Core i3-6167U vs FX-4320

Core i3-6167U vs FX-4320 Performance Spectrum

Core i3-6167U

2 / 4

3,128

0.0%

3,150

+0.7%

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-4320 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-4320: 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

✅Draws 28W instead of 95W, a 67W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-4320 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (3,128 vs 3,150).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (3 MB vs 4 MB).

FX-4320

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 3 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $250 MSRP, while Core i3-6167U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌239.3% higher power demand at 95W vs 28W.

Quick Answers

So, is FX-4320 better than Core i3-6167U?

Yes. FX-4320 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 7.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.7% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, FX-4320 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 7.7% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, FX-4320 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 33.3% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 3 MB).

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

FX-4320 is the better buy right now. FX-4320 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $250 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 7.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (12.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 i3-6167U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2012). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core i3-6167U vs FX-4320 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-4320

The FX-4320 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 23 October 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 4 GHz, with boost up to 4.1 GHz. L3 cache: 4096 kB. L2 cache: 4096 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 3,150 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i3-6167U packs 2 cores / 4 threads, while the FX-4320 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the FX-4320 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.7 GHz on the Core i3-6167U versus 4.1 GHz on the FX-4320 — a 41.2% clock advantage for the FX-4320 (base: 2.7 GHz vs 4 GHz). The Core i3-6167U uses the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the FX-4320 uses Vishera (2012−2015) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i3-6167U scores 3,128 against the FX-4320's 3,150 — a 0.7% lead for the FX-4320. L3 cache: 3 MB on the Core i3-6167U vs 4096 kB on the FX-4320.

Feature	Core i3-6167U	FX-4320
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.7 GHz	4.1 GHz+52%
Base Clock	2.7 GHz	4 GHz+48%
L3 Cache	3 MB	4096 kB+33%
L2 Cache	512 kB	4096 kB+700%
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Skylake (2015−2016)	Vishera (2012−2015)
PassMark	3,128	3,150

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i3-6167U uses the BGA1356 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the FX-4320 uses AM3+ (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.