FX-9830P vs i7-3930K
Aggregate performance score
Core i7-3930K outperforms FX-9830P by a whopping 146% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i7-3930K and FX-9830P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1193 | 1870 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.49 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | AMD Bristol Ridge |
| Power efficiency | 3.76 | 5.68 |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013) | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) |
| Release date | 14 November 2011 (13 years ago) | 31 May 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $611 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core i7-3930K and FX-9830P basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 12 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 320 KB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per module) |
| L3 cache | 12 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 435 mm2 | 250 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 90 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 67 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,270 million | 3,100 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core i7-3930K and FX-9830P compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA2011 | FP4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-3930K and FX-9830P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Smart Response | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
Security technologies
Core i7-3930K and FX-9830P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-3930K and FX-9830P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-3930K and FX-9830P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3, DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 64.23 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 4 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-3930K and FX-9830P.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | 8 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.16 | 2.10 |
| Recency | 14 November 2011 | 31 May 2016 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 4 |
| Threads | 12 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 35 Watt |
i7-3930K has a 145.7% higher aggregate performance score, and 50% more physical cores and 200% more threads.
FX-9830P, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 271.4% lower power consumption.
The Core i7-3930K is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-9830P in performance tests.
Note that Core i7-3930K is a desktop processor while FX-9830P is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-3930K and FX-9830P, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
