6300 scores 200 versus the i7-960's 170, a 15% difference. The four other tests show a nearly identical 14.7% advantage for the i3-6300.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3-6300 scores 340 against 290 for the i7-960, a 14.7% lead. In R20 multi-core, the i3-6300 scores 1419 versus 1211, again 14.7% ahead. The R23 multi-core test shows 3380 versus 2885, a 14.6% margin. The R23 single-core test shows 477 versus 407, a 14.7% difference.

The consistency of these margins is notable. Across four different benchmark versions and both single- and multi-core tests, the i3-6300 maintains a lead of roughly 14.7%. This suggests a systematic advantage from the newer architecture and higher clock speed, not a workload-specific fluke.

The i7-960's best multi-core score is 2885 in R23, which still trails the i3-6300's 3380 by nearly 500 points. Even in the i7-960's relative strongest area, multi-threaded performance, it cannot match the i3-6300. The i3-6300's single-core score of 477 in R23 is higher than the i7-960's multi-core score in R20 (1211), but that is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

The recorded data shows no scenario where the i7-960 leads. Its additional threads and larger cache do not produce a win. The architectural improvements in Skylake, including a newer process node and higher clock speed, outweigh the core-count advantage of the older Nehalem design.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in every major specification except L1 and L2 cache sizes, which are identical at 64 KB and 256 KB per core, respectively.

• Cores: 4 (i7-960) vs 2 (i3-6300)
• Threads: 8 (i7-960) vs 4 (i3-6300)
• Base clock: 3.20 GHz (i7-960) vs 3.80 GHz (i3-6300)
• Boost clock: 3.47 GHz (i7-960) vs none listed (i3-6300)
• TDP: 130 W (i7-960) vs 51 W (i3-6300)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1366 (i7-960) vs Intel Socket 1151 (i3-6300)
• Architecture: Nehalem (i7-960) vs Skylake (i3-6300)
• Process node: 45 nm (i7-960) vs 14 nm (i3-6300)
• Transistors: 731 million (i7-960) vs 1,400 million (i3-6300)
• Die size: 263 mm² (i7-960) vs 150 mm² (i3-6300)
• L3 cache: 8 MB shared (i7-960) vs 4 MB shared (i3-6300)
• Memory support: DDR3 (i7-960) vs DDR4 (i3-6300)
• Memory bus: Triple-channel (i7-960) vs Dual-channel (i3-6300)
• Memory bandwidth: Not listed (i7-960) vs 34.1 GB/s (i3-6300)
• PCIe: Gen 2 (i7-960) vs Gen 3, 16 Lanes CPU only (i3-6300)
• Integrated graphics: None (i7-960) vs Intel HD 530 (i3-6300)
• Production status: End-of-life (i7-960) vs Active (i3-6300)
• Release date: 2009 (i7-960) vs 2015 (i3-6300)
• Part number: SLBEU (i7-960) vs SR2HA (i3-6300)

Both processors have no launch MSRP recorded, and both have locked multipliers. Neither supports ECC memory. The i3-6300's dual-channel memory bus and higher base clock give it an advantage in memory-intensive tasks, while the i7-960's triple-channel setup and larger cache do not overcome its older architecture. The production status difference confirms the i3-6300 remains a current part, while the i7-960 is no longer in active production.