i5-3230M vs i7-920

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i7-920
2008
4 cores / 8 threads, 130 Watt
1.79
+11.2%
Core i5-3230M
2013
2 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
1.61

Core i7-920 outperforms Core i5-3230M by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i7-920 and Core i5-3230M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking20112087
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.22no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesCore i7 (Desktop)Intel Core i5
Power efficiency1.304.35
Architecture codenameBloomfield (2008−2010)Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
Release dateNovember 2008 (16 years ago)1 January 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$340$225

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core i7-920 and Core i5-3230M 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads84
Base clock speed2.66 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2.93 GHz3.2 GHz
Bus rate1333 MHz5 GT/s
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)256K (per core)
L3 cache8 MB (shared)3 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm22 nm
Die size263 mm2118 mm2
Maximum core temperature68 °C105 °C
Number of transistors731 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Core i7-920 and Core i5-3230M 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
SocketFCLGA1366,PLGA1366FCPGA988
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-920 and Core i5-3230M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2Intel® AVX
AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
My WiFino data+
Turbo Boost Technology1.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switching--
PAE36 Bitno data
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+

Security technologies

Core i7-920 and Core i5-3230M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+-
EDB++
Secure Keyno data+
Identity Protection-+
Anti-Theftno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-920 and Core i5-3230M are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-dno data+
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-920 and Core i5-3230M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size24 GB32 GB
Max memory channels32
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s25.6 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel HD Graphics 4000
Quick Sync Video-+
Clear Video HDno data+
Graphics max frequencyno data1.1 GHz
InTru 3Dno data+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core i7-920 and Core i5-3230M integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
SDVOno data+
CRTno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-920 and Core i5-3230M.

PCIe versionno data3.0
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.

i7-920 1.79
+11.2%
i5-3230M 1.61

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.

i7-920 2838
+10.8%
i5-3230M 2561

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.

i7-920 415
i5-3230M 506
+21.9%

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.

i7-920 1423
+39.6%
i5-3230M 1019

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

i7-920 3874
i5-3230M 4268
+10.2%

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

i7-920 15576
+70.1%
i5-3230M 9159

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

i7-920 4728
+25.7%
i5-3230M 3760

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

i7-920 9.57
+86.3%
i5-3230M 17.83

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

i7-920 5
+61.3%
i5-3230M 3

3DMark Fire Strike Physics

i7-920 3970
+17.5%
i5-3230M 3380

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.79 1.61
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 8 4
Chip lithography 45 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 35 Watt

i7-920 has a 11.2% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

i5-3230M, on the other hand, has a 104.5% more advanced lithography process, and 271.4% lower power consumption.

The Core i7-920 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-3230M in performance tests.

Note that Core i7-920 is a desktop processor while Core i5-3230M is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-920 and Core i5-3230M, 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 i7-920
Core i7-920
Intel Core i5-3230M
Core i5-3230M

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.


3.7 399 votes

Rate Core i7-920 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 1108 votes

Rate Core i5-3230M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i7-920 or Core i5-3230M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.