Xeon X3450 vs i7-930

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i7-930
2010
4 cores / 8 threads, 130 Watt
1.94
+4.3%

Core i7-930 outperforms Xeon X3450 by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i7-930 and Xeon X3450 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking19752005
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.24no data
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency1.361.79
Architecture codenameBloomfield (2008−2010)no data
Release date28 February 2010 (14 years ago)1 July 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$80no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core i7-930 and Xeon X3450 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads88
Base clock speed2.8 GHz2.66 GHz
Boost clock speed3.06 GHz3.2 GHz
Bus rate4.8 GT/sno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache256 KB (per core)no data
L3 cache8 MB (shared)8 MB Intel® Smart Cache
Chip lithography45 nm45 nm
Die size263 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature68 °C73 °C
Number of transistors731 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Core i7-930 and Xeon X3450 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 configuration11
SocketFCLGA1366FCLGA1156,LGA1156
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-930 and Xeon X3450. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2Intel® SSE4.2
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology1.01.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
Idle States++
Demand Based Switching-+
PAE36 Bit36 Bit

Security technologies

Core i7-930 and Xeon X3450 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-930 and Xeon X3450 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data+
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-930 and Xeon X3450. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3-800, DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333
Maximum memory size24 GB32 GB
Max memory channels32
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s21 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-930 and Xeon X3450.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

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.

i7-930 1.94
+4.3%
Xeon X3450 1.86

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.

i7-930 2963
+3.9%
Xeon X3450 2853

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.

i7-930 418
Xeon X3450 431
+3.1%

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.

i7-930 1421
Xeon X3450 1454
+2.3%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.94 1.86
Recency 28 February 2010 1 July 2009
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 95 Watt

i7-930 has a 4.3% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 7 months.

Xeon X3450, on the other hand, has 36.8% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core i7-930 and Xeon X3450.

Note that Core i7-930 is a desktop processor while Xeon X3450 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-930 and Xeon X3450, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core i7-930
Core i7-930
Intel Xeon X3450
Xeon X3450

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 207 votes

Rate Core i7-930 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 299 votes

Rate Xeon X3450 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i7-930 or Xeon X3450, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.