Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 9654 vs Core i7-930
Aggregated performance score
Core i7-930
2010
4 cores / 8 threads
1.93
EPYC 9654 outperforms Core i7-930 by 4030% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
Comparing Core i7-930 and EPYC 9654 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1844 | 4 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.16 | 11.92 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Architecture codename | Bloomfield (2008−2010) | Genoa |
| Release date | 28 February 2010 (14 years old) | 10 November 2022 (1 year old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $80 | $11,805 |
| Current price | $249 (3.1x MSRP) | $3975 (0.3x MSRP) |
Value for money
EPYC 9654 has 7350% better value for money than i7-930.
Technical specs
Core i7-930 and EPYC 9654 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 96 |
| Threads | 8 | 192 |
| Base clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.06 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 384 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 5 nm, 6 nm |
| Die size | 263 mm2 | 12x 72 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 68 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 731 million | 78,840 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Core i7-930 and EPYC 9654 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 | 2 |
| Socket | FCLGA1366 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 360 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-930 and EPYC 9654. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| PAE | 36 Bit | no data |
| Status | Discontinued | no data |
Security technologies
Core i7-930 and EPYC 9654 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-930 and EPYC 9654 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-930 and EPYC 9654. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5-4800 |
| Maximum memory size | 24 GB | 6 TiB |
| Max memory channels | 3 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 460.8 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-930 and EPYC 9654.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
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.
EPYC 9654 outperforms Core i7-930 by 4030% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
EPYC 9654 outperforms Core i7-930 by 4022% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
EPYC 9654 outperforms Core i7-930 by 338% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
EPYC 9654 outperforms Core i7-930 by 1189% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 1.93 | 79.71 |
| Recency | 28 February 2010 | 10 November 2022 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 96 |
| Threads | 8 | 192 |
| Cost | $80 | $11805 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 360 Watt |
The EPYC 9654 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i7-930 in performance tests.
Be aware that Core i7-930 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9654 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-930 and EPYC 9654, 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.
