CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i3-4130T and Intel Core i3-4130 are two desktop processors from the same Haswell generation, both built on the 22 nm process with 1,400 million transistors and a 177 mm² die size. They share the same Intel Socket 1150, dual-channel DDR3 memory support, PCIe Gen 3 interface, and Intel HD 4400 integrated graphics. Despite these similarities, the data reveals a consistent performance gap driven primarily by their clock speeds and power envelopes, which we will analyze across benchmark results and architectural details.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i3-4130 wins all five head-to-head comparisons, with the i3-4130T trailing by roughly 14% across every test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3-4130 scores 285 against the i3-4130T’s 245, a delta of -14% for the T-model. This pattern holds steady in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the i3-4130 posts 1189 versus 1024, a -13.9% difference. The single-core results tell the same story: in Cinebench R20 single-core, the i3-4130 achieves 168 while the i3-4130T manages 144, a -14.3% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the i3-4130 at 2833 compared to 2440 (-13.9%), and the R23 single-core test has the i3-4130 at 400 against 344 (-14%).

These deltas are remarkably consistent, hovering between -13.9% and -14.3% across all workloads. That uniformity suggests the performance difference is not workload-dependent but rather a systematic consequence of the clock speed disparity. The i3-4130 runs at a base clock of 3.40 GHz, while the i3-4130T is locked to 2.90 GHz with no boost clock available for either part. The 0.50 GHz gap translates into nearly the same percentage deficit in every benchmark, indicating that the architecture and cache hierarchy are performing identically when clock-normalized.

Interestingly, the average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story. The i3-4130T has an average benchmark score of 984, while the i3-4130 sits at 975. This is counterintuitive given the head-to-head results, but it reflects the inclusion of Geekbench scores for the i3-4130T (1787 multi-core, 903 single-core) that are not present in the i3-4130’s benchmark list. When comparing to their nearest rivals, the i3-4130T sits at the 27th percentile of all CPUs, matching the Intel Core i7-875K exactly (both 984, deltaPct 0), and edging out the Intel Xeon X3470 by 0.1%. The i3-4130, at the 26th percentile, ties with the AMD Athlon X4 840, Intel Core i3-4150T, and AMD A10-7870K (all at 975, deltaPct 0), while trailing the Intel Core i5-5257U by a mere 0.1%. The percentile positions are nearly identical, but the head-to-head data shows the i3-4130 is the faster chip in every direct comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-4130 is the clear winner in all measured performance categories. It leads in every Cinebench iteration, both multi-core and single-core, with margins between 13.9% and 14.3%. For multi-threaded workloads like video rendering or 3D modeling, the i3-4130’s 2833 Cinebench R23 multi-core score versus the i3-4130T’s 2440 gives it a substantial advantage. Single-threaded tasks, which often dominate everyday desktop usage, also favor the i3-4130: its 400 Cinebench R23 single-core score outpaces the i3-4130T’s 344 by 16.3%. The i3-4130 also wins the older Cinebench R15 multi-core test (285 vs 245) and both R20 tests (1189 vs 1024 multi-core, 168 vs 144 single-core).

The Intel Core i3-4130T does not win any of the five head-to-head benchmarks, but it does have one distinguishing advantage: power consumption. Its TDP is 35 watts versus the i3-4130’s 54 watts, a 19-watt difference that makes the T-model substantially more energy-efficient. This does not show up in the benchmark scores, but it matters for systems with limited cooling or power budgets. The i3-4130T also has a slightly better percentile standing at 27th versus 26th, though this is likely an artifact of the Geekbench scores being included in its average, not a reflection of superior performance. For users prioritizing raw speed, the i3-4130 is the only choice from a performance perspective. For those building a low-power or compact desktop, the i3-4130T’s 35-watt envelope is the sole reason to consider it.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the Haswell architecture with the same codename, and they share identical core counts, thread counts, and cache configurations. Each has 2 physical cores with 4 threads via Hyper-Threading, and the cache hierarchy is exactly the same: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 3 MB of shared L3 cache. They are manufactured on the same 22 nm process at Intel’s foundry, with 1,400 million transistors and a 177 mm² die size. Both support dual-channel DDR3 memory, PCIe Gen 3, and integrate Intel HD 4400 graphics. Neither supports ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers, meaning overclocking is not an option.

The only architectural difference is the base clock: the i3-4130 runs at 3.40 GHz, while the i3-4130T is capped at 2.90 GHz. Neither part has a boost clock, so these base frequencies represent the maximum sustained speeds. This clock difference is directly responsible for the 14% performance gap observed in benchmarks. The TDP difference (35 W vs 54 W) is a consequence of the lower clock speed on the T-model, not a separate architectural change. The part numbers differ (SR1NP for the i3-4130, SR1NN for the i3-4130T), but this is a manufacturing identifier rather than a functional distinction. Both were released on the same date and belong to the same generation, so there are no microarchitectural revisions or stepping improvements to consider.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core i3-4130 is faster across all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 2833 versus the i3-4130T’s 2440, a 13.9% advantage. The gap is similar in Cinebench R20 multi-core (1189 vs 1024) and Cinebench R15 multi-core (285 vs 245).

Q: Is the i3-4130T more efficient than the i3-4130?

A: Yes, the i3-4130T has a TDP of 35 watts compared to the i3-4130’s 54 watts. This 19-watt difference is the primary reason to choose the T-model, though it comes at the cost of roughly 14% performance in all benchmarks.

Q: Do both processors have the same cache and memory support?

A: Yes, both have 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, 3 MB shared L3, dual-channel DDR3 memory support, and PCIe Gen 3. They also share the same integrated Intel HD 4400 graphics and do not support ECC memory.

Q: How do these chips compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The i3-4130T matches the Intel Core i7-875K exactly (both average 984), while the i3-4130 ties with the AMD Athlon X4 840, Intel Core i3-4150T, and AMD A10-7870K (all at 975). The i3-4130 trails the Intel Core i5-5257U by only 0.1% in average score.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the i3-4130T wins?

A: No. In the head-to-head data, the i3-4130 wins all five tests. The i3-4130T does hold a higher percentile ranking (27th vs 26th) and a higher average benchmark score (984 vs 975), but this is due to its Geekbench results being included in the average, not a performance win.

Q: Can either processor be overclocked?

A: No. Both have locked multipliers, so overclocking is not supported. Their performance is fixed at the base clock, which is 3.40 GHz for the i3-4130 and 2.90 GHz for the i3-4130T.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-4130T | Intel Core i3-4130 |

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

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 54 W |

| Part Number | SR1NN | SR1NP |

| Percentile (vs all CPUs) | 27th | 26th |

| Average Benchmark Score | 984 | 975 |

| Cinebench R15 Multi-core | 245 | 285 |

| Cinebench R20 Multi-core | 1024 | 1189 |

| Cinebench R20 Single-core | 144 | 168 |

| Cinebench R23 Multi-core | 2440 | 2833 |

| Cinebench R23 Single-core | 344 | 400 |

| Geekbench Multi-core | 1787 | Not listed |

| Geekbench Single-core | 903 | Not listed |

All other specifications are identical: 2 cores, 4 threads, 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, 3 MB shared L3, Intel Socket 1150, Haswell architecture, 22 nm process, 1,400 million transistors, 177 mm² die size, dual-channel DDR3, PCIe Gen 3, Intel HD 4400 graphics, no ECC support, locked multiplier, and the same release date. The i3-4130’s production status is listed as "Active," while the i3-4130T’s is not specified, but this does not affect performance.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is clear: the Intel Core i3-4130 is the superior performer in every measured category. With a 3.40 GHz base clock versus the i3-4130T’s 2.90 GHz, the i3-4130 delivers a consistent 14% advantage across all Cinebench tests, from the older R15 to the newer R23, and in both single-core and multi-core workloads. For users who need maximum throughput in rendering, encoding, or general desktop responsiveness, the i3-4130 is the only rational choice. Its 54-watt TDP is higher, but the performance payoff is substantial and predictable.

The Intel Core i3-4130T exists for a different purpose: systems where power consumption and heat dissipation are critical constraints. Its 35-watt TDP is a full 19 watts lower than the i3-4130, making it suitable for compact builds, low-noise configurations, or environments where cooling is limited. The performance sacrifice is real, roughly 14% across the board, but for workloads that are not time-sensitive or for users who prioritize efficiency over speed, the T-model’s lower power envelope is a legitimate trade-off. The i3-4130T also has a marginally better percentile standing (27th vs 26th) and a slightly higher average benchmark score (984 vs 975), though this is skewed by its Geekbench results and does not reflect a real performance advantage. Ultimately, the choice comes down to whether raw speed or energy efficiency matters more; the data shows no scenario where the i3-4130T outperforms the i3-4130 in actual benchmarks.