Core i3-6167U vs FX-4170

Core i3-6167U vs FX-4170 Performance Spectrum

Core i3-6167U

2 / 4

3,128

+0.2%

3,121

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

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.

Core i3-6167U vs FX-4170 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 i3-6167U vs FX-4170: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i3-6167U

2015

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 28W instead of 125W, a 97W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-4170 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (3 MB vs 8 MB).

FX-4170

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 3 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (3,121 vs 3,128).
❌Launch MSRP is still $157 MSRP, while Core i3-6167U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌346.4% higher power demand at 125W vs 28W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i3-6167U better than FX-4170?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, FX-4170 is ahead with a 8.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-6167U pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark. FX-4170 also has the bigger cache pool with 166.7% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 3 MB).

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 0.2% 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 $157 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.2% better PassMark. FX-4170 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2012 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (19.9 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on AM3+.

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 2012) 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.

Core i3-6167U vs FX-4170 Technical Specifications

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

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.

FX-4170

The FX-4170 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 27 February 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Zambezi (2011−2012) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 4.2 GHz, with boost up to 4.3 GHz. L3 cache: 8192 kB. L2 cache: 4096 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,121 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i3-6167U packs 2 cores / 4 threads, while the FX-4170 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the FX-4170 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.7 GHz on the Core i3-6167U versus 4.3 GHz on the FX-4170 — a 45.7% clock advantage for the FX-4170 (base: 2.7 GHz vs 4.2 GHz). The Core i3-6167U uses the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the FX-4170 uses Zambezi (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i3-6167U scores 3,128 against the FX-4170's 3,121 — a 0.2% lead for the Core i3-6167U. L3 cache: 3 MB on the Core i3-6167U vs 8192 kB on the FX-4170.

Feature	Core i3-6167U	FX-4170
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.7 GHz	4.3 GHz+59%
Base Clock	2.7 GHz	4.2 GHz+56%
L3 Cache	3 MB	8192 kB+167%
L2 Cache	512 kB	4096 kB+700%
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Skylake (2015−2016)	Zambezi (2011−2012)
PassMark	3,128	3,121

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i3-6167U uses the BGA1356 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the FX-4170 uses AM3+ (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.