Xeon E3-1280 v2 vs i7-3930K
Aggregate performance score
Core i7-3930K outperforms Xeon E3-1280 v2 by a significant 25% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i7-3930K and Xeon E3-1280 v2 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1195 | 1387 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.49 | 1.01 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 3.76 | 5.66 |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| Release date | 14 November 2011 (13 years ago) | 14 May 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $611 | $645 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon E3-1280 v2 has 106% better value for money than i7-3930K.
Detailed specifications
Core i7-3930K and Xeon E3-1280 v2 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 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | 5 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 12 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 435 mm2 | 160 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 67 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,270 million | 1,400 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core i7-3930K and Xeon E3-1280 v2 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 | FCLGA1155 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 69 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-3930K and Xeon E3-1280 v2. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | + |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| Smart Response | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
Security technologies
Core i7-3930K and Xeon E3-1280 v2 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Identity Protection | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-3930K and Xeon E3-1280 v2 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-3930K and Xeon E3-1280 v2. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 64.23 GB | 32.77 GB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-3930K and Xeon E3-1280 v2.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | no data |
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 | 4.13 |
| Recency | 14 November 2011 | 14 May 2012 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 4 |
| Threads | 12 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 69 Watt |
i7-3930K has a 24.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads.
Xeon E3-1280 v2, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 months, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 88.4% lower power consumption.
The Core i7-3930K is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E3-1280 v2 in performance tests.
Note that Core i7-3930K is a desktop processor while Xeon E3-1280 v2 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-3930K and Xeon E3-1280 v2, 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.
