AMD FX-9830P vs Intel Core i3-4160 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark record is unambiguous: the Intel Core i3-4160 wins every single head-to-head test recorded in the database, taking all five comparisons against the AMD FX-9830P. The Intel part claims victory in both multi-core and single-core workloads, across every Cinebench generation tested. The AMD FX-9830P does not secure a single win in the head-to-head data, leaving it in a purely trailing position.

The use-case split is therefore not about task categories but about scale of advantage. The Intel Core i3-4160 leads by 5.3% in the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, 5.3% in Cinebench R20 multi-core, 5.4% in Cinebench R20 single-core, 5.3% in Cinebench R23 multi-core, and 5.3% in Cinebench R23 single-core. Every result lands within a narrow band of 5.3% to 5.4% ahead. That consistency suggests the gap is structural, not workload dependent.

For workloads that rely on a single thread, the Intel part leads by 5.4% in Cinebench R20 single-core and 5.3% in Cinebench R23 single-core. For fully threaded rendering tasks, the same 5.3% margin appears repeatedly. The AMD FX-9830P does hold a four-core configuration against the Intel's two cores with four threads, yet the Intel still produces the higher multi-core scores. The data shows that core count alone does not translate into a win here. The AMD part also appears in standalone Geekbench results, with a multi-core score of 1606 and a single-core score of 605, but no Intel Geekbench score was recorded for comparison, so those numbers stand alone.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from opposite design philosophies. The Intel Core i3-4160 uses the Haswell architecture, built on a 22 nm process at Intel's foundry. It packs 1,400 million transistors into a 177 mm² die. The AMD FX-9830P uses the Excavator architecture, codenamed Bristol Ridge, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 28 nm process. It holds 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. The AMD chip is physically larger and more transistor-dense, but the Intel process node is smaller, which typically aids efficiency.

Core topology differs sharply. The Intel part has 2 cores and 4 threads, relying on Hyper-Threading to reach four logical processors. The AMD part has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, with no SMT. Cache layouts follow the same divergence. The Intel chip provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 3 MB of shared L3. The AMD chip provides 320 KB of L1 total and 1 MB of L2 per module, with no L3 cache at all. The absence of L3 on the AMD part is a notable structural handicap.

Memory support also differs. The Intel Core i3-4160 runs DDR3 on a dual-channel bus. The AMD FX-9830P runs DDR4 on a dual-channel bus with a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The AMD part has the newer memory standard, but the Intel part counters with a higher base clock of 3.60 GHz versus the AMD's 3.00 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost. The Intel part has no boost clock listed, meaning its 3.60 GHz is fixed. The AMD part boosts to 3.70 GHz, yet still loses in single-core tests.

Additional differences include PCIe generation and lanes. The Intel part uses PCIe Gen 3 with a conventional desktop socket, Intel Socket 1150. The AMD part uses PCIe Gen 3 but with only 8 CPU lanes and an AMD Socket FP4, which is a mobile-oriented package. The Intel part is a desktop segment chip, while the AMD part is classified as mobile. Integrated graphics also differ: the Intel part includes Intel HD 4400, while the AMD part includes Radeon R7 8CU. Neither supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head results show a uniform pattern of Intel advantage. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel Core i3-4160 scores 297 against the AMD FX-9830P's 282, a 5.3% lead. The same 5.3% margin appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Intel part scores 1241 versus 1178. Single-core tests follow the same trajectory. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Intel part scores 175 against 166, a 5.4% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel part scores 417 against 396, a 5.3% lead.

The Cinebench R23 multi-core result repeats the pattern: 2955 for the Intel part, 2806 for the AMD part, again a 5.3% gap. Across all five tests, the margin never drifts beyond 5.3% to 5.4%. This consistency indicates a steady per-clock performance advantage for the Intel architecture, not a workload-specific quirk. The AMD part's highest relative showing is in single-core Cinebench R20, where it trails by 5.4%, essentially identical to its margin elsewhere. There is no test where the AMD FX-9830P comes closer than 5.3%, and no test where it pulls ahead.

The standalone Geekbench results for the AMD FX-9830P (1606 multi-core, 605 single-core) are not matched by any Intel score in the database, so they cannot be used for direct comparison. The Cinebench set remains the only complete head-to-head record, and it is uniformly in favor of the Intel Core i3-4160.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The AMD FX-9830P has 4 physical cores, while the Intel Core i3-4160 has 2 physical cores. The Intel part compensates with 4 threads via Hyper-Threading, matching the AMD part's thread count.

Q: Does the AMD FX-9830P win any benchmark in the database?

A: No. The head-to-head record shows the Intel Core i3-4160 winning all five Cinebench comparisons, with margins between 5.3% and 5.4%. The AMD part has 0 wins in the head-to-head data.

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

A: The Intel Core i3-4160 leads by 5.3% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 5.3% in Cinebench R20 multi-core, and 5.3% in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The AMD FX-9830P trails in every multi-core test.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD FX-9830P supports DDR4 with a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Intel Core i3-4160 supports DDR3 on a dual-channel bus, but no memory bandwidth figure is recorded for it.

Q: Which part has a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Core i3-4160 is built on a 22 nm process, while the AMD FX-9830P is built on a 28 nm process. The Intel die measures 177 mm², and the AMD die measures 250 mm².

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. Both the Intel Core i3-4160 and the AMD FX-9830P have locked multipliers, meaning neither offers user-controlled overclocking.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the Intel Core i3-4160 is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark. It leads the AMD FX-9830P by a consistent 5.3% to 5.4% across all five Cinebench tests, spanning both single-core and multi-core workloads. The AMD part's extra two physical cores do not overcome the Intel part's architectural efficiency, higher base clock, and L3 cache presence.

The Intel Core i3-4160 belongs in systems where single-thread responsiveness and consistent multi-threaded rendering performance matter. Its 5.4% single-core lead in Cinebench R20 and 5.3% single-core lead in Cinebench R23 give it a clear edge in everyday responsiveness and lightly threaded applications. Its multi-core wins, all at 5.3%, mean it also handles fully threaded workloads better than the AMD part, despite having half the physical core count.

The AMD FX-9830P, by contrast, offers a lower thermal design point at 35 watts versus the Intel part's 54 watts, along with DDR4 support and a newer release date. It also includes a Radeon R7 integrated GPU with 8 compute units, which may appeal to systems needing integrated graphics. But in raw CPU benchmark performance, the AMD part has no recorded victory. Its average benchmark score sits at 1006, just below the Intel part's 1017, and its percentile ranking of 27 trails the Intel part's 28.

For users prioritizing CPU compute performance, the Intel Core i3-4160 is the correct choice based on the recorded data. For users prioritizing lower power draw, newer memory support, or the specific Radeon graphics block, the AMD FX-9830P has qualitative advantages, but those do not show up in the Cinebench results.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core i3-4160 | AMD FX-9830P |

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

| Cores | 2 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | None listed | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 54 W | 35 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1150 | AMD Socket FP4 |

| Architecture | Haswell | Excavator |

| Codename | Haswell | Bristol Ridge |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 1,400 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 177 mm² | 250 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB per core | 320 KB total |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB per core | 1 MB per module |

| L3 Cache | 3 MB shared | None |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 38.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3 | Gen 3, 8 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4400 | Radeon R7 8CU |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

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

| Release Date | 2014-07-20 | 2016-05-30 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Part Number | Not listed | FM983PAEY44AB |

| Average Benchmark Score | 1017 | 1006 |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 28 | 27 |