Athlon X4 840 vs Core i3-7167U

Athlon X4 840 vs Core i3-7167U Performance Spectrum

Athlon X4 840

4 / 4

3,331

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core i3-7167U

2 / 4

3,368

+1.1%

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.

Athlon X4 840 vs Core i3-7167U 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.

Athlon X4 840 vs Core i3-7167U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Athlon X4 840

2014

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 65W instead of 512W, a 447W reduction.
✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 12) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (3,331 vs 3,368).
❌Launch MSRP is still $102 MSRP, while Core i3-7167U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i3-7167U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i3-7167U

2017

Why buy it

✅+1.1% higher PassMark.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Iris Plus Graphics 650, while Athlon X4 840 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Athlon X4 840 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌687.7% higher power demand at 512W vs 65W.

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon X4 840 better than Core i3-7167U?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Athlon X4 840 is ahead with a 8.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-7167U pulls ahead with 1.1% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-7167U is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Athlon X4 840 is the better buy right now. Athlon X4 840 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $102 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 8.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Core i3-7167U is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 1.1% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (32.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 i3-7167U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2014) 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.

Athlon X4 840 vs Core i3-7167U Technical Specifications

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

Athlon X4 840

The Athlon X4 840 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Kaveri (2014−2015) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FM2+. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,331 points. Launch price was $149.

Core i3-7167U

The Core i3-7167U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 January 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1356. Thermal design power (TDP): 28 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 3,368 points. Launch price was $304.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon X4 840 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core i3-7167U offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the Athlon X4 840 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.8 GHz on the Athlon X4 840 versus 2.8 GHz on the Core i3-7167U — a 30.3% clock advantage for the Athlon X4 840 (base: 3.1 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The Athlon X4 840 uses the Kaveri (2014−2015) architecture (28 nm), while the Core i3-7167U uses Kaby Lake (2016−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon X4 840 scores 3,331 against the Core i3-7167U's 3,368 — a 1.1% lead for the Core i3-7167U.

Feature	Athlon X4 840	Core i3-7167U
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 4
Boost Clock	3.8 GHz+36%	2.8 GHz
Base Clock	3.1 GHz+11%	2.8 GHz
L3 Cache	—	3 MB
L2 Cache	4 MB+700%	512 kB
Process	28 nm	14 nm-50%
Architecture	Kaveri (2014−2015)	Kaby Lake (2016−2019)
PassMark	3,331	3,368+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon X4 840 uses the FM2+ socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i3-7167U uses BGA1356 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-2133 memory speed. The Athlon X4 840 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. PCIe lanes: 16 (Athlon X4 840) vs 12 (Core i3-7167U) — the Athlon X4 840 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Athlon X4 840	Core i3-7167U
Socket	FM2+	BGA1356
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-2133	DDR4-2133
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB+100%	32 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16+33%	12

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Athlon X4 840) / VT-x, VT-d (Core i3-7167U). The Core i3-7167U includes integrated graphics (Iris Plus Graphics 650), while the Athlon X4 840 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i3-7167U targets Mobile.