Intel Core i3-4130 vs Intel Core i7-875K Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-4130 wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark against the Intel Core i7-875K. The data shows five benchmark comparisons, and the i3-4130 takes all five. That is a clean sweep, but the margins are modest. The largest gap is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the i3-4130 leads by 4.2%. The smallest is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, a 3.5% edge. For a newer dual-core chip facing an older quad-core with Hyper-Threading, this is not the landslide one might expect from architecture alone.

The i7-875K does not win a single recorded test. Its only advantages appear outside the benchmark suite: an unlocked multiplier, four physical cores, and a larger shared L3 cache. Those traits matter for specific workloads, but the recorded Cinebench and Geekbench numbers do not reflect them. The i3-4130, despite half the physical cores, posts higher multi-core scores in every Cinebench iteration. This suggests the newer Haswell cores, with their higher base clock and more efficient execution, compensate for the core count deficit.

The i7-875K's niche is not raw benchmark output. Its 4 cores and 8 threads give it headroom in heavily threaded tasks that scale beyond what a 2-core, 4-thread chip can handle, but the data does not include such a test. The i3-4130, by contrast, wins in every measured scenario. For a builder choosing between these two today, the recorded scores point firmly toward the i3-4130 unless the workload specifically benefits from more physical cores and an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The i7-875K has an average benchmark score of 984, while the i3-4130 scores 975. The difference is less than 1%, and both sit near the 26th to 27th percentile of all CPUs. The i7-875K's average is slightly higher because it includes Geekbench results that the i3-4130 lacks.

Q: Does the i3-4130 beat the i7-875K in multi-core tests?

A: Yes. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i3-4130 scores 2833 against the i7-875K's 2729, a 3.7% lead. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R20 and R15 multi-core, where the i3-4130 leads by 3.6% and 3.5%, respectively.

Q: Is the i7-875K unlocked for overclocking?

A: Yes. The multiplierUnlocked field is true for the i7-875K. The i3-4130 has a locked multiplier. This is a key differentiator for enthusiasts, though the benchmark data does not include overclocked results.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: The i3-4130 includes Intel HD 4400. The i7-875K has no integrated graphics listed. This matters for builds without a discrete GPU.

Q: What socket does each processor use?

A: The i7-875K uses Intel Socket 1156, while the i3-4130 uses Intel Socket 1150. These are not cross-compatible, so the motherboard choice is fixed by the CPU.

Q: Is the i7-875K still in production?

A: No. The i7-875K is end-of-life. The i3-4130 is listed as active. This affects availability and long-term support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test sets the tone. The i3-4130 scores 285, the i7-875K scores 275. That is a 3.5% advantage for the newer chip. In a render workload that should favor more threads, the 4-core i7-875K loses to the 2-core i3-4130. The Haswell architecture's efficiency per core is the likely reason, though the higher base clock of 3.40 GHz versus 2.93 GHz also plays a role.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows the same story. The i3-4130 posts 1189, the i7-875K posts 1146. The delta is 3.6%. The gap widens slightly as the workload becomes more demanding. This is not a fluke; the trend continues across every multi-core iteration.

Single-core results are closer but still favor the i3-4130. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i3-4130 scores 168 against 161 for the i7-875K, a 4.2% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 400 versus 385, a 3.7% margin. These numbers reflect the i3-4130's higher base clock and newer architecture. The i7-875K's boost clock of 3.60 GHz does not fully close the gap.

The i3-4130 wins all five head-to-head tests. The i7-875K has zero wins. The largest margin is only 4.2%, so neither chip dominates the other. But consistency matters: the i3-4130 is ahead in every recorded scenario. For a buyer comparing these two strictly on benchmark performance, the choice is unambiguous.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ sharply. The i7-875K has 4 cores and 8 threads. The i3-4130 has 2 cores and 4 threads. Despite this, the i3-4130 wins all multi-core tests, as noted above.

Base clocks differ: the i7-875K runs at 2.93 GHz, the i3-4130 at 3.40 GHz. The i7-875K has a boost clock of 3.60 GHz; the i3-4130 lists no boost clock. TDP also diverges: 95 watts for the i7-875K, 54 watts for the i3-4130. The i3-4130 is far more power-efficient on paper.

Sockets are incompatible. The i7-875K uses Intel Socket 1156, the i3-4130 uses Intel Socket 1150. Memory support is DDR3 for both, and both run dual-channel, but the i7-875K lists a memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s while the i3-4130 does not list a bandwidth figure.

PCIe support differs. The i7-875K has PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The i3-4130 has PCIe Gen 3, though lane count is not specified in the data. The i3-4130 also includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 4400), which the i7-875K lacks entirely.

The i7-875K has an unlocked multiplier; the i3-4130 is locked. The i7-875K launched with an MSRP of $353; no launch MSRP is recorded for the i3-4130. Production status also differs: the i7-875K is end-of-life, the i3-4130 is active.

Architecture Differences

The i7-875K is built on Nehalem (codename Lynnfield) using a 45 nm process. The i3-4130 uses Haswell on a 22 nm process. The process shrink is significant: 45 nm versus 22 nm. Transistor counts reflect this. The i7-875K packs 774 million transistors on a 296 mm² die. The i3-4130 has 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. The newer chip crams nearly twice the transistors into a smaller area.

Cache layouts differ substantially. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core. The L3 cache is the big split: the i7-875K has 8 MB shared, the i3-4130 has 3 MB shared. The i7-875K's larger L3 is a legacy of its four physical cores and server-derived lineage. The i3-4130's smaller cache is offset by a more efficient memory subsystem and higher clock.

The i3-4130's integrated graphics, Intel HD 4400, is a Haswell-era addition. The i7-875K predates mainstream integrated graphics in this class and has none listed. The i3-4130 also supports PCIe Gen 3, while the i7-875K is limited to Gen 2. This matters for modern GPU bandwidth, though the benchmark data does not quantify it.

The i7-875K's generation is labeled "Core i7 (Lynnfield)" and its architecture is Nehalem. The i3-4130 is "Core i3 (Haswell)". The generational leap from 2010 to 2013 (as indicated by release dates) brings architectural improvements in instruction efficiency, power management, and memory handling. The i3-4130's 22 nm process also enables the lower 54 watt TDP.

The Verdict

Pick the Intel Core i3-4130 if you want the faster chip in every recorded benchmark. It wins all five head-to-head tests, including multi-core workloads where the i7-875K's extra cores should give it an edge. The margins are 3.5% to 4.2%, not huge, but consistent. The i3-4130 also offers integrated graphics, PCIe Gen 3, a much lower 54 watt TDP, and an active production status. It is the practical choice for a modern build on Socket 1150.

Pick the Intel Core i7-875K if you need an unlocked multiplier for overclocking or require four physical cores for workloads not represented in the benchmark suite. Its 8 MB of shared L3 cache and 8 threads give it theoretical headroom in heavily parallel tasks. The recorded data does not show this advantage in Cinebench, but the hardware specification supports it. Its 95 watt TDP and 45 nm process are dated, and the end-of-life status means limited availability.

The average benchmark scores are nearly identical: 984 for the i7-875K, 975 for the i3-4130. Both sit at the 26th to 27th percentile of all CPUs. The i7-875K's average is buoyed by Geekbench results that the i3-4130 does not have, not by superior Cinebench performance. In the tests where both are measured, the i3-4130 is always ahead.

For most builders, the i3-4130 is the better buy. It is faster in measured performance, more power-efficient, and has a modern feature set. The i7-875K is a niche part for overclocking enthusiasts or those who insist on more physical cores. The benchmark data does not justify choosing it on performance alone.