Intel Core i7-3540M vs Intel Core i7-930 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a remarkably close contest between these two processors. Across all five shared Cinebench tests, the Intel Core i7-930 emerges as the winner, but the margins are consistently narrow. The largest gap is in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the i7-930 scores 258 against 254 for the i7-3540M, a delta of just 1.6%. This pattern repeats across the board: the i7-930 leads by 1.5% in Cinebench R20 multicore (1076 vs 1060), by 1.5% in R23 multicore (2563 vs 2525), and by 1.3% in R20 singlecore (151 vs 149). The smallest difference appears in R23 singlecore, where the i7-930 posts 361 versus 356, a 1.4% advantage.

The fact that the i7-930 wins every head-to-head test, despite being a 2010-era desktop part, speaks to the raw core-count advantage. It fields 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i7-3540M is a 2-core, 4-thread mobile chip. In pure threaded workloads, the older part's extra physical cores compensate for its architectural age. The singlecore deltas are smaller, which reflects the newer Ivy Bridge architecture of the i7-3540M closing the per-core gap, but the i7-930 still edges ahead in every measurement.

Looking at the broader database context, both CPUs sit at the 23rd percentile among all processors. The i7-930's average benchmark score is 882, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Athlon Silver 7120U, AMD Phenom II X6 1035T, and Intel Core i3-1000NG4, all scoring 881, within 0.1% of the i7-930. The i7-3540M averages 867, with the Intel Xeon X3460 at 866 (0.1% behind) and the Intel Core i5-3470T at 863 (0.4% behind). The i7-3540M also trails the Intel Atom C5315 (871) and AMD Athlon PRO 3045B (872) by small margins. These comparisons indicate that neither chip is a performance outlier; both are firmly mid-pack in the modern landscape.

The i7-3540M does have one benchmark that the i7-930 lacks: Geekbench results. It scores 1160 in Geekbench multicore and 565 in singlecore. These numbers cannot be directly compared to the i7-930 since that chip has no Geekbench entries in the database, but they provide a useful reference point for the mobile part's absolute performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core i7-930 wins all multi-core Cinebench tests. It leads by 1.6% in R15 (258 vs 254), 1.5% in R20 (1076 vs 1060), and 1.5% in R23 (2563 vs 2525). The margin is consistent but small, roughly 1.5% across the board.

Q: How do the two compare in single-core performance?

A: The i7-930 also wins single-core tests, but by slightly smaller margins. It leads by 1.3% in Cinebench R20 singlecore (151 vs 149) and 1.4% in R23 singlecore (361 vs 356). The newer architecture of the i7-3540M narrows the gap but does not eliminate it.

Q: What is the performance difference between these CPUs and their closest rivals?

A: The i7-930 scores 882 on average, which is 0.1% above the AMD Athlon Silver 7120U, AMD Phenom II X6 1035T, and Intel Core i3-1000NG4 (all at 881). The i7-3540M averages 867, which is 0.1% above the Intel Xeon X3460 (866) and 0.4% above the Intel Core i5-3470T (863), but 0.5% below the Intel Atom C5315 (871) and 0.6% below the AMD Athlon PRO 3045B (872).

Q: Do these processors have integrated graphics?

A: Only the i7-3540M includes integrated graphics, specifically the Intel HD 4000. The i7-930 has no integrated graphics in the database, meaning it requires a discrete GPU for any display output.

Q: What are the architectural differences between the two?

A: The i7-930 uses the Nehalem architecture (codename Bloomfield) on a 45 nm process node, while the i7-3540M uses Ivy Bridge on a 22 nm node. The i7-930 has 4 cores and 8 threads, whereas the i7-3540M has 2 cores and 4 threads. The i7-930 offers 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i7-3540M provides 4 MB.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The i7-3540M has a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, compared to 3.07 GHz for the i7-930. The i7-3540M also has a higher base clock at 3.00 GHz versus 2.80 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras of Intel design. The i7-930 is built on Nehalem, with the Bloomfield codename, using a 45 nm process. It integrates 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die, which is a substantial physical footprint even by desktop standards of its time. The i7-3540M, in contrast, uses the Ivy Bridge architecture on a 22 nm process, packing its logic into a 118 mm² die. The database does not list a transistor count for the mobile chip, but the die size alone tells the story of a much denser, more modern manufacturing process.

Core configuration differs significantly. The i7-930 provides 4 physical cores with Hyper-Threading, yielding 8 threads. The i7-3540M offers 2 physical cores with Hyper-Threading, for 4 threads. This is the fundamental divide: the desktop part leans on parallelism, the mobile part on efficiency and clock speed. Both share identical L1 and L2 cache sizes per core (64 KB and 256 KB respectively), but the shared L3 cache differs, with the i7-930 offering 8 MB versus 4 MB for the i7-3540M.

Memory architecture also diverges. The i7-930 supports DDR3 memory over a triple-channel bus, whereas the i7-3540M also supports DDR3 but over a dual-channel bus. This gives the older desktop chip a bandwidth advantage in memory-heavy workloads, assuming the platform provides the necessary DIMMs. Neither CPU supports ECC memory. The i7-930 uses PCIe Gen 2, while the database does not list a PCIe generation for the i7-3540M.

The i7-3540M includes the Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics, which is absent on the i7-930. This is a practical difference for system builders: the mobile chip can drive displays without a discrete GPU, while the desktop part requires one. The i7-930 targets the desktop market segment, while the i7-3540M is a mobile part designed for notebooks.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ on several key specification fields. The core count is the most obvious: the i7-930 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i7-3540M has 2 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks differ, with the i7-930 at 2.80 GHz and the i7-3540M at 3.00 GHz. Boost clocks are more divergent: the i7-930 reaches 3.07 GHz, while the i7-3540M boosts to 3.70 GHz. The power envelope is drastically different: the i7-930 has a TDP of 130 watts, while the i7-3540M draws only 35 watts. This reflects their intended platforms: desktop versus mobile.

The sockets are incompatible: the i7-930 uses Intel Socket 1366, while the i7-3540M uses Intel Socket G2 (988B). Process nodes differ (45 nm versus 22 nm), as do die sizes (263 mm² versus 118 mm²). The L3 cache is halved on the mobile part (8 MB versus 4 MB). Memory channels differ (triple-channel versus dual-channel). The i7-3540M includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 4000), while the i7-930 has none. The i7-930 is listed as end-of-life, while the production status of the i7-3540M is not recorded. Release dates differ by nearly three years: the i7-930 launched in February 2010, while the i7-3540M arrived in January 2013. Neither chip has a recorded launch MSRP, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow winner: the Intel Core i7-930 takes all five head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, with deltas ranging from 1.3% to 1.6%. The average benchmark score also favors the i7-930, at 882 versus 867. However, the margins are so small that they border on statistical noise, especially in single-core tests where the difference is just a few points.

The i7-930 wins because its extra cores and threads provide a consistent edge in both multi-core and single-core Cinebench workloads. The i7-3540M compensates with higher clocks (3.00 GHz base, 3.70 GHz boost) and a modern 22 nm process, but it cannot overcome the core-count deficit. Still, the i7-3540M is the more practical chip for a laptop or compact system: it uses 35 watts versus 130 watts, includes integrated graphics, and fits in a mobile socket.

For a desktop builder prioritizing raw multi-threaded performance, the i7-930 is the pick, but the advantage is modest. For anyone needing a mobile processor or a low-power platform, the i7-3540M is the only sensible choice, given its dramatically lower TDP and built-in GPU. The i7-930's triple-channel memory support is a bonus for memory-heavy workloads, but the 130-watt TDP means it demands a serious cooling solution and a matching 1366 motherboard. The i7-3540M, by contrast, slots into a G2 socket laptop board with far less thermal overhead.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core i7-930 wins in multi-threaded desktop workloads. It takes every Cinebench multi-core test in the head-to-head data, with scores of 258 (R15), 1076 (R20), and 2563 (R23). The 4-core, 8-thread design provides a structural advantage that clock speed alone cannot close. The triple-channel memory bus also favors this part in bandwidth-sensitive applications. The 130-watt TDP is a trade-off, but for a stationary desktop with adequate cooling, it is manageable.

Intel Core i7-3540M wins in efficiency and platform flexibility. Its 35-watt TDP is a fraction of the i7-930's 130-watt draw, making it viable for thin laptops and compact systems. The integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic display scenarios. Its higher base and boost clocks (3.00 GHz and 3.70 GHz) give it an edge in bursty, lightly threaded tasks, even though the Cinebench single-core numbers still slightly favor the i7-930. The 22 nm process and smaller 118 mm² die make it a far more modern part in terms of thermal density.

Both CPUs occupy the same performance tier. The i7-930 and i7-3540M both land at the 23rd percentile among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores (882 versus 867) differ by only 1.7%. In the database's nearest-rival lists, both are surrounded by chips within a 0.6% delta. Neither is a heavyweight in modern terms, but both remain competent for legacy applications, office tasks, and older games.

The practical verdict splits along platform lines: if you have a Socket 1366 board and a robust cooler, the i7-930 gives you a slight performance edge in every benchmark. If you are building or upgrading a laptop, the i7-3540M is the only one of the two that fits the socket and power budget, and its performance is close enough that the difference will rarely be noticeable outside of sustained all-core workloads.