CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i3-4160T and AMD A8-7680 are two older desktop processors that take very different approaches to the same budget-friendly segment. The data shows a clear performance winner in the AMD A8-7680, which beats the Intel chip in every single head-to-head benchmark included in this comparison. However, the Intel i3-4160T holds its own in overall standings, with a slightly higher average benchmark score and a better percentile ranking. This makes the choice less about raw speed and more about platform preferences, integrated graphics capabilities, and which specific workload patterns matter most to you.

The Verdict

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the AMD A8-7680 wins all five head-to-head comparisons, with a consistent 12.5% lead in multi-core tests and a 12.4% edge in single-core performance. If you are looking strictly at processing power, the A8-7680 is the stronger pick. It delivers 303 points in Cinebench R15 multicore versus 265 for the Intel, and extends that advantage to 3011 versus 2635 in Cinebench R23 multicore. The single-core gap is smaller but still favors AMD, with 425 points versus 372 in Cinebench R23 singlecore.

That said, the Intel i3-4160T has its own merits. Its 29th percentile ranking among all CPUs edges out the A8-7680's 28th percentile, and its average benchmark score of 1043 is slightly higher than AMD's 1036. The i3-4160T also matches or exceeds the performance of several nearby rivals, including the AMD PRO A10-9700 and Intel Pentium Gold G5620, with a deltaPct of -0.2 against both. The A8-7680, by contrast, sits just 0.1% above the AMD A10-7890K and 0.2% above the AMD A10-9700.

For a builder prioritizing raw multi-threaded throughput and a higher base clock, the AMD A8-7680 is the obvious choice. For someone who values a smaller die, lower power draw, and a more mature platform with a 22nm process, the Intel i3-4160T remains a viable option despite losing every benchmark. The data suggests the AMD part is the better performer, but the Intel part is not without its own advantages.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD A8-7680 has 4 physical cores, while the Intel Core i3-4160T has only 2 cores. However, the Intel chip supports 4 threads thanks to Hyper-Threading, matching the AMD's total thread count.

Q: How big is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD A8-7680 is consistently 12.5% ahead of the Intel i3-4160T across all multi-core Cinebench tests. This includes a 303 versus 265 score in Cinebench R15 and a 3011 versus 2635 score in Cinebench R23.

Q: Does the Intel chip win anywhere?

A: No. In the head-to-head comparison, the AMD A8-7680 wins all 5 benchmark tests. The Intel i3-4160T does, however, have a higher average benchmark score (1043 versus 1036) and a better percentile ranking (29th versus 28th) when compared against all CPUs.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The Intel i3-4160T has a TDP of 35 watts, which is lower than the AMD A8-7680's 45 watts. This makes the Intel chip more power-efficient on paper, though both are suitable for basic desktop builds.

Q: Which processor supports faster memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD A8-7680 lists a memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s, while the Intel i3-4160T does not have a memory bandwidth figure listed in the data. Both support dual-channel DDR3 memory.

Q: Are these processors still in production?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i3-4160T and the AMD A8-7680 are listed as "Active" in production status. The Intel chip was released in 2014, while the AMD chip came later in 2018.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design philosophies. The Intel Core i3-4160T is built on the Haswell architecture using a 22nm process node, manufactured by Intel. It packs 1,400 million transistors into a 177 mm² die. The AMD A8-7680, on the other hand, uses the Excavator architecture (codename Carrizo) on a 28nm process from GlobalFoundries, with a much larger 3,100 million transistors spread across a 250 mm² die. This difference in transistor count and die size explains why the AMD chip draws more power while delivering higher performance.

Cache hierarchies also differ significantly. The Intel chip uses a per-core L1 cache of 64 KB and per-core L2 of 256 KB, plus a shared 3 MB L3 cache. The AMD A8-7680 has a larger L1 cache at 320 KB total, but a smaller L2 at 2 MB, with no L3 cache at all. This means the Intel chip relies on a three-level cache design, while the AMD chip uses just two levels. For workloads that benefit from large shared caches, the Intel architecture may have an edge, though the benchmark data does not isolate this factor.

Both processors feature integrated graphics, but they differ in brand and capability. The Intel i3-4160T includes Intel HD 4400, while the AMD A8-7680 has Radeon R7 graphics. The AMD's integrated GPU is generally considered more capable for light gaming, though the benchmark data provided does not include graphics tests. Both support PCIe Gen 3 and dual-channel DDR3 memory, but only the AMD chip lists a specific memory bandwidth figure of 34.1 GB/s.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is core count: the Intel i3-4160T has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD A8-7680 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The AMD chip also has a higher base clock at 3.50 GHz versus 3.10 GHz, and it offers a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, which the Intel chip lacks entirely. Power draw favors Intel, with a 35W TDP versus the AMD's 45W.

Sockets are incompatible: the Intel chip uses LGA 1150, while the AMD chip uses Socket FM2+. The process nodes differ as well, with Intel at 22nm and AMD at 28nm. Transistor count and die size are both larger on the AMD side, reflecting its more complex design. The Intel chip has a shared 3 MB L3 cache, while the AMD chip has no L3 cache but a larger L2 pool of 2 MB. Both support DDR3 memory and dual-channel operation, but only the AMD chip lists a memory bandwidth spec.

The integrated graphics differ: Intel HD 4400 versus AMD Radeon R7. Both processors have locked multipliers, meaning overclocking is not supported. The AMD chip has a specific part number (AD7680ACABBOX or AD7680ACABCBX), while the Intel chip does not list one. Release dates are far apart, with Intel launching in 2014 and AMD in 2018.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD A8-7680 dominates every benchmark in this comparison. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 303 against the Intel's 265, a delta of -12.5% from the Intel's perspective. That same 12.5% gap carries through Cinebench R20 multicore, where AMD scores 1264 versus 1106. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R23 multicore, with AMD at 3011 and Intel at 2635.

Single-core performance shows a similar story, though the gap is slightly narrower. In Cinebench R20 singlecore, the AMD A8-7680 scores 178 versus 156 for the Intel, a 12.4% difference. Cinebench R23 singlecore shows AMD at 425 and Intel at 372, again a 12.5% gap. Across all five tests, the AMD chip wins by a near-identical margin, suggesting a consistent architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Interestingly, the Intel i3-4160T has a higher average benchmark score (1043) than the AMD A8-7680 (1036), despite losing every head-to-head test. This is because the average includes a Geekbench multicore score of 1840 and a Geekbench singlecore score of 926, which are not part of the head-to-head comparison. The AMD chip does not have Geekbench scores listed, so its average is based solely on Cinebench results. This discrepancy highlights the importance of looking at specific workloads rather than aggregate scores.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD A8-7680 wins in every measured benchmark category. Multi-threaded workloads like video encoding, 3D rendering, and scientific computing will see a 12.5% improvement with the AMD chip, as shown by its consistent lead in all Cinebench multicore tests. Single-threaded tasks, such as everyday desktop use, web browsing, and older games, also favor the AMD chip, albeit by a slightly smaller 12.4% margin. The AMD's higher base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost capability up to 3.80 GHz likely contribute to this advantage.

The Intel i3-4160T, despite losing all benchmarks, has strengths that are not captured in the head-to-head data. Its 35W TDP makes it a better choice for low-power builds or systems where heat and electricity costs are a concern. The smaller 177 mm² die and 22nm process suggest a more efficient design, and the shared 3 MB L3 cache might benefit certain cache-sensitive workloads, though no benchmark data confirms this. Its 29th percentile ranking also indicates that it performs well relative to the broader CPU market, matching or exceeding chips like the Intel Core i5-6350HQ and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U.

For a builder who already owns an LGA 1150 motherboard, the Intel i3-4160T is a drop-in upgrade that avoids the cost of a new platform. For someone starting fresh, the AMD A8-7680 offers better performance and a newer release date, but requires a Socket FM2+ board. The integrated Radeon R7 graphics on the AMD chip may also be a deciding factor for users who want to skip a discrete GPU for light gaming or media playback, though the data does not include graphics benchmarks to confirm this advantage.