A10-5757M vs Core i3-4160T

A10-5757M vs Core i3-4160T Performance Spectrum

A10-5757M

4 / 4

3,084

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core i3-4160T

2 / 4

3,087

+0.1%

Core i5-520M

Core i3-2130

Pentium G4500T

Celeron Dual-Core T1400

About PassMark

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.

A10-5757M vs Core i3-4160T 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.

A10-5757M vs Core i3-4160T: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A10-5757M

2013

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (3,084 vs 3,087).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i3-4160T.

Core i3-4160T

2014

Why buy it

✅+0.1% higher PassMark.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike A10-5757M.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $117 MSRP, while A10-5757M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i3-4160T better than A10-5757M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A10-5757M is ahead with a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-4160T pulls ahead with 0.1% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-4160T is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i3-4160T is the better buy right now. Core i3-4160T comes in at an unclear MSRP at $117 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.1% better PassMark. The compromise is that A10-5757M is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (26.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Core i3-4160T makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2013) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A10-5757M vs Core i3-4160T Technical Specifications

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

A10-5757M

The A10-5757M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Richland (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FP2. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,084 points. Launch price was $130.

Core i3-4160T

The Core i3-4160T is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 21 July 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1150. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,087 points. Launch price was $142.

⚡

Processing Power

The A10-5757M packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core i3-4160T offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the A10-5757M has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.5 GHz on the A10-5757M versus 3.1 GHz on the Core i3-4160T — a 12.1% clock advantage for the A10-5757M (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.1 GHz). The A10-5757M uses the Richland (2013−2014) architecture (32 nm), while the Core i3-4160T uses Haswell (2013−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A10-5757M scores 3,084 against the Core i3-4160T's 3,087 — a 0.1% lead for the Core i3-4160T. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A10-5757M vs 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-4160T.

Feature	A10-5757M	Core i3-4160T
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 4
Boost Clock	3.5 GHz+13%	3.1 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	3.1 GHz+24%
L3 Cache	0 kB	3 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)+300%	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Richland (2013−2014)	Haswell (2013−2015)
PassMark	3,084	3,087
Geekbench 6 Single	—	900

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A10-5757M uses the FP2 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i3-4160T uses LGA1150 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to 1600 memory speed. Both support up to 32 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: FP2 (A10-5757M) and H81,B85,Q85,H87,Q87,Z87,H97,Z97 (Core i3-4160T).

Feature	A10-5757M	Core i3-4160T
Socket	FP2	LGA1150
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	1600	DDR3-1600
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	32 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: true (A10-5757M) vs VT-x, EPT (Core i3-4160T). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 8650G (A10-5757M) and HD Graphics 4400 (Core i3-4160T) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i3-4160T targets Low Power Desktop. Direct competitor: A10-5757M rivals Core i3-3110M; Core i3-4160T rivals A10-7800.