Intel Core i7-930 vs Intel Xeon W3520 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do these two processors compare in overall benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-930 records an average benchmark score of 882, while the Intel Xeon W3520 scores 862. The Core i7-930 sits 0.1% ahead of rivals like the AMD Athlon Silver 7120U, while the Xeon W3520 is 0.1% behind the Intel Core i5-3470T and 0.5% behind the Intel Xeon X3460.

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core rendering workloads?

A: The Core i7-930 wins all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 258 versus 252 for the Xeon W3520, a 2.4% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the margin is 1076 versus 1052, or 2.3%. The largest multi-core gap appears in Cinebench R23, where the Core i7-930 posts 2563 against 2505.

Q: Is there any single-core performance difference?

A: Yes, but it is narrow. The Core i7-930 leads in Cinebench R20 single-core with 151 points versus 148, a 2% edge. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 361 against 353, a 2.3% advantage. Both chips are locked multipliers, so overclocking headroom is not a differentiator.

Q: Do these processors share the same architecture?

A: Yes. Both use the Nehalem architecture with the Bloomfield codename, built on a 45 nm process at Intel's foundry. Both pack 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The Core i7-930 belongs to the Core i7 (Bloomfield) generation, while the Xeon W3520 is from the Xeon (Bloomfield) generation.

Q: What are the key differences in memory support?

A: Both support DDR3 memory with a triple-channel memory bus and PCIe Gen 2. The critical distinction is ECC memory: the Xeon W3520 supports ECC memory, while the Core i7-930 does not. This makes the Xeon the only one of the two suitable for error-correcting memory configurations.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each processor claim?

A: The Core i7-930 wins all five head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Xeon W3520 records zero wins. The margins range from 2.0% to 2.4%, consistently favoring the Core i7-930 across both single-core and multi-core tests.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same fundamental Nehalem architecture with the Bloomfield codename. Intel fabbed both chips on a 45 nm process node, and both integrate 731 million transistors within a 263 mm² die. The core configuration is identical: 4 cores with 8 threads, a 64 KB L1 cache per core, a 256 KB L2 cache per core, and an 8 MB shared L3 cache. Neither chip includes integrated graphics, and both use the Intel Socket 1366.

The architectural divergence appears in market positioning and platform features. The Core i7-930 is a desktop part, while the Xeon W3520 targets the server and workstation segment. This distinction manifests in ECC memory support: the Xeon W3520 supports ECC memory, the Core i7-930 does not. Both support DDR3 with a triple-channel memory bus, and both use PCIe Gen 2.

Clock speeds differ slightly within the same architecture. The Core i7-930 runs at a 2.80 GHz base clock and boosts to 3.07 GHz. The Xeon W3520 operates at a 2.67 GHz base clock with a 2.93 GHz boost. Both carry a 130 W TDP, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The generation labels reflect their intended roles: Core i7 (Bloomfield) for the desktop chip and Xeon (Bloomfield) for the server part. Both are end-of-life products. The Core i7-930 carries part number SLBKP and released in February 2010, while the Xeon W3520 uses part number SLBEW and launched in March 2009.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Core i7-930 across all five Cinebench comparisons. The margins are consistent, ranging from 2.0% to 2.4%, which indicates a small but repeatable performance advantage.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core i7-930 scores 258 against 252 for the Xeon W3520. That 2.4% delta is the largest margin in the entire comparison. The Xeon W3520 trails by six points, a modest gap that reflects the lower clock speeds.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows the Core i7-930 at 1076 and the Xeon W3520 at 1052, a 2.3% difference. The 24-point gap scales similarly to the R15 result. Single-core performance in R20 is closer: 151 versus 148, a 2% edge for the Core i7-930. This three-point difference is the smallest relative margin recorded.

Cinebench R23 multi-core delivers 2563 for the Core i7-930 and 2505 for the Xeon W3520, again a 2.3% delta. The 58-point gap in absolute terms is the largest of any test. Single-core R23 shows 361 versus 353, a 2.3% advantage for the Core i7-930.

The pattern is uniform: the Core i7-930 leads by roughly 2% to 2.4% in every workload. This aligns with its higher base and boost clocks. The Xeon W3520 never closes the gap, even in single-threaded tests where the architecture is identical. The consistency of the margins suggests the clock speed difference is the primary driver, not any architectural advantage.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i7-930 | Intel Xeon W3520 |

|----------------|-------------------|------------------|

| Base Clock | 2.80 GHz | 2.67 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.07 GHz | 2.93 GHz |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Generation | Core i7 (Bloomfield) | Xeon (Bloomfield) |

| Release Date | February 2010 | March 2009 |

| Part Number | SLBKP | SLBEW |

All other specifications are identical: 4 cores, 8 threads, 130 W TDP, Intel Socket 1366, Nehalem architecture, Bloomfield codename, 45 nm process, Intel foundry, 731 million transistors, 263 mm² die, 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, 8 MB shared L3, DDR3 memory support, triple-channel memory bus, PCIe Gen 2, no integrated graphics, and locked multipliers. Both are end-of-life products with no launch MSRP recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i7-930 wins in every measured performance category. Its higher base clock of 2.80 GHz versus 2.67 GHz and boost clock of 3.07 GHz versus 2.93 GHz translate directly into benchmark advantages. For users prioritizing raw Cinebench scores across single-core and multi-core workloads, the Core i7-930 is the clear choice based on the recorded data.

The Xeon W3520's strengths lie outside raw performance. Its ECC memory support is the defining feature. In server or workstation environments where data integrity is critical, ECC memory can detect and correct memory errors, making the Xeon W3520 the appropriate selection for error-sensitive workloads. The database shows no benchmark win for the Xeon, but its market segment as a server and workstation part suggests a different priority set: stability and reliability over peak throughput.

For desktop users running consumer applications, the Core i7-930 offers a consistent 2% to 2.4% performance advantage. The benchmark results indicate that this advantage holds across all tested Cinebench versions, from R15 to R23. The Core i7-930 also sits at the 23rd percentile of all CPUs, matching the Xeon W3520's percentile, so neither chip stands out in the broader CPU landscape.

For workstation builders who require ECC memory, the Xeon W3520 is the only viable option between these two, despite its lower clock speeds. The performance penalty is small: roughly 2% in multi-core and single-core tests. The trade-off is clear and quantifiable: the Core i7-930 gives up ECC support for a modest speed bump, while the Xeon W3520 sacrifices a small amount of performance for error-correcting memory.

The nearest rival data places both chips in similar company. The Core i7-930 matches the AMD Athlon Silver 7120U and AMD Phenom II X6 1035T within 0.1%, while the Xeon W3520 sits 0.1% behind the Intel Core i5-3470T and 0.5% behind the Intel Xeon X3460. These figures confirm that the two processors occupy the same performance tier, with the Core i7-930 holding a slight edge that is consistent across every benchmark in the database.