Intel Core i3-N305 vs Intel Core i7-3930K Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database pits the Intel Core i3-N305 against the Intel Core i7-3930K across eight tests. The results split sharply: the i3-N305 wins seven of the eight recorded benchmarks, while the i7-3930K takes only one. The margins, however, tell a more nuanced story than the win count alone.

The largest victory for the i3-N305 comes in Geekbench single-core, where it scores 1049 against the i7-3930K's 617, a 70% advantage. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a similar pattern: the i3-N305 posts 164.7 versus 98, a 68.1% lead. These are not marginal differences; they reflect a fundamental gap in per-thread performance between the two architectures. The i3-N305 also wins Geekbench multi-core decisively, scoring 3881 to 2991, a 29.8% margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3-N305 records 829 against 701, an 18.3% lead. Cinebench R20 follows the same direction: the i3-N305 scores 3349 versus 2921, a 14.7% advantage, and its single-core result of 472 beats 412 by 14.6%.

The one benchmark where the i7-3930K prevails is Cinebench R23 multi-core. Here the older processor scores 6955 against the i3-N305's 5092, a 26.8% advantage. This single win is notable because it contradicts the multi-core trend seen in the other Cinebench versions. The i7-3930K's 12 threads, derived from 6 cores with Hyper-Threading, appear to scale better under this particular workload. The i3-N305, with 8 cores and 8 threads, cannot match that thread count, and the sustained load of R23 exposes the limitation.

In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i3-N305 still wins, but narrowly: 995 to 981, a 1.4% margin. This is the closest result in the entire comparison. Both processors boost to 3.80 GHz, and the single-thread scores reflect that parity, with the newer architecture only edging ahead.

The average benchmark score across all tests puts the i3-N305 at 1979 and the i7-3930K at 1960. Both processors sit at the 44th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The i3-N305's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-7600K at 1976 (0.1% difference), the Intel Xeon E3-1245 v5 at 1973 (0.3%), the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1756B at 1986 (-0.3%), and the Intel Core i5-8279U at 1987 (-0.4%). The i7-3930K's nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon D-2712T at 1964 (-0.2%), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3400GE at 1954 (0.3%), the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H at 1967 (-0.3%), and the AMD Ryzen 3 2300X at 1968 (-0.4%). These rival clusters show both processors landing in the same performance tier overall, despite their divergent test-by-test results.

Where Each One Wins

The i3-N305 dominates in single-threaded and lightly threaded workloads. Its Geekbench single-core score of 1049 and Cinebench R15 single-core score of 164.7 indicate a clear advantage in applications that rely on one or two threads, such as everyday desktop responsiveness, web browsing, and office productivity. The 70% lead in Geekbench single-core and 68.1% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core are the strongest arguments for choosing the i3-N305 in such scenarios.

The i3-N305 also wins most multi-threaded benchmarks. Its Geekbench multi-core score of 3881, Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 3349, and Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 829 all surpass the i7-3930K. The 29.8% margin in Geekbench multi-core is particularly significant, as Geekbench tends to reflect a mix of memory latency, cache behavior, and core efficiency. The i3-N305's 8 cores, while lacking Hyper-Threading, still outperform the 6-core, 12-thread i7-3930K in these tests.

The i7-3930K's only clear win is Cinebench R23 multi-core, with a 26.8% margin. This suggests that under extended rendering workloads with very high thread utilization, the older processor's 12 threads provide an advantage. The i7-3930K also has a quad-channel memory bus and a larger 12 MB shared L3 cache, which may contribute to its sustained performance in this specific benchmark. Users running long-duration rendering tasks that resemble Cinebench R23's workload pattern would favor the i7-3930K.

The i3-N305's integrated UHD Graphics 770 provides a functional GPU solution, whereas the i7-3930K has no integrated graphics. This makes the i3-N305 suitable for systems without a discrete graphics card, while the i7-3930K requires a separate GPU for any display output.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i3-N305 wins every single-core benchmark in the database. It leads by 68.1% in Cinebench R15 single-core (164.7 vs 98), 14.6% in Cinebench R20 single-core (472 vs 412), 1.4% in Cinebench R23 single-core (995 vs 981), and 70% in Geekbench single-core (1049 vs 617).

Q: Does the i7-3930K win any benchmark?

A: Yes. The i7-3930K wins Cinebench R23 multi-core, scoring 6955 against the i3-N305's 5092, a 26.8% margin. This is the only test where the i7-3930K outperforms the i3-N305.

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall average score?

A: The i3-N305 has an average benchmark score of 1979, while the i7-3930K averages 1960. Both processors sit at the 44th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The i3-N305 has 8 cores and 8 threads. The i7-3930K has 6 cores and 12 threads, using Hyper-Threading to double its thread count.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The i7-3930K supports quad-channel memory with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The i3-N305 supports single-channel memory with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s.

Q: Does the i3-N305 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the i3-N305 includes UHD Graphics 770. The i7-3930K has no integrated graphics, so it requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The i3-N305 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the i7-3930K has 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks differ significantly: the i3-N305 runs at 100.00 MHz base, while the i7-3930K runs at 3.20 GHz base. Both boost to 3.80 GHz. Thermal design power is another major split: the i3-N305 draws 15 W, while the i7-3930K draws 130 W.

The sockets are incompatible. The i3-N305 uses Intel BGA 1264, a mobile socket, while the i7-3930K uses Intel Socket 2011, a desktop platform. The i3-N305 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a single-channel bus and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The i7-3930K supports only DDR3 with a quad-channel bus and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory.

PCIe configurations differ as well. The i3-N305 provides Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). The i7-3930K provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only). The i3-N305 includes integrated UHD Graphics 770, while the i7-3930K has none. The i7-3930K has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the i3-N305 does not.

The i3-N305 is a mobile-market segment part, is still in active production, and was released on 2023-01-02. The i7-3930K is a desktop-market segment part, is end-of-life, and was released on 2011-11-13. The i3-N305 has a launch MSRP of $309, while the i7-3930K has a launch MSRP of $583.

Architecture Differences

The i3-N305 uses the Gracemont architecture on a 10 nm process node. Its cache layout includes 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 6 MB of shared L3. The i7-3930K uses the Sandy Bridge architecture (Sandy Bridge-E codename) on a 32 nm process node. Its cache includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The i7-3930K also lists 2,270 million transistors and a die size of 435 mm², figures not provided for the i3-N305.

The generation labels reflect the architectural gap: the i3-N305 is part of the Core i3 (Alder Lake-N) generation, while the i7-3930K is part of the Core i7 (Sandy Bridge-E) generation. The i3-N305 is manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process, while the i7-3930K uses Intel's 32 nm process. This process difference partially explains the i3-N305's dramatically lower 15 W TDP compared to 130 W for the i7-3930K.

The memory architecture differences are also architectural in nature. The i3-N305's single-channel memory bus and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth contrast with the i7-3930K's quad-channel bus and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. The i3-N305 supports newer DDR4 and DDR5 memory types, while the i7-3930K is limited to DDR3. The i3-N305's integrated UHD Graphics 770 is part of its SoC design, whereas the i7-3930K has no integrated graphics block.

The i3-N305's 8 Gracemont cores are efficiency-oriented, designed for low power consumption in mobile devices. The i7-3930K's 6 Sandy Bridge cores are high-power desktop cores, reflected in its 130 W TDP and unlocked multiplier. The i7-3930K's 12 threads, enabled by Hyper-Threading, give it a thread-count advantage that shows up in Cinebench R23 multi-core.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two processors with nearly identical overall performance, both at the 44th percentile, but with opposite strengths. The Intel Core i3-N305 should be chosen for single-threaded performance, power efficiency, and versatility. It wins seven of eight benchmarks, including all single-core tests, with leads as large as 70% in Geekbench single-core. Its 15 W TDP, integrated graphics, and active production status make it suitable for modern mobile systems and compact builds. The 8-core, 8-thread configuration handles most workloads well, and its DDR4/DDR5 memory support aligns with current platforms.

The Intel Core i7-3930K should be chosen only for specific scenarios where Cinebench R23-style sustained multi-threaded rendering is the primary workload. Its 26.8% lead in that benchmark, combined with 12 threads, a quad-channel memory bus, and 12 MB of L3 cache, gives it an edge in long-duration, heavily threaded tasks. Its unlocked multiplier also allows overclocking, which could extend its multi-core advantage further. However, the i7-3930K is end-of-life, requires a discrete GPU, consumes 130 W, and loses to the i3-N305 in every other recorded benchmark.

For most users, the data favors the i3-N305. Its single-core dominance, lower power draw, and integrated graphics make it the more practical choice across a broader range of applications. The i7-3930K remains relevant only for those who specifically need its Cinebench R23 multi-core performance and can accommodate its desktop platform requirements. The 44th percentile ranking for both processors confirms that they sit in the same overall tier, but the distribution of wins makes the i3-N305 the safer recommendation.