OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Core i3 4160 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£9PassMark benchmark result:3501N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:LGA1150TDP (Thermal design power):54 W

Intel Core i3 4160 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.5

Overall score

Score
4.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components

90%

4.1

Technical score

10%

8.2

User score

â–¼Worse than 75% of processors
4.1

Technical score

Technical score
4.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components

60%

3.5

Performance

18%

3.9

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 82% of processors
8.2

User score

User score
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 82% of models
Score components

70%

8.3

User ratings

30%

8.0

Number of reviews

Based on 209 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
â–²Better than 82% of processors
  • intel-core-i3-4160
intel-core-i3-4160

Best prices

*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.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i3 4160

Technical score
Technical score
4.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components:

60%

3.5

Performance

18%

3.9

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated Graphics

4.1
User score
User score
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 82% of models
Score components

70%

8.3

User ratings

30%

8.0

Number of reviews

Based on 209 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
8.2
Popularity
Popularity
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 86% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core i3 4160 has a popularity score of 8 points, which is higher than that of 86.4% of products in this category.
8.0
Value for money
Value for money
6.2/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components:

60%

4.5

Overall score

40%

10

Price

6.2
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
desktop
Processor type
desktop
â–² Better than 56% of models
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 56% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1150
CPU socket
LGA1150
â–² Better than 57% of models
This processor uses the LGA1150 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 56.9% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
Chipset
H97, Z97, H87, Q87, B85, Q85, Z87, H81
Chipset
H97, Z97, H87, Q87, B85, Q85, Z87, H81
â–² Better than 52% of models
This processor supports H97, Z97, H87, Q87, B85, Q85, Z87, H81 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 52.2% of processors and equal to that of 2.5% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
N. of physical cores
2
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 79.3% of processors and equal to 20.6% of processors.
CPU threads
4
CPU threads
4
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 67.4% of processors and equal to 26.5% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
â–² Better than 30% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 2 threads per core, which is more than 30.3% of processors and equal to 69.7% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
N/A
CPU base clock speed
2x 3.6 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 3.6 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
This processor has a base clock of 2x3.6 GHz which is lower than that of 76.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
22 nm
Semiconductor size
22 nm
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 22 nm process node, which is older than that of 84.6% of processors and equal to that of 10.1% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 22 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 84.6% of processors and equal to that of 10.1% of processors.
L3 cache
3 MB
L3 cache
3 MB
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 3 MB which is smaller than that of 84.8% of processors and equal to that of 5.6% of processors.
L2 cache
0.5 MB
L2 cache
0.5 MB
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 0.5 MB which is smaller than that of 84.7% of processors and equal to that of 15.3% of processors.
L1 cache
128 KB
L1 cache
128 KB
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 128 KB which is smaller than that of 83.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.8% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3
DDR memory version
DDR3
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR3, which is older than that of 86.3% of processors and equal to that of 13.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,600 MHz, which is lower than that of 87.2% of processors and equal to 11.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1600 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1600 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-1600 MHz, which is lower than that of 88.8% of processors and equal to 8.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 71.9% of processors and equal to 19.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 4400
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 4400
â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 4400 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 68.7% of processors and equal to that in 0.6% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
20
Integrated GPU execution units
20
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 20 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 51.5% of processors and equal to 4.4% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
â–² Better than 42% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 350 MHz which is higher than that of 42.3% of processors and equal to that of 26.1% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode)
â–² Better than 51% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 51.5% of processors and equal to 0.9% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
54 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
54 W
â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 54 W which is higher than that of 62.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
54 W
Base power (PL1)
54 W
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 54 W which is higher than that of 62.6% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
Configurable TDP
no
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Core i3 4160 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes stock cooler
    Cooler included
    yes
    â–² Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
  • Supports ECC memory
    ECC memory support
    yes
    â–² Better than 68% of models
    This processor supports ECC memory, the average processor does not. 32.5% of processors support ECC memory.
  • 8.01x more popular
    Intel Core i3 4160 is more popular than the average processor (8.01 vs 1).
    8.01 vs 1
  • 27.78x cheaper
    Intel Core i3 4160 is cheaper than the average processor (£9 vs £250).
    £9 vs £250
  • 2.9% higher user score
    User score
    8.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
    When it matters
    When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    Intel Core i3 4160
    the average processor
    Intel Core i3 4160 has a higher user score than the average processor (8.23 vs 8.000).
    8.23 vs 8
  • Modern CPU socket
    CPU socket
    LGA1150
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1150 vs FP4).
    LGA1150 vs FP4
  • 8.01x more popular
    Intel Core i3 4160 is more popular than the average processor (8.01 vs 1).
    8.01 vs 1
  • 27.78x cheaper
    Intel Core i3 4160 is cheaper than the average processor (£9 vs £250).
    £9 vs £250
  • 2.9% higher user score
    User score
    8.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
    When it matters
    When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    Intel Core i3 4160
    the average processor
    Intel Core i3 4160 has a higher user score than the average processor (8.23 vs 8.000).
    8.23 vs 8
  • Modern CPU socket
    CPU socket
    LGA1150
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1150 vs FP4).
    LGA1150 vs FP4
  • Supports ECC memory
    ECC memory support
    yes
    â–² Better than 68% of models
    This processor supports ECC memory, the average processor does not. 32.5% of processors support ECC memory.
  • Includes stock cooler
    Cooler included
    yes
    â–² Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 77.7% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1,075
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,075 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,075 vs 4,829
  • 66.9% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    3,501
    â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,501 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,501 vs 10,572.5
  • 83.3% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    22 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    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
  • 20.9% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1977
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1977 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,977 vs 2,500
  • 26.9% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,075
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,075 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,075 vs 1,471
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • 6.5% worse value for money
    Intel Core i3 4160 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.16 vs 6.6).
    6.16 vs 6.56
  • 6 years older release date
    Release date
    2014
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2014 vs 2020).
    July 2014
    2014 vs 2020
  • No crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    This processor does not include crypto acceleration, the average processor does. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    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).
    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
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 77.7% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1,075
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,075 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,075 vs 4,829
  • 66.9% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    3,501
    â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,501 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,501 vs 10,572.5
  • 20.9% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1977
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1977 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,977 vs 2,500
  • 26.9% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,075
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,075 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,075 vs 1,471
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    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
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 3.6 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x3.6 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x3.6 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 37.5% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    5 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    5 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    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
  • No Turbo Boost
    Turbo Boost version
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    This processor does not support Turbo Boost, the average processor does. 88.6% of processors support Turbo Boost.
  • 83.3% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    22 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    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
  • 80% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    0.5 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Haswell
    â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Haswell vs Kaby Lake).
    Haswell vs Kaby Lake
  • 50% less L2 per core
    L2 per core
    0.25 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/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
  • 66.7% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    128 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (128 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    128 KB vs 384 KB
  • 62.5% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    3 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (3 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    3 MB vs 8 MB
  • 12.5% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.5 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 71.7% fewer transistors
    N. of transistors
    1.4 billion
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
    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
    Foundry
    Intel 22 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    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
  • Older DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR3
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • 44.1% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    25.6 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (25.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    25.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 45.4% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    1,600 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1600 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    1,600 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR3-1600 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    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
    Maximum memory capacity
    32 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    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
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x16
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode)
    â–² Better than 51% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (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)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (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)
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Intel HD Graphics 4400
    â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 4400 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel HD Graphics 4,400 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 20% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    54 W
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

C
cpubenchmark.net
17/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i3-4160 @ 3.60GHz - CPU Benchmarks
C
cpu.userbenchmark.com
Not Specified
Summary of the review
Intel Core i3-4160 BX80646I34160 - CPU UserBenchmarks
T
tomshardware.com
21/03/2016
Summary of the review
AMD A10-7890K APU - Office Application Benchmarks
N
notebookcheck.nl
16/11/2015
Summary of the review
Dell Inspiron 15 7559 - Notebookcheck.nl (Inclusief i3-4160 benchmarks) Would you like me to look for Dutch video reviews or perhaps help you compare...
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

Based on 209 buyer reviews from online shops.
Reviews last updated: May 2026 · How we calculate this
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →

What we like about Intel Core i3 4160

  • Excellent value for money in the budget and used market.
  • Highly efficient for light tasks like web browsing, emails, and home office work.
  • Hyper-threading technology provides a significant performance boost over standard dual-core models.
  • Operates at stable temperatures (typically 55-60°C under load) and is power efficient.
  • Strong performance in older or less demanding titles like GTA V and CS:GO.

What we don't like about Intel Core i3 4160

  • Outdated 2-core/4-thread architecture struggles with modern AAA gaming and multitasking.
  • Integrated Intel HD 4400 graphics are insufficient for anything beyond basic desktop use.
  • Locked multiplier prevents any significant overclocking to improve performance.
  • Limited to older DDR3 memory, making it less future-proof compared to newer platforms.
  • Under-powered for heavy productivity tasks such as video rendering or 3D modelling.

Verdict

The Intel Core i3-4160 is a 4th-generation 'Haswell' desktop processor featuring 2 physical cores and 4 threads via Hyper-Threading, operating at a fixed base frequency of 3.6 GHz with a 54W TDP. Built on a 22nm process, it includes 3MB of Intel Smart Cache, supports up to 32GB of DDR3-1333/1600 memory, and integrates Intel HD Graphics 4400. Its main pros include strong single-core performance for its era, excellent value for budget office or home builds, and reliable stability for light gaming and daily multitasking. However, its primary cons are the lack of Turbo Boost technology, a locked multiplier that prevents overclocking, and its dual-core architecture, which increasingly struggles with modern, highly threaded applications and intensive gaming.

Compare Intel Core i3 4160 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 4160 and other processors

No results found