Core i3-7167U vs FX-4150

Core i3-7167U vs FX-4150 Performance Spectrum

Core i3-7167U

2 / 4

3,368

+1.2%

3,327

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 i3-7167U vs FX-4150 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 i3-7167U vs FX-4150: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i3-7167U

2017

Why buy it

✅+1.2% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Iris Plus Graphics 650, while FX-4150 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-4150 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (3 MB vs 8 MB).
❌438.9% higher power demand at 512W vs 95W.

FX-4150

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 3 MB).
✅Draws 95W instead of 512W, a 417W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (3,327 vs 3,368).
❌Launch MSRP is still $137 MSRP, while Core i3-7167U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i3-7167U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is FX-4150 better than Core i3-7167U?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, FX-4150 is ahead with a 4.5% 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 1.2% better PassMark. FX-4150 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 i3-7167U is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

FX-4150 is the better buy right now. FX-4150 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $137 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 4.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Core i3-7167U is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 1.2% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (24.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 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 i3-7167U vs FX-4150 Technical Specifications

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

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.

FX-4150

The FX-4150 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 23 October 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Zambezi (2011−2012) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.8 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,327 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i3-7167U packs 2 cores / 4 threads, while the FX-4150 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the FX-4150 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Core i3-7167U versus 4 GHz on the FX-4150 — a 35.3% clock advantage for the FX-4150 (base: 2.8 GHz vs 3.8 GHz). The Core i3-7167U uses the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the FX-4150 uses Zambezi (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i3-7167U scores 3,368 against the FX-4150's 3,327 — a 1.2% lead for the Core i3-7167U. L3 cache: 3 MB on the Core i3-7167U vs 8 MB (total) on the FX-4150.

Feature	Core i3-7167U	FX-4150
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz	4 GHz+43%
Base Clock	2.8 GHz	3.8 GHz+36%
L3 Cache	3 MB	8 MB (total)+167%
L2 Cache	512 kB	4 MB+700%
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Kaby Lake (2016−2019)	Zambezi (2011−2012)
PassMark	3,368+1%	3,327

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i3-7167U uses the BGA1356 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the FX-4150 uses AM3+ (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i3-7167U	FX-4150
Socket	BGA1356	AM3+
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2133	—
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	12	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i3-7167U) / not specified (FX-4150). The Core i3-7167U includes integrated graphics (Iris Plus Graphics 650), while the FX-4150 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i3-7167U targets Mobile.