Core i3-4160T vs Core i3-6167U

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 i3-4160T vs Core i3-6167U 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 i3-4160T vs Core i3-6167U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i3-4160T

2014

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 4400, while Core i3-6167U needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i3-6167U.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (3,087 vs 3,128).
❌Launch MSRP is still $117 MSRP, while Core i3-6167U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌25% higher power demand at 35W vs 28W.

Core i3-6167U

2015

Why buy it

✅+1.3% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 28W instead of 35W, a 7W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Core i3-4160T can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i3-4160T.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i3-6167U better than Core i3-4160T?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core i3-4160T is ahead with a 2.9% average FPS lead across 40 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-6167U pulls ahead with 1.3% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-6167U is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i3-6167U is still the much better call for a fresh build. Core i3-6167U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $117 MSRP, and it still gives you 1.3% better PassMark. Core i3-4160T only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2014 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (26.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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?

Core i3-6167U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2014) 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 i3-4160T vs Core i3-6167U Technical Specifications

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

Core i3-4160T

The Core i3-4160T 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 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1150. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,087 points. Launch price was $142.

Core i3-6167U

The Core i3-6167U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 2.7 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: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 3,128 points. Launch price was $304.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core i3-4160T and Core i3-6167U share an identical 2-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.1 GHz on the Core i3-4160T versus 2.7 GHz on the Core i3-6167U — a 13.8% clock advantage for the Core i3-4160T (base: 3.1 GHz vs 2.7 GHz). The Core i3-4160T uses the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture (22 nm), while the Core i3-6167U uses Skylake (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i3-4160T scores 3,087 against the Core i3-6167U's 3,128 — a 1.3% lead for the Core i3-6167U. L3 cache: 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-4160T vs 3 MB on the Core i3-6167U.

Feature	Core i3-4160T	Core i3-6167U
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 4
Boost Clock	3.1 GHz+15%	2.7 GHz
Base Clock	3.1 GHz+15%	2.7 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)	Skylake (2015−2016)
PassMark	3,087	3,128+1%
Geekbench 6 Single	900	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i3-4160T uses the LGA1150 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i3-6167U uses BGA1356 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i3-4160T	Core i3-6167U
Socket	LGA1150	BGA1356
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	Yes	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, EPT (Core i3-4160T) / not specified (Core i3-6167U). The Core i3-4160T includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 4400), while the Core i3-6167U requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i3-4160T targets Low Power Desktop. Direct competitor: Core i3-4160T rivals A10-7800.