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 i3-4170 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£120PassMark multi-core score:3577N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:?CPU socket:LGA1150TDP (Thermal design power):54 W

Intel Core i3-4170 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 4 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i3-4170
5.1/10

Overall score

Score
5.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components

40%

4.3

Technical score

25%

4.3

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

4.3

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 96% of processors
6.5

Value for money

Value for money
6.5/ 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 88% of models
Score components

70%

5.1

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

â–¼Worse than 88%
4.3

Technical score

Technical score
4.3/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
Score components

60%

3.7

Performance

18%

4.0

Architecture

10%

4.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.5

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.1

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 77%
4.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.3/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models

4.3

Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

6.9

Average grade

20%

8.0

Popularity

Grades by review (4)
4 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.
â–¼Worse than 85%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 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 (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • intel-core-i3-4170
  • intel-core-i3-4170
  • intel-core-i3-4170
intel-core-i3-4170
intel-core-i3-4170
intel-core-i3-4170
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 i3-4170

Based on 0 · 5

Reviewers like the price, but gaming performance splits opinion and unstable frame rates are the main complaint.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Intel Core i3-4170

Based on 91 owners sharing their experience in online comments

51%positive11%mixed38%negative

Owners praise its capable gaming performance, though demanding titles can expose bottlenecks, stuttering, and low frame rates.

What owners dislike

  • Frame rates can drop and stutter in demanding games, often with the processor pinned at 100% and the graphics card underused.19
  • The processor holds back a stronger graphics card in demanding titles such as Battlefield 1, Fortnite and Cyberpunk, so the GPU cannot reach full use.15
  • Integrated graphics are too weak for modern gaming, so a dedicated graphics card is needed for anything beyond light games.5
  • Some newer or demanding games, such as GTA and PUBG, fail to run or run poorly on this processor.5
  • Owners say the platform is now dated and an upgrade is needed for newer, heavier games.5
  • Systems with only 4 GB or 8 GB of RAM see stutter and frame drops, and owners say upgrading to 16 GB helps.4
  • The processor runs hot during gaming, reaching around 80 to 90 °C, and owners suggest a better cooler or fresh thermal paste.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i3-4170

Technical score
Technical score
4.3/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
Score components:

60%

3.7

Performance

18%

4.0

Architecture

10%

4.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.5

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.1

Integrated graphics

4.3
Reviews score
4.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.5/ 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 88% of models
Score components:

70%

5.1

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

6.5
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
H97, Z97, H87, Q87, B85, Q85, Z87, H81
This processor supports H97, Z97, H87, Q87, B85, Q85, Z87, H81 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 52.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% of processors.
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, FMA3, AES
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 60.1% of processors and equal to that of 3.8% 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
?
CPU base clock speed
2x 3.7 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x3.7 GHz which is lower than that of 77.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
3,577
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 3,577 in PassMark, which is lower than 81.4% 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
64 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 64 KB which is smaller than that of 99.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
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)
?
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
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
12
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 12 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 62.7% of processors and equal to 9.2% 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
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 51.6% of processors and equal to 4.7% 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)
54 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 54 W which is lower than that of 66.1% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core i3-4170 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 26% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (131 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    131 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 15.6% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (54 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    54 W vs 64 W
  • 26% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (131 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    131 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 15.6% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (54 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    54 W vs 64 W
  • 78.5% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,120 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,120 vs 5,209
  • 68.8% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,577 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,577 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
  • 35.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.3/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models

    4.3

    Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    6.9

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    4 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.
    4.3 vs 6.7
  • 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
  • 20.6% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2031 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,031 vs 2,558
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 35.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.3/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models

    4.3

    Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    6.9

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    4 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.
    4.3 vs 6.7
  • 40.3% lower sentiment score
    4.3 vs 7.2
  • 11.5% worse value for money
    Intel Core i3-4170 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.53 vs 7.3).
    6.53 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key 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, 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, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 5 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2015 vs 2020).
    March 2015
    2015 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
  • 78.5% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,120 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,120 vs 5,209
  • 68.8% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,577 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,577 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
  • 20.6% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2031 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,031 vs 2,558
  • 27% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,120 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,120 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 (2x3.7 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x3.7 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 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
  • 83.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (64 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    64 KB vs 384 KB
  • 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
  • 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 (H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 50% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (12 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    12 vs 24
  • 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

5.0
Mike21Daisu
≈ estimated
06/04/2025
Hands-on review · gaming tests in 2025
Verdict
Intel Core i3-4170 plays some games fine, but for a decent gaming experience in 2025 you need at least a fourth-gen i7.
4.0
The Gaming Assassin
≈ estimated
29/09/2022
Hands-on benchmarks · gaming tests with RX 570
Verdict
Intel Core i3-4170 is not recommended for modern games; a Core i5 of the same generation is much better.
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Shop video
Not graded
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i3-4170

  • High base clock speed of 3.7 GHz provides solid single-thread performance for its generation
  • Hyper-Threading support effectively provides 4 threads, aiding multitasking over standard dual-core chips
  • Excellent value for money and cost-effective for budget or entry-level PC builds
  • Low power consumption with a TDP of 54W, making it energy-efficient
  • Capable of handling everyday office tasks, web browsing, and older eSports titles like CS:GO or Valorant
  • Includes integrated Intel HD Graphics 4400, suitable for basic media and light visual tasks without a dedicated GPU

What customers don't like about Intel Core i3-4170

  • Only 2 physical cores, which struggle significantly with modern AAA games and intensive multitasking
  • Lacks Turbo Boost technology, meaning it cannot automatically increase its clock speed under heavy loads
  • Locked multiplier prevents easy overclocking for performance gains
  • Dated LGA 1150 platform limits upgrade paths to newer, faster RAM and SSD technologies
  • Stock cooler/fan is often reported as noisy or inadequate by some users
  • Frequently causes stuttering in modern titles released after 2022 when not paired with a powerful GPU

Verdict

The Intel Core i3-4170 is a fourth-generation Haswell desktop processor released in early 2015, featuring 2 cores and 4 threads with a high base clock speed of 3.7 GHz and a 54W TDP. Built on a 22nm process for the LGA 1150 socket, it includes 3MB of Intel Smart Cache, support for up to 32GB of DDR3-1600 memory, and integrated Intel HD Graphics 4400. Its primary advantages include reliable single-core performance for office productivity, low power consumption, and Hyper-Threading support for better multitasking in light applications. However, its major drawbacks are the lack of Intel Turbo Boost technology, an locked multiplier that prevents overclocking, and its limited dual-core architecture which often bottlenecks modern gaming and demanding professional workloads.

Compare Intel Core i3-4170 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 i3-4170 and other processors

No results found