OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core i3-4150 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£900PassMark multi-core score:3401N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:LGA1150TDP (Thermal design power):54 W

Intel Core i3-4150 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications, 7 expert and video reviews and 1 best-of list to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i3-4150
4.1/10

Overall score

Score
4.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

40%

4.1

Technical score

25%

4.1

Reviews score

25%

4.1

List score

10%

4.1

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 99% of processors
4.6

Value for money

Value for money
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

70%

4.1

Overall score

30%

5.8

Price

▼Worse than 99%
4.1

Technical score

Technical score
4.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components

60%

3.4

Performance

18%

4.1

Architecture

10%

4.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

7.5

Platform

1%

6.2

Integrated graphics

▼Worse than 82%
4.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 89% of models

4.1

Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.3

Average grade

20%

8.4

Popularity

Grades by review (7)
7 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 89%
4.1

List score

List score
4.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (1)
List score: in 1 of 87 lists (1%)
▲Better than 89%
  • intel-core-i3-4150
  • intel-core-i3-4150
intel-core-i3-4150
intel-core-i3-4150
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Intel Core i3-4150

Based on 0 · 6

Reviewers like its gaming performance, but they're split on value for money and complain about power consumption.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Intel Core i3-4150

Based on 53 owners sharing their experience in online comments

38%positive5%mixed57%negative

Owners praise gaming with a graphics card, while low frame rates, lag, and game failures dominate complaints.

What owners dislike

  • Games lag, run slowly, or fail to run15
  • Low frame rates in Valorant4
  • Some owners report sudden CPU usage spikes and stuttering in CS:GO and Battlefield, even with a newer graphics card.3
  • Some owners report crashes in Roblox at high graphics settings and games like The Witcher failing to open or Warzone showing error 6066.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i3-4150

Technical score
Technical score
4.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components:

60%

3.4

Performance

18%

4.1

Architecture

10%

4.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

7.5

Platform

1%

6.2

Integrated graphics

4.1
Reviews score
4.1
List score
4.1
Value for money
Value for money
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components:

70%

4.1

Overall score

30%

5.8

Price

4.6
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1150
This processor uses the LGA1150 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 55.3% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
Chipset
?
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 54.4% of processors and equal to that of 3.4% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 80.4% of processors and equal to 19.6% of processors.
CPU threads
4
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 69% of processors and equal to 25.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
N/A
CPU base clock speed
2x 3.5 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x3.5 GHz which is lower than that of 78.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
3,401
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 3,401 in PassMark, which is lower than 82.9% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
22 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 22 nm process node, which is older than that of 85% of processors and equal to that of 9.6% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 22 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 84.9% of processors and equal to that of 9.8% of processors.
L3 cache
3 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 3 MB which is smaller than that of 85.6% of processors and equal to that of 5.4% of processors.
L2 cache
0.5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 0.5 MB which is smaller than that of 85.4% of processors and equal to that of 14.5% of processors.
L1 cache
?
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3
This processor supports DDR DDR3, which is older than that of 86.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.3% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,600 MHz, which is lower than that of 87.7% of processors and equal to 10.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1600 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-1600 MHz, which is lower than that of 89.1% of processors and equal to 8.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 73% of processors and equal to 18.9% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 4400
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 4400 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 66.9% of processors and equal to that in 0.6% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
20
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 20 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 51.6% of processors and equal to 4.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 350 MHz which is higher than that of 42.7% of processors and equal to that of 25.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode)
This processor supports VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 73.3% of processors and equal to 0.2% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
54 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 54 W which is higher than that of 60.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
54 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 54 W which is higher than that of 60.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

Intel Core i3-4150 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 6.3x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (2,142.4 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    2,142.37 vs 340.075
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • 6.3x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (2,142.4 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    2,142.37 vs 340.075
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 47.4% lower list score
    List score
    4.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
    How we count it
    Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
    Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
    Lists with this model (1)
    List score: in 1 of 87 lists (1%)
    4.1 vs 7.8
  • 79.8% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,054 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,054 vs 5,209
  • 70.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,401 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,401 vs 11,469
  • 38.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 89% of models

    4.1

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.3

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    7 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.1 vs 6.7
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 24.9% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1921 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,921 vs 2,558
  • 31.3% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,054 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,054 vs 1,535
  • 83.3% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (22 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    22 nm vs 12 nm
  • 47.4% lower list score
    List score
    4.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
    How we count it
    Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
    Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
    Lists with this model (1)
    List score: in 1 of 87 lists (1%)
    4.1 vs 7.8
  • 38.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 89% of models

    4.1

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.3

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    7 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.1 vs 6.7
  • 43.1% lower sentiment score
    4.1 vs 7.2
  • 58.4% worse value for money
    Intel Core i3-4150 has worse value for money than the average processor (4.6 vs 7.3).
    4.6 vs 7.29
  • 3.6x more expensive
    Intel Core i3-4150 is more expensive than the average processor (£900 vs £250).
    £900 vs £250
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, SGX, TXT vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, SGX, TXT vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 6 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2014 vs 2020).
    May 2014
    2014 vs 2020
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 79.8% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,054 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,054 vs 5,209
  • 70.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,401 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,401 vs 11,469
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 24.9% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1921 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,921 vs 2,558
  • 31.3% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,054 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,054 vs 1,535
  • 2 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    2 vs 4
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x3.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x3.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 83.3% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (22 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    22 nm vs 12 nm
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    0.5 MB vs 3 MB
  • 50% less L2 per core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Haswell vs Kaby Lake).
    Haswell vs Kaby Lake
  • 66.7% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (3 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    3 MB vs 9 MB
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 71.7% fewer transistors
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.4 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    1.4 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Less advanced foundry
    This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 22 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 22 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 50% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    1,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 45.4% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (25.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    25.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-1600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3-1,600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 50% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 20% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (54 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    54 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

6.0
The Indian Budget Gamer
≈ estimated
10/07/2023
Gaming test · modern titles at 1080p on an old i3
Verdict
Intel Core i3-4150 falls short in the latest games, though it is fine for the price.
6.0
Matt Miller
≈ estimated
21/01/2023
Hands-on test · old office PC upgraded for gaming
Verdict
Intel Core i3-4150 is usable for some games at low settings, but the aging chip struggles badly in demanding titles like Fortnite.
8.0
Febri Setiawan
≈ estimated
05/09/2020
Upgrade test · benchmark comparison with previous Pentium
Verdict
Intel Core i3-4150 gains clearly in multi-core speed over the Pentium, and the creator suggests others may want to upgrade too.
8.0
Hoosier Hardware
≈ estimated
06/04/2019
Gaming test · Apex Legends on a dual-core i3 system
Verdict
Intel Core i3-4150 runs Apex Legends better than expected, but only with a capable graphics card.
6.0
Santiago Santiago
≈ estimated
21/08/2016
Gaming test · 11 games with GTX 1060 pairing
Verdict
Intel Core i3-4150 is playable in many games with a 30 FPS cap, but the CPU holds the system back.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i3-4150

  • Excellent value for money, making it a top choice for budget gaming builds
  • High clock speed of 3.5 GHz provides snappy performance for everyday tasks and light gaming
  • Includes Intel Hyper-Threading, effectively doubling the core count to 4 threads for better multitasking
  • Low power consumption with a TDP of 54W, leading to cool and efficient operation
  • Good single-core performance that competes well against some contemporary 6-core and 8-core AMD processors in gaming
  • Features integrated Intel HD 4400 graphics, suitable for basic office work and very light gaming without a dedicated GPU

What customers don't like about Intel Core i3-4150

  • Locked multiplier prevents users from overclocking to gain additional performance
  • Dual-core architecture struggles with modern, highly CPU-intensive AAA games and heavy 3D rendering
  • Integrated graphics (HD 4400) are relatively weak and not suitable for a decent gaming or video editing experience
  • Lack of Turbo Boost technology means the clock speed cannot increase beyond its base 3.5 GHz
  • Stock cooler may lead to high temperatures (approaching 80°C) in hot environments or under heavy load
  • Limited upgrade path as it uses the older LGA 1150 socket and DDR3 memory

Verdict

The Intel Core i3-4150 is a 4th Generation 'Haswell' desktop processor launched in Q2 2014, featuring 2 cores and 4 threads via Hyper-Threading technology. Operating at a fixed base frequency of 3.50 GHz with a 54W TDP, it includes 3MB of Intel Smart Cache and supports up to 32GB of dual-channel DDR3-1333/1600 memory. Key advantages include its reliable performance for entry-level gaming and office tasks, relatively low power consumption, and integrated Intel HD Graphics 4400 which supports up to three displays. However, significant drawbacks include its lack of Intel Turbo Boost technology, a locked multiplier that prevents overclocking, and its limited dual-core architecture which can lead to high CPU utilization and bottlenecks in modern, multi-threaded applications or high-end gaming scenarios.

Compare Intel Core i3-4150 with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i3-4150 and other processors

No results found