AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U vs Intel Core i3-4160T Comparison

The Intel Core i3-4160T and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U represent two very different approaches to computing, separated by nearly five years of architectural evolution. The data shows a desktop processor from the Haswell era going up against a mobile Picasso APU, with the average benchmark scores landing nearly identical at 1043 for the Intel and 1041 for the AMD part, a delta of just 0.2%. Despite this statistical tie in overall average, the individual benchmark results reveal dramatic and opposite strengths, making the choice between them entirely dependent on the specific workload.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-4160T has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 1043, compared to the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U's 1041. The difference is a mere 0.2%, placing them as direct rivals in the database's nearestRivals list.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U is the clear winner in multi-core tests. It scores 658 in Cinebench R15 multi-core versus the Intel's 265, a 59.7% advantage. In Geekbench multi-core, the AMD part scores 2567 against the Intel's 1840, a 28.3% lead.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-4160T win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the Intel Core i3-4160T wins the single-core performance tests. It scores 926 in Geekbench single-core, which is 17.2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U's score of 790. This is the sole benchmark win for the Intel part in the head-to-head data.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core i3-4160T has 2 cores and 4 threads. This gives the AMD processor double the core and thread count of the Intel part.

Q: What is the difference in their thermal design power (TDP)?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Intel Core i3-4160T has a TDP of 35 watts. The AMD part is designed for a much lower power envelope, consistent with its mobile market segment.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U has a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. The Intel Core i3-4160T does not have a boost clock listed in the data, with its base clock of 3.10 GHz being its maximum operating frequency.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is substantial. The Intel Core i3-4160T is built on the Haswell architecture, using a 22 nm process node manufactured by Intel. It is a desktop-class chip with a die size of 177 mm² and contains 1,400 million transistors. In contrast, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U is based on the Zen+ architecture, codenamed Picasso, and is built on a more advanced 12 nm process node from GlobalFoundries. This newer process allows for a much higher transistor count of 4,940 million within a larger 210 mm² die. The Intel part supports DDR3 memory, while the AMD part supports DDR4, reflecting the generational shift in memory technology. Both processors feature dual-channel memory buses and PCIe Gen 3, but their integrated graphics differ, with the Intel featuring the HD 4400 and the AMD featuring the Radeon Vega 10. The AMD processor is also a mobile part with a 15 W TDP, while the Intel chip is a desktop part with a 35 W TDP.

The cache hierarchies also differ significantly. The Intel Core i3-4160T has 64 KB of L1 cache and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, alongside a shared 3 MB L3 cache. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U, with its Zen+ design, features a larger 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, and a larger shared 4 MB L3 cache. These larger caches on the AMD part likely contribute to its multi-core performance advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results paint a clear picture of distinct usage scenarios. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U is the definitive winner for multi-threaded workloads. Its double core and thread count, combined with its larger cache and higher boost clock, deliver a massive 59.7% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core and a 28.3% lead in Geekbench multi-core. This makes it the better choice for tasks like video encoding, 3D rendering, and compiling code, where all cores can be utilized.

The Intel Core i3-4160T, while losing in multi-core, demonstrates a strong advantage in single-core performance. Its 17.2% lead in Geekbench single-core suggests it may have an edge in lightly-threaded applications that rely on high clock speeds and efficient per-core execution, such as older games or certain legacy software. The data suggests that for a desktop user with a workload that is not heavily multithreaded, the Intel part could offer snappier performance in specific tasks.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-4160T | AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Cores | 2 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.10 GHz | 2.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | null | 4.00 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 15 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1150 | AMD Socket FP5 |

| Architecture | Haswell | Zen+ |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 12 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 1,400 million | 4,940 million |

| Die Size | 177 mm² | 210 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 3 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4400 | Radeon Vega 10 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2014-07-20 | 2019-04-07 |

The table highlights the key differences. The most significant are the core count, clock speeds, and TDP. The AMD part has double the cores, a much higher boost clock, and a lower TDP, while the Intel part has a notably higher base clock. The release dates show a nearly five-year gap, with the AMD part being the newer product.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data shows a total of three tests, with the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U winning two and the Intel Core i3-4160T winning one. The most decisive victory for the AMD part is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where it scores 658 against the Intel's 265. This 59.7% difference is the largest in any test and clearly demonstrates the AMD processor's dominance in heavily threaded scenarios.

In Geekbench multi-core, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U continues its winning streak with a score of 2567, compared to the Intel's 1840. This 28.3% margin, while still substantial, is a smaller advantage than in the Cinebench test. The results indicate that the AMD processor's multi-core lead is consistent across different benchmarking suites.

The Intel Core i3-4160T's single victory comes in Geekbench single-core, where it scores 926 against the AMD's 790. This 17.2% win is significant and shows that the older Intel architecture still has a competitive edge in per-core performance. However, this single win is not enough to overcome the AMD part's overwhelming multi-core advantage, and the overall average benchmark scores end up nearly tied.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on workload. For any user whose tasks can leverage multiple cores, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U is the superior processor. The benchmark results show a 59.7% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core and a 28.3% lead in Geekbench multi-core. Its higher thread count, larger caches, and 4.00 GHz boost clock make it the definitive choice for modern, parallelized applications. Furthermore, its 15 W TDP makes it significantly more power-efficient, a critical advantage in a mobile form factor.

The Intel Core i3-4160T, conversely, is the better option for applications that are strictly single-threaded. Its 17.2% lead in Geekbench single-core is the only benchmark win it registers. However, its lack of a boost clock and lower core count place it at a significant disadvantage in almost every other scenario. The data suggests it is a legacy desktop part that can still handle basic tasks but is outclassed by the newer AMD processor in most workloads. Given that the AMD part wins two out of three head-to-head benchmarks and the overall average scores are nearly identical, the Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U is the more versatile and future-proof choice based on the available data.