AMD A10-7890K vs Intel Core i3-4160T Comparison

The Intel Core i3-4160T and AMD A10-7890K represent two fundamentally different approaches to desktop computing from the Haswell and Steamroller eras. The data shows a clear, consistent performance advantage for the AMD part across every shared benchmark, but the Intel chip counters with dramatically lower power consumption and a smaller physical footprint. Benchmark results indicate that the A10-7890K is the raw performance winner, while the i3-4160T is the efficiency-focused alternative.

The Verdict

The AMD A10-7890K wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the data, taking 5 out of 5 comparisons. Its largest margin comes in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where it scores 303 against the Intel’s 265, a 12.5% advantage. The pattern is remarkably consistent; every other Cinebench test shows the AMD part leading by between 12.3% and 12.4%. This is not a case of one workload favoring one architecture—the AMD chip is uniformly faster across all tested multi-core and single-core scenarios.

The Intel Core i3-4160T, however, posts a TDP of just 35 watts compared to the AMD’s 95 watts. For a system builder prioritizing low heat output, silent operation, or a compact power supply, that 60-watt gap is substantial. The Intel part also uses the smaller 22 nm process node versus AMD’s 28 nm, and its die size is 177 mm² against AMD’s larger 245 mm². For users with an existing Intel Socket 1150 motherboard, the i3-4160T is the obvious drop-in choice; for those on AMD Socket FM2+, the A10-7890K is the only option between these two.

The average benchmark scores tell a closer story: the A10-7890K averages 1035, while the i3-4160T averages 1043. That places the Intel part slightly ahead on aggregate, despite losing every direct comparison. This is explained by the fact that the Intel chip has a Geekbench multi-core score of 1840 and a single-core score of 926, which are not present in the AMD’s benchmark set. The Intel part’s percentile ranking is 29th versus AMD’s 28th, a negligible difference. Ultimately, the choice depends on whether raw multi-threaded rendering performance or power efficiency is the priority.

Architecture Differences

The two processors stem from different architectural lineages. Intel’s i3-4160T is built on the Haswell architecture, fabricated on a 22 nm process with 1,400 million transistors. AMD’s A10-7890K uses the Steamroller architecture, codenamed Godaveri, on a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries with 2,411 million transistors. The transistor counts are striking—AMD packs over a billion more transistors into a die that is 68 mm² larger.

Core configuration diverges sharply. The Intel chip has 2 cores with 4 threads, relying on Hyper-Threading to reach that thread count. The AMD part has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, with no SMT capability. The AMD’s base clock is 4.00 GHz with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, while the Intel runs at a fixed 3.10 GHz with no boost clock listed. The AMD’s higher clock speeds directly contribute to its benchmark dominance.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Intel i3-4160T has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 3 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD A10-7890K lists a combined 256 KB of L1 and 4 MB of L2, with no L3 cache at all. The AMD’s larger L2 pool partially compensates for the absence of L3, but the Intel’s shared L3 design may benefit certain workloads. Memory bandwidth is another differentiator: the AMD part specifies 34.1 GB/s, while the Intel part does not list a bandwidth figure. Both support DDR3 memory in dual-channel mode, and neither supports ECC.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Intel uses HD 4400 graphics, while the AMD integrates Radeon R7 graphics. The AMD part also has an unlocked multiplier, marking it as a potential overclocking candidate, whereas the Intel multiplier is locked. Production status separates them further: the Intel is listed as Active, while the AMD is End-of-life. The release dates show the Intel launched in July 2014, with the AMD following in January 2016.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test sets the tone. The AMD A10-7890K scores 303, beating the Intel i3-4160T’s 265 by 12.5%. This is the largest percentage win for the AMD part in the entire comparison. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the AMD scores 1263 against 1106, a 12.4% advantage. The R20 single-core test shows the AMD at 178 versus 156, again 12.4% ahead. This single-core margin is particularly telling since the Intel part has a higher average benchmark score overall, yet it cannot match the AMD’s single-threaded performance in Cinebench.

The Cinebench R23 tests continue the trend. Multi-core results show the AMD at 3009 and the Intel at 2635, a 12.4% delta. Single-core R23 has the AMD at 424 and the Intel at 372, a 12.3% margin. The consistency across R15, R20, and R23 is notable; the AMD’s advantage hovers between 12.3% and 12.5% across all five tests. This suggests a fundamental clock-speed and core-count advantage rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

The Intel part’s only bright spots come from benchmarks not shared with the AMD. Its Geekbench multi-core score of 1840 and single-core score of 926 indicate solid performance in that suite, but without an AMD equivalent, they cannot be compared directly. The Intel’s average benchmark score of 1043 slightly exceeds the AMD’s 1035, but this aggregate figure is skewed by the inclusion of Geekbench results that the AMD lacks. In every directly comparable test, the AMD wins decisively.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where the two processors differ:

| Specification | Intel Core i3-4160T | AMD A10-7890K |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 2 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 3.10 GHz | 4.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | None | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 95 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1150 | AMD Socket FM2+ |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 1,400 million | 2,411 million |

| Die Size | 177 mm² | 245 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 256 KB |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 4 MB |

| L3 Cache | 3 MB (shared) | None |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 34.1 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3 | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4400 | Radeon R7 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2014-07-20 | 2016-01-10 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | None | AD789KXDI44JCAD789KXDJCHBX |

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core rendering?

A: The AMD A10-7890K wins every multi-core Cinebench test. It scores 303 versus 265 in R15, 1263 versus 1106 in R20, and 3009 versus 2635 in R23, with deltas of 12.5%, 12.4%, and 12.4% respectively.

Q: Does the Intel chip have any performance advantage?

A: In directly comparable benchmarks, no. The Intel i3-4160T loses all five head-to-head tests. However, its Geekbench scores of 1840 multi-core and 926 single-core, which lack AMD equivalents, push its average benchmark score to 1043, slightly above the AMD’s 1035.

Q: How do the core counts and clocks compare?

A: The AMD has 4 physical cores at a 4.00 GHz base clock with a 4.30 GHz boost. The Intel has 2 cores with 4 threads at a fixed 3.10 GHz, with no boost clock listed.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel i3-4160T has a TDP of 35 watts, while the AMD A10-7890K has a TDP of 95 watts. This represents a 60-watt difference in thermal design power.

Q: Which chip has better integrated graphics?

A: The AMD A10-7890K integrates Radeon R7 graphics, while the Intel i3-4160T uses Intel HD 4400. The data does not provide benchmark scores for either integrated GPU, so direct performance cannot be quantified.

Q: Are these processors still in production?

A: The Intel i3-4160T is listed as Active, while the AMD A10-7890K is listed as End-of-life. The AMD also has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, whereas the Intel multiplier is locked.