Celeron N3160 vs Core i7-9700K

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.

Celeron N3160 vs Core i7-9700K 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.

Celeron N3160 vs Core i7-9700K: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N3160

2016

Why buy it

✅Draws 4W instead of 95W, a 91W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i7-9700K across 41 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (1,195 vs 14,397).

Core i7-9700K

2018

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +684.8% higher average FPS across 41 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $385 MSRP, while Celeron N3160 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌2275% higher power demand at 95W vs 4W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-9700K better than Celeron N3160?

Yes. Core i7-9700K is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 684.8% average FPS lead across 41 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1104.8% 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, Core i7-9700K is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 684.8% more average FPS across 41 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i7-9700K is the stronger fit. You are getting 1104.8% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 8 threads.

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

Core i7-9700K is the better buy right now. Core i7-9700K comes in at an unclear MSRP at $385 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 684.8% average FPS lead across 41 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (37.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 i7-9700K makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2018 vs 2016) and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 8 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron N3160 vs Core i7-9700K Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N3160

The Celeron N3160 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 January 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.24 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,195 points. Launch price was $107.

Core i7-9700K

The Core i7-9700K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 14,397 points. Launch price was $374.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron N3160 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core i7-9700K offers 8 cores / 8 threads — the Core i7-9700K has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.24 GHz on the Celeron N3160 versus 4.9 GHz on the Core i7-9700K — a 74.5% clock advantage for the Core i7-9700K (base: 1.6 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The Celeron N3160 uses the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i7-9700K uses Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N3160 scores 1,195 against the Core i7-9700K's 14,397 — a 169.3% lead for the Core i7-9700K. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron N3160 vs 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-9700K.

Feature	Celeron N3160	Core i7-9700K
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	8 / 8+100%
Boost Clock	2.24 GHz	4.9 GHz+119%
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	3.6 GHz+125%
L3 Cache	0 kB	12 MB (total)
L2 Cache	2 MB	256K (per core)+12700%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Braswell (2015−2016)	Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019)
PassMark	1,195	14,397+1105%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N3160 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i7-9700K uses LGA1151 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 1600 on the Celeron N3160 versus DDR4-2666 on the Core i7-9700K — the Core i7-9700K supports 66.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i7-9700K supports up to 128 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 1500% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 4 (Celeron N3160) vs 16 (Core i7-9700K) — the Core i7-9700K offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: FCBGA1170 (Celeron N3160) and Intel 300 series (Core i7-9700K).

Feature	Celeron N3160	Core i7-9700K
Socket	FCBGA1170	LGA1151
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	1600	DDR4-2666+67%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	128 GB+1500%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	16+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core i7-9700K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: true (Celeron N3160) vs VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-9700K). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics 400 (Celeron N3160) and UHD Graphics 630 (Core i7-9700K) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-9700K targets Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron N3160 rivals AMD E2-9010.