Intel Core i7-930 vs Intel Xeon X3460 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon X3460 has a higher boost clock at 3.47 GHz, while the Intel Core i7-930 boosts to 3.07 GHz. Both share the same 2.80 GHz base clock.

Q: Do these two processors belong to the same architecture family?

A: Yes, both are built on Intel's Nehalem architecture, but they use different codenames. The Core i7-930 is Bloomfield, while the Xeon X3460 is Lynnfield. Both are manufactured on a 45 nm process node.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon X3460 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i7-930 does not. This reflects the Xeon's server and workstation positioning.

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

A: The Core i7-930 leads in every recorded multi-core benchmark. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 2563 versus 2518 for the Xeon X3460, a 1.8% advantage. The gap is similar in Cinebench R20 multi-core, 1076 versus 1057, also 1.8%.

Q: Are there differences in memory channel support?

A: Yes. The Core i7-930 uses triple-channel memory, while the Xeon X3460 uses dual-channel memory. The Xeon lists a memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s; the Core i7-930 has no bandwidth figure recorded.

Q: What are the market segments for these two CPUs?

A: The Core i7-930 is a desktop part, while the Xeon X3460 is a server and workstation part. Both are end-of-life products, with the Xeon released earlier on 2009-09-07 and the Core i7 on 2010-02-27.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are Nehalem-generation designs on Intel's 45 nm process, but they diverge in several important architectural details. The Core i7-930 uses the Bloomfield die, while the Xeon X3460 uses the Lynnfield die. This is not a cosmetic difference. The Bloomfield part measures 263 mm² and packs 731 million transistors, whereas the Lynnfield die is larger at 296 mm² and contains more transistors, 774 million. Despite the larger die, the Xeon targets a different platform with its Intel Socket 1156, while the Core i7 uses Intel Socket 1366.

Cache hierarchies are identical in structure. Each core has 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2, and the two chips share an 8 MB L3 cache. The core and thread counts also match: 4 cores and 8 threads on both. The fundamental architectural split appears in the memory controller. The Core i7-930 runs triple-channel DDR3, while the Xeon X3460 is limited to dual-channel DDR3. The Xeon does carry a recorded memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s, a figure not listed for the Core i7.

Another notable difference is the boost behavior. The Xeon X3460 reaches 3.47 GHz, which is 0.40 GHz higher than the Core i7-930's 3.07 GHz boost. This gives the Xeon a clock advantage in lightly threaded workloads, at least on paper. The Xeon also carries ECC memory support, which is absent on the Core i7, and it belongs to the server and workstation segment with a launch MSRP of $316. The Core i7 has no launch MSRP recorded.

The Xeon lists PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core i7 simply lists PCIe Gen 2 without a lane count. Neither chip has integrated graphics. Both are multiplier locked. The part numbers differ as well: SLBKP for the Core i7-930 and SLBJK for the Xeon X3460.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data covers five Cinebench tests, and the Core i7-930 wins all five. The margins are consistent but small. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core i7 scores 258 against 253 for the Xeon, a 2% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 1076 versus 1057, a 1.8% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core repeats the pattern: 2563 versus 2518, again 1.8%. Single-core results are closer. Cinebench R20 single-core gives the Core i7 a 151 to 149 win, a 1.3% margin. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 361 versus 355, a 1.7% edge.

The interesting part is that the Xeon's higher boost clock does not translate into a single-core victory in these tests. The Core i7-930 holds a small but consistent single-core advantage despite the clock deficit. This suggests that factors other than peak boost, such as memory latency or platform behavior, are influencing the results.

The overall average benchmark score reflects the same ordering. The Core i7-930 averages 882, while the Xeon X3460 averages 866. That is a 16-point gap in the database's aggregate metric. Both chips sit at the 23rd percentile among all CPUs, meaning they are in the lower quarter of the performance distribution, but the Core i7 is marginally ahead within that tier.

The nearest rivals help contextualize these numbers. The Core i7-930's closest competitor is the AMD Athlon Silver 7120U, which scores 881, a delta of 0.1%. The AMD Phenom II X6 1035T and Intel Core i3-1000NG4 also sit at 881. For the Xeon X3460, the nearest rival is the Intel Atom C5315 at 871, a negative delta of 0.6%, followed by the Intel Core i7-3540M at 867. These rival comparisons show that both chips occupy a narrow performance band where 1% swings separate adjacent parts.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two processors differ.

| Specification | Intel Core i7-930 | Intel Xeon X3460 |

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

| Boost Clock | 3.07 GHz | 3.47 GHz |

| TDP | 130 W | 95 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1366 | Intel Socket 1156 |

| Codename | Bloomfield | Lynnfield |

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

| Transistors | 731 million | 774 million |

| Die Size | 263 mm² | 296 mm² |

| Memory Bus | Triple-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 21.3 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Gen 2, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2010-02-27 | 2009-09-07 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $316 |

| Part Number | SLBKP | SLBJK |

The TDP difference is substantial. The Xeon X3460 draws 95 W, while the Core i7-930 draws 130 W. That 35 W gap is significant for system builders, especially in dense server environments, though the performance difference between the two is minimal. The Xeon achieves lower power consumption despite having a larger die and more transistors, which underscores the different platform design goals.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i7-930 wins in every recorded benchmark, so on pure performance it is the stronger part. Its advantages are most visible in multi-core workloads, where it leads by 1.8% to 2% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. The single-core wins are smaller, 1.3% to 1.7%, but they still favor the Core i7. For users who care about absolute rendering performance in the Cinebench suite, the data points clearly to the Core i7-930.

The Xeon X3460 wins in platform efficiency and server-oriented features. It carries a 95 W TDP versus 130 W for the Core i7, which makes it the better fit for thermally constrained or power-conscious deployments. It also supports ECC memory, a requirement for many workstation and server workloads where data integrity is non-negotiable. The Xeon's dual-channel memory bus and 21.3 GB/s bandwidth figure are less impressive than the Core i7's triple-channel setup, but the Xeon was designed for a different socket and market segment.

The release timing matters for platform decisions. The Xeon X3460 arrived on 2009-09-07, earlier than the Core i7-930's 2010-02-27 date. The Xeon also has a recorded launch MSRP of $316, while the Core i7 does not have one in the database. For a server or workstation builder, the Xeon's ECC support, lower TDP, and earlier availability make it the logical choice despite losing every benchmark. For a desktop user focused on Cinebench scores, the Core i7-930 is the pick, even if the margins are thin.

The nearest rival data reinforces that these two chips are close in the broader market. The Core i7-930's rivals sit within 0.1% to 0.2% of its average score, and the Xeon's rivals sit within 0.1% to 0.6%. Neither chip is a performance outlier. The Core i7-930 wins the head-to-head, but the Xeon X3460 offers features that the Core i7 simply cannot match: ECC, lower power draw, and a server-grade platform. The choice comes down to whether raw benchmark scores or platform attributes matter more for the intended use case.