Core i3-4130 vs Core i3-7167U

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.

Core i3-4130 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.

Core i3-4130 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.

Core i3-4130

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 54W instead of 512W, a 458W reduction.
✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 12) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i3-7167U.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (3,334 vs 3,368).
❌Launch MSRP is still $117 MSRP, while Core i3-7167U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Core i3-7167U

2017

Why buy it

✅+1% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i3-4130 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌848.1% higher power demand at 512W vs 54W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i3-4130.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i3-4130 better than Core i3-7167U?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core i3-4130 is ahead with a 5.5% 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% 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% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i3-4130 is the better buy right now. Core i3-4130 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $117 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 5.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Core i3-7167U is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 1% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (28.5 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 2013) and more multi-core headroom with 2 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.

Core i3-4130 vs Core i3-7167U Technical Specifications

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

Core i3-4130

The Core i3-4130 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 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: 3,334 points. Launch price was $120.

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

Both the Core i3-4130 and Core i3-7167U share an identical 2-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.4 GHz on the Core i3-4130 versus 2.8 GHz on the Core i3-7167U — a 19.4% clock advantage for the Core i3-4130 (base: 3.4 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The Core i3-4130 uses the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture (22 nm), while the Core i3-7167U uses Kaby Lake (2016−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i3-4130 scores 3,334 against the Core i3-7167U's 3,368 — a 1% lead for the Core i3-7167U. L3 cache: 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-4130 vs 3 MB on the Core i3-7167U.

Feature	Core i3-4130	Core i3-7167U
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 4
Boost Clock	3.4 GHz+21%	2.8 GHz
Base Clock	3.4 GHz+21%	2.8 GHz
L3 Cache	3 MB (total)	3 MB
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	512 kB+100%
Process	22 nm	14 nm-36%
Architecture	Haswell (2013−2015)	Kaby Lake (2016−2019)
PassMark	3,334	3,368+1%
Cinebench R23 Multi	2,036	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,046	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i3-4130 uses the LGA1150 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i3-7167U uses BGA1356 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the Core i3-4130 versus DDR4-2133 on the Core i3-7167U — the Core i3-7167U supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 32 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i3-4130) vs 12 (Core i3-7167U) — the Core i3-4130 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Core i3-4130	Core i3-7167U
Socket	LGA1150	BGA1356
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	DDR4-2133+33%
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	32 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	16+33%	12

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Core i3-4130) vs VT-x, VT-d (Core i3-7167U). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics 4400 (Core i3-4130) and Iris Plus Graphics 650 (Core i3-7167U) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i3-4130 targets Budget, Core i3-7167U targets Mobile. Direct competitor: Core i3-4130 rivals FX-4130.