A8-7680 vs Core i3-4160

A8-7680 vs Core i3-4160 Performance Spectrum

A8-7680

4 / 4

3,523

+0.5%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core i3-4160

2 / 4

3,506

0.0%

Core i5-3439Y

Core i7-3537U

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.

A8-7680 vs Core i3-4160 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.

A8-7680 vs Core i3-4160: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A8-7680

2018

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 45W instead of 54W, a 9W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Core i3-4160

2014

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than A8-7680 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (3,506 vs 3,523).
❌Launch MSRP is still $117 MSRP, while A8-7680 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌20% higher power demand at 54W vs 45W.

Quick Answers

So, is A8-7680 better than Core i3-4160?

Yes. A8-7680 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 3.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.5% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, A8-7680 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.7% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A8-7680 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

A8-7680 is still the much better call for a fresh build. A8-7680 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $117 MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i3-4160 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2014 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (30.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA1150.

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

A8-7680 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2018 vs 2014) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A8-7680 vs Core i3-4160 Technical Specifications

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

A8-7680

The A8-7680 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 26 October 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Excavator (2017−2018) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FM2+. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,523 points. Launch price was $56.

Core i3-4160

The Core i3-4160 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 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1150. Thermal design power (TDP): 54 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,506 points. Launch price was $133.

⚡

Processing Power

The A8-7680 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core i3-4160 offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the A8-7680 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.8 GHz on the A8-7680 versus 3.6 GHz on the Core i3-4160 — a 5.4% clock advantage for the A8-7680 (base: 3.5 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The A8-7680 uses the Excavator (2017−2018) architecture (28 nm), while the Core i3-4160 uses Haswell (2013−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A8-7680 scores 3,523 against the Core i3-4160's 3,506 — a 0.5% lead for the A8-7680.

Feature	A8-7680	Core i3-4160
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 4
Boost Clock	3.8 GHz+6%	3.6 GHz
Base Clock	3.5 GHz	3.6 GHz+3%
L3 Cache	—	3 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)+300%	256 kB (per core)
Process	28 nm	22 nm-21%
Architecture	Excavator (2017−2018)	Haswell (2013−2015)
PassMark	3,523	3,506
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,100

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A8-7680 uses the FM2+ socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i3-4160 uses LGA1150 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 2133 on the A8-7680 versus DDR3-1600 on the Core i3-4160 — the A8-7680 supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A8-7680 supports up to 64 GB of RAM compared to 32 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: FM2+ (A8-7680) and H81,B85,Q85,H87,Q87,Z87,H97,Z97 (Core i3-4160).

Feature	A8-7680	Core i3-4160
Socket	FM2+	LGA1150
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	2133+33%	DDR3-1600
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB+100%	32 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: true (A8-7680) vs VT-x, EPT (Core i3-4160). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon R7 Graphics (A8-7680) and HD Graphics 4400 (Core i3-4160) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i3-4160 targets Budget Desktop. Direct competitor: A8-7680 rivals Core i3-4150; Core i3-4160 rivals FX-6300.