Atom x7-E3950 vs Core i3-4030U

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Atom x7-E3950 vs Core i3-4030U FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Atom x7-E3950 vs Core i3-4030U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Atom x7-E3950

2016

Why buy it

✅Draws 12W instead of 512W, a 500W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (6 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 505, while Core i3-4030U needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,864 vs 1,876).

Core i3-4030U

2014

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $281 MSRP, while Atom x7-E3950 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌4166.7% higher power demand at 512W vs 12W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom x7-E3950 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom x7-E3950 better than Core i3-4030U?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Atom x7-E3950 is ahead with a 2.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-4030U pulls ahead with 0.6% better PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-4030U is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Atom x7-E3950 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Atom x7-E3950 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $281 MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i3-4030U only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 2.8% in the shared gaming data.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Atom x7-E3950 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2014). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Atom x7-E3950 vs Core i3-4030U Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Atom x7-E3950

The Atom x7-E3950 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB (total). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1296. Thermal design power (TDP): 12 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,864 points. Launch price was $57.

Core i3-4030U

The Core i3-4030U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 14 April 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 1.9 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,876 points. Launch price was $281.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom x7-E3950 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core i3-4030U offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the Atom x7-E3950 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Atom x7-E3950 versus 1.9 GHz on the Core i3-4030U — a 5.1% clock advantage for the Atom x7-E3950 (base: 1.6 GHz vs 1.9 GHz). The Atom x7-E3950 uses the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i3-4030U uses Haswell (2013−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Atom x7-E3950 scores 1,864 against the Core i3-4030U's 1,876 — a 0.6% lead for the Core i3-4030U. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom x7-E3950 vs 3 MB on the Core i3-4030U.

Feature	Atom x7-E3950	Core i3-4030U
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2 GHz+5%	1.9 GHz
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	1.9 GHz+19%
L3 Cache	0 kB	3 MB
L2 Cache	2 MB (total)+300%	512 kB
Process	14 nm-36%	22 nm
Architecture	Apollo Lake (2014−2016)	Haswell (2013−2015)
PassMark	1,864	1,876
Geekbench 6 Single	245	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom x7-E3950 uses the FCBGA1296 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i3-4030U uses FCBGA1168 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Atom x7-E3950	Core i3-4030U
Socket	FCBGA1296	FCBGA1168
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	LPDDR4-2400	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	4	—
ECC Support	Yes	—
PCIe Lanes	6	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Atom x7-E3950) / not specified (Core i3-4030U). The Atom x7-E3950 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 505), while the Core i3-4030U requires a dedicated GPU.