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.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Atom C3958

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+300% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 4 MB).
✅Draws 31W instead of 54W, a 23W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Core i3-4370 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i3-4370.

Core i3-4370

2014

Why buy it

✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 12) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 4600, while Atom C3958 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Atom C3958.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Atom C3958 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (3,854 vs 3,929).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (4 MB vs 16 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $149 MSRP, while Atom C3958 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌74.2% higher power demand at 54W vs 31W.

Atom C3958

2017

Core i3-4370

2014

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+300% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 4 MB).
✅Draws 31W instead of 54W, a 23W reduction.

Why buy it

✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 12) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 4600, while Atom C3958 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Atom C3958.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Core i3-4370 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i3-4370.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Atom C3958 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (3,854 vs 3,929).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (4 MB vs 16 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $149 MSRP, while Atom C3958 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌74.2% higher power demand at 54W vs 31W.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom C3958 better than Core i3-4370?

Yes. Atom C3958 is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 3.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1.9% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Atom C3958 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 3.3% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom C3958 is the better fit. You are getting 1.9% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 300% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 4 MB).

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

Atom C3958 is the smarter buy by a wide margin for a fresh build. Atom C3958 is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $149 MSRP, and it gives you a 3.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i3-4370 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that is mostly used-market pricing on an obsolete 2014 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (25.9 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a very cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA1150.

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

Atom C3958 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2014), 300% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 4 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 16 cores / 16 threads instead of 2/4. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Atom C3958 Benchmark Check

Core i3-4370 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Atom C3958	Core i3-4370
1080p
low	98 FPS	96 FPS
medium	98 FPS	96 FPS
high	98 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	87 FPS	88 FPS
1440p
low	98 FPS	96 FPS
medium	98 FPS	96 FPS
high	86 FPS	91 FPS
ultra	68 FPS	72 FPS
4K
low	65 FPS	66 FPS
medium	55 FPS	57 FPS
high	43 FPS	44 FPS
ultra	34 FPS	34 FPS

Open Atom C3958 Open Core i3-4370

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Atom C3958	Core i3-4370
1080p
low	98 FPS	96 FPS
medium	98 FPS	96 FPS
high	98 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	90 FPS	81 FPS
1440p
low	98 FPS	96 FPS
medium	98 FPS	96 FPS
high	98 FPS	88 FPS
ultra	81 FPS	70 FPS
4K
low	91 FPS	78 FPS
medium	84 FPS	70 FPS
high	75 FPS	53 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	38 FPS

Open Atom C3958 Open Core i3-4370

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Atom C3958	Core i3-4370
1080p
low	98 FPS	96 FPS
medium	98 FPS	96 FPS
high	98 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	98 FPS	96 FPS
1440p
low	98 FPS	96 FPS
medium	98 FPS	96 FPS
high	98 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	98 FPS	96 FPS
4K
low	98 FPS	96 FPS
medium	98 FPS	96 FPS
high	98 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	98 FPS	96 FPS

Open Atom C3958 Open Core i3-4370

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Atom C3958	Core i3-4370
1080p
low	98 FPS	96 FPS
medium	98 FPS	96 FPS
high	98 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	98 FPS	96 FPS
1440p
low	98 FPS	96 FPS
medium	98 FPS	96 FPS
high	98 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	98 FPS	96 FPS
4K
low	98 FPS	96 FPS
medium	98 FPS	96 FPS
high	98 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	98 FPS	96 FPS

Open Atom C3958 Open Core i3-4370

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Atom C3958 and Core i3-4370

Atom C3958

The Atom C3958 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 August 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Goldmont (2016−2017) architecture. It features 16 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB. L2 cache: 16 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1310. Thermal design power (TDP): 31 Watt. Memory support: DDR4: 2400. Passmark benchmark score: 3,929 points. Launch price was $449.

Core i3-4370

The Core i3-4370 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 3.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 4 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: 3,854 points. Launch price was $242.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom C3958 packs 16 cores / 16 threads, while the Core i3-4370 offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the Atom C3958 has 14 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Atom C3958 versus 3.8 GHz on the Core i3-4370 — a 62.1% clock advantage for the Core i3-4370 (base: 2 GHz vs 3.8 GHz). The Atom C3958 uses the Goldmont (2016−2017) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i3-4370 uses Haswell (2013−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Atom C3958 scores 3,929 against the Core i3-4370's 3,854 — a 1.9% lead for the Atom C3958. L3 cache: 16 MB on the Atom C3958 vs 4 MB (total) on the Core i3-4370.

Feature	Atom C3958	Core i3-4370
Cores / Threads	16 / 16+700%	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2 GHz	3.8 GHz+90%
Base Clock	2 GHz	3.8 GHz+90%
L3 Cache	16 MB+300%	4 MB (total)
L2 Cache	16 MB+6300%	256 kB (per core)
Process	14 nm-36%	22 nm
Architecture	Goldmont (2016−2017)	Haswell (2013−2015)
PassMark	3,929+2%	3,854
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	2,454
Geekbench 6 Single	—	904
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	2,071

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom C3958 uses the FCBGA1310 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i3-4370 uses LGA1150 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2400 on the Atom C3958 versus DDR3-1600 on the Core i3-4370 — the Atom C3958 supports 28.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Atom C3958 supports up to 256 GB of RAM compared to 32 GB — 155.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 12 (Atom C3958) vs 16 (Core i3-4370) — the Core i3-4370 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1310 (Atom C3958) and Intel H81,Intel B85,Intel H87,Intel Z87,Intel H97,Intel Z97 (Core i3-4370).

Feature	Atom C3958	Core i3-4370
Socket	FCBGA1310	LGA1150
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2400+33%	DDR3-1600
Max RAM Capacity	256 GB+700%	32 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	12	16+33%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom C3958) / true (Core i3-4370). The Core i3-4370 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 4600), while the Atom C3958 requires a dedicated GPU.